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

, a writer of the fourteenth century, of the ancient family of the Belgraves in Leicestershire, was born at the town of Belgrave, about a mile from Leicester, and educated in the university of Cambridge, where he applied himself with great diligence and success to his studies, and afterwards took the degree of D.D. He entered himself into the order of Carmelite friars, and distinguished himself by his great skill in the Aristotelian philosophy and school-divinity, hut he was more remarkable for the strength and subtilty of his lectures, than the elegance of his style, the study of polite literature being generally neglected in that age. Pits gives him the character of a man of eminent integrity and piety. He flourished in 1320, under the reign of king Edward II. and wrote, among other works, “Theological Determinations, in one book;” the subject of which was, Utrum Essentia Divina possit videri? Whether the Divine Essence could be seen? and “Ordinary Questions, in one book.” This single question, concerning the Divine Essence, is enough to shew the inutility of the inquiries and studies which engaged the attention of men in that age.

, a member of the academies of sciences of Paris and Berlin, was born in Catalonia in 1697. Being left an orphan at the age of five years, he was educated by an engineer, a friend of his father’s family, and very early discovered a genius for mathematics. In the course of time he was appointed royal professor of the schools of artillery of la Fere, and superintended the education of some scholars who proved worthy of him. His success in this situation procured him also the place of provincial commissary of artillery, but here' his zeal cost him both places. Having discovered by some experiments that a smaller quantity of powder was sufficient to load a cannon than commonly employed: that, for example, eight pounds of powder would produce the same effect as twelve, which was the usual quantity, he thought to pay court to the cardinal de Fleury, then prime minister, by communicating to him in private a scheme by which government might make so important a saving. The cardinal, who was partial to all schemes of economy, listened with pleasure to this of Belidor, and spoke of it to the prince de Dombes, who was master of the ordnance. The prince was astonished that a mathematician, who served under him, and on whom he had conferred favours, should not have communicated this to him, and irritated by what he considered as a mark of disrespect, dismissed him from the posts he held, and obliged him to leave la Fere. t De Valliere, lieutenant-general of artillery, took upon him on this occasion to justify the prince’s conduct, in a printed memorial, and endeavoured at the same time to refute Belidor’s opinion and experiments, with what success we are not told. Belidor, however, originally born without fortune, was now stripped of the little he had acquired by his talents, and might probably have remained in poverty, had not the prince of Conti, who knew his merit, taken him with him to Italy, and bestowed on him the cross of St. Lewis, an honour which procured him some notice at court. The marshal Bellisle engaged him in his service, and when war-minister, appointed him to the office of inspector of artillery, and gave him apartments in the arsenal at Paris, where he died in 1761. During his laborious and checquered life, he found leisure to write, 1. “Sommaire d‘un cours d’architecture rnilitaire, civil et hydraulique,” 1720, 12 mo. 2. “Nouveau cours de Mathematique, a T usage de I'Artilierie et du Genie,” 4 to, Paris, 1725, a work previously examined by a committee of the academy of sciences, and approved and recommended by them. 3. “La Science des ingenieurs,”. 1729, 4to. 4. “Le Bombardier Francoise,” 1731, 4to. 5. “Architecture Hydraulique,” 1735 1737, 4 vols. 4to. 6. “Dictionnaire portatif de l'ingenieur,” 1738, 8vo. S. “Traite des Fortifications,” 2 vols. 4to. 9. “La science des Ingenieurs dans la concluite des travaux des Fortifications,” 1749, 4to. His biographer says that the most of these works are useful, but that Belidor was not a mathematician of the first order.

, was born in 1613, atBelingstown, in the barony of Balrothery in the county of Dublin, the son of sir Henry Beling, knight, and was educated in his younger years at a grammar-school in the city of Dublin, but afterwards put under the tuition of some priests of his own religion, which was Popish, who so well cultivated his good genius, that they taught him to write in a fluent and elegant Latin style. Thus grounded in the polite parts of literature, his father removed him to Lincoln’s Inn, to study the municipal laws of his country, where he abode some years, and returned home a very accomplished gentleman, but it does not appear that he ever made the law a profession. His natural inclination inclining him to arms, he early engaged in the rebellion of 1641, and though but about twenty-eight years old, was then an officer of considerable rank. He afterwards became a leading member in the supreme council of the confederated Roman catholics at Kilkenny, to which he was principal secretary, and was sent ambassador to the pope and other Italian princes in 1645, tocraveaid for the support of their cause. He brought back with him a fatal present in the person of the nuncio, John Baptist Rinuccini, archbishop and prince of Fermo; who was the occasion of reviving the distinctions between the old Irish of blood, and the old English of Irish birth, which split that party into factions, prevented all peace with the marquis of Ormond, and ruined the country he was sent to save. When Mr. Beling had fathomed the mischievous schemes of the nuncio and his party, nobody was more zealous than he in opposing their measures, and in promoting the peace then in agitation, and submitting to the king’s authority, which he did with such cordiality, that he became very acceptable to the marquis of Ormond, who intrusted him with many negociations. When the parliament army had subdued the royal army, Mr. Beling retired to France, where he continued several years. His account of the transactions of Ireland during the period of the rebellion, is esteemed by judicious readers more worthy of credit than any written by the Romish party, yet he is not free from a partiality to the cause he at first embarked in. He returned home upon the restoration, and was repossessed of his estate by the favour and interest of the duke of Ormond. He died in Dublin in September 1677, and was buried in the church-yard of Malahidert, about five miles from that city. During his retirement in France, he wrote in Latin, in two books, “Vindiciarum Catholicorum Hiberniae,” under the name of Philopater Irenacus, the first of which gives a pretty accurate history of Irish affairs, from 1641 to 1649, and the second is a confutation of an epistle written by Paul King, a Franciscan friar and a nunciotist, in defence of the Irish rebellion. This book of Mr. Beling’s being answered by John Ponce, a Franciscan friar also, and a most implacable enemy to the Protestants of Ireland, in a tract entitled “Belingi Vindiciae eversae,” our author made a reply, which he published under the title of “Annotationes in Johannis Poncii librum, cui titulus, Vindiciae Eversae: accesserunt Belingi Vindiciae,” Parisiis, 1654, 8vo. He wrote also a vindication of himself against Nicholas French, titular bishop of Ferns, under the title of “Innocentiae suae impetitae per Reverendissimum Fernensem vindiciae,” Paris, 1652, 12mo, dedicated to the clergy of Ireland; and is reported to have written a poem called “The Eighth Day,” which has escaped our searches. When a student, however, at Lincoln’s Inn, he wrote and added a sixth book to sir Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, which was printed with that romance, London, 1633, folio, with only the initials of his name.

, an English antiquary, was son of Beaupré Bell, esq. of Beaupré-hall in Upwell and Outwell in Clackclose hundred, Norfolk, where the Beaupré family had settled early in the fourteenth century, and enjoyed the estate by the name of Beaupré (or de Bello prato) till sir Robert Bell intermarried with them about the middle of the sixteenth. Sir Robert was speaker of the house of commons, 14 Eliz. and chief baron of the exchequer; and caught his death at the black assize at Oxford, 1577. Beaupr Bell, his fourth lineal descendant, married Margaret, daughter of sir Anthony Oldfield of Spalding, bart. who died 1720, and by whom he had issue his namesake the subject of this article, and two daughters, of whom the youngest married William Graves, esq. of Fulborn in Cambridgeshire, who thereby inherited the family estate near Spalding, with the site of the abbey. Mr. Bell, junior, was educated at Westminster school, admitted of Trinity-college, Cambridge, 1723, and soon commenced a genuine and able antiquary. He made considerable collections of church notes in his own and the neighbouring counties, all which he bequeathed to the college where he received his education. Mr. Biomfield acknowledges his obligations to him for collecting many evidences, seals, and drawings, of great use to him in his “History of Norfolk.”

His father led a miserable life, hardly allowing his son necessaries, and dilapidated his house, while at the same time he had five hundred horses of his own breeding, many above thirty years old, unbroke. On his death his son succeeded to his estate, of about 1500l. a-year, which he did not long enjoy, dying of a consumption, on the road to Bath, August, 1745. He left the reversion, after the death of his sister, with his books and medals, to Trinitycollege, under the direction of the late vice-master, Dr. Walker; but his sister marrying, the entail was cut off, He was buried in the family burying-place, in St. Mary'g chapel in Outwell-church. The registers of the Spalding society abound with proofs of Mr. Bell’s taste and knowledge in ancient coins, both Greek and Roman, besides many other interesting discoveries. He published proposals, elegantly printed, for the following work, at 5s. the first subscription, “Tabulae Augustae, sive Imperatorum Romanorum, Augustorum, Csesarum, Tyrannorum, et illustrium virorum a Cn. Pompeio Magno ad Heraclium Aug. series chronologica. Ex historicis, nummis, et mannoribus collegit Beaupreius Bell, A.M. Cantabrigian, typis academicis 1734,” which was in great forwardness in 1733, and on which Mr. Johnson communicated his observations. Mr. Bell conceived that coins might be distinguished by the hydrostatical balance, and supposed the flower on the Rhodian coins to be the lotus, but Mr. Johnson the balaustrum, or pomegranate flower. He sent the late unhappy Dr. Dodd notes concerning the life and writings of Callimachus, with a drawing of his head, to be engraved by Vertue, and prefixed to his translation of that poet. He made a cast of the profile of Dr. Stukeley, prefixed to his “Itinerarium,” and an elegant bust of Alexander Gordon, after the original given by him to sir Andrew Fountaine’s niece. He communicated to the Spalding society an account of Outwell church, and the Haultoft family arms, in a border engrailed Sable a lozenge Ermine, quartering Fincham, in a chapel at the east end of the north aile. He collected a series of nexus literarum, or abbreviations. He had a portrait of sir Thomas Gresham, by Hilliard, when young, in a close green silk doublet, hat, and plaited ruff, 1540 or 1545, formerly belonging to sir Marmaduke Gresham, bart. then to Mr. Philip, filazer, by whose widow, a niece to sir Marmaduke, it came to sir Anthony Oldfield, and so to Maurice Johnson. He addressed verses on “Color est connata lucis proprietas,” to sir Isaac Newton, who returned him a present of his “Philosophy,” sumptuously bound by Brindley.

The late Mr. Cole, of tke Fen-office, editor of the second edition of sir William Dugdale’s “History of Embanking,” 1772, tells us that this edition was printed from two copies of the old one, one corrected by sir William himself, the other by Beaupré Bell, esq. “a diligent and learned antiquary, who had also made some corrections in his own copy, now in Trinity college library.” See his letters, dated Beaupré hall, May 11, and July 30, 1731, to T. Hearne, about the pedlar in Swaffham church, a rebus on the name of Chapman, prefixed to Hemingford, p. 180, and preface, p. 113. See also, on the same subject, preface to Caius, p. xlvii. and lxxxiv. and the speech of Dr. Spencer, vicechancellor of Cambridge, to the duke of Monmouth, when he was installed chancellor, 1674,ib.lxxxvi. In p. lii, Hearne styles him “Amicus eruditus, cui et aliis nominibus me devinctum esse gratus agnosco.” He also furnished him with a transcript, in his own hand-writing, of bishop Godwin’s catalogue of the bishops of Bath and Wells, from the original in Trinity college library; App. to Ann. de Dunstable, 835, 837. A charter relating to St. Edmund’s Bury abbey. Bened. Abbas, p. 865. The epitaph of E. Beckingham, in Bottisham church, in Cambridgeshire, Pref. to Otterbourue’s Chron. p. 82. App. to Trokelow, p. 378. Papers, &c. of his are mentioned in Bibl. Top. Brit. No. II. p. 57, 58, 62. Walsingham church notes, p. 59, entered in the Minutes; a paper on the Clepsydra, p. 60; and five of his letters to Mr. Blomfield are printed, pp. 290, 465 472; one to Dr. Z. Grey, p. 147; one to Mr. N. Salmon, p. 150; others to Mr. Gale, pp. 169, 191, 302 305; to Dr. Stukeley, p. 176, 178. See also pp. 176, 178, 181, 465, 469, 470, 471. In, Archaeologia, vol. VI. pp. 133, 139, 141, 143, are some letters between him and Mr. Gale, on a Roman horologium mentioned in an inscription found at Taloire, a poor small village in the district and on the lake of Annecey, &c. communicated to him by Mr. Cramer, professor of philosophy and mathematics.

, archdeacon of St. Alban’s, was born, in the parish of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London, Feb. 4, 1625, and educated at Merchant Taylor’s school, whence he was elected scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1643, and afterwards fellow. In 1648, before which he had taken his bachelor’s degree, he was ejected by the republicans (who then took possession of the university), and afterwards travelled for some time in France. About 1655 he had a small benefice in Norfolk conferred upon him, but was not admitted by the triers, or persons appointed by the ruling party, to examine the qualifications of the clergy. At the restoration, however, he became chaplain in the Tower of London, and the year after was created B. D. In 1662 he was presented, by St. John’s college, to the vicarage of St. Sepulchre’s, London, and in 1665 was promoted to a prebendal stall in St. Paul’s, by Dr. Henchman, bishop of London. In 1667 he was farther promoted to the archdeaconry of St. Alban’s by the same patron, and appointed one of his Majesty’s chaplains in ordinary. In 1668 he proceeded D. D. and for his learning and oratory was preferred to be one of the lecturers of the Temple. In his parish he was highly popular, and his death, which took place July 19, 1683, was deeply regretted by his flock. His only publications were a few occasional sermons enumerated by Anth. Wood.

, an eminent engraver, was born at Florence in 1610. His father was a goldsmith, and instructed his son in the same business; but while, for the purposes of his trade, he was learning to draw, some of Callot’s prints, which he had accidentally seen, gave a turn to his disposition, and he prevailed on his father to allow him to learn engraving. His first master, Canta Gallina, had also been the master of Callot, and our young pupil, after contenting himself for some time with an imitation of Callot, struck out a manner of his own, equally, if not more remarkable for freedom and spirit. In 1642 he went to Paris, where he formed an acquaintance with Israel Sylvestre, then newly returned from Rome, and was much employed by the uncle of that artist. Some time after, cardinal Richelieu engaged him to go to Arras, to make drawings of the siege, &c. of that town by the royal army, which he engraved at his return. From a considerable residence at Paris he returned to Florence, where the grand duke gave him a pension, and appointed him to instruct his son, the prince Cosmo, in the art of design; but his progress in his profession had been for some time much impeded by continual head-aches, which at last terminated his life in 1664. Without entering into the dispute so frequently agitated, respecting the comparative merits of De la Bella and Callot, it may be affirmed that De la Bella drew very correctly, and with great taste. His works manifest much genius and fertility of invention. The fire and animation which appears in them compensates for their lightness; and some degree of slightness seems pardonable in an artist who is said to have engraved no less than fourteen hundred plates.

, an English miscellaneous writer, was born in 1745, at Kingston in Surrey, and educated for trade. After serving an apprenticeship to a hosier in Newgate-street, London, he established a considerable business for himself, which he carried on successfully, until he began to pay rather too much attention to literary pursuits, and after keeping shop for twenty years, was obliged finally to relinquish his trade. He became afterwards the projector of the “Monthly Mirror,” a periodical publication principally devoted to the business of the stage, and which was carried on by him for some years with spirit and success. He published also “Sadaski, or the wandering penitent,” 2 vols. 12mo, a novel in Dr. Hawkesworth’s manner, and possessing considerable merit. For the stage he wrote, “The Friends, or the benevolent Planters,” 1789, a musical interlude; and for young people, “Lessons from Life, or Home scenes.” On the death of his mother he became possessed of some property, and was in the quiet pursuit of his literary schemes, when a short but severe illness carried him off, August 29, 1800.

, an Italian Jesuit, and one of the most celebrated controversial writers of his time, was born in Tuscany, 1542, and admitted amongst the Jesuits in 1560. In 1569 he was ordained priest, at Ghent, by Cornelius Jansenius, and the year following taught divinity at Louvain. After having lived seven years in the Low Countries, he returned to Italy, and in 1576 began to read lectures at Rome on points of controversy. This he did with so much applause, that Sixtus V. appointed him to accompany his legate into France, in 1590, as a person who might be of great service, in case of any dispute concerning religion. He returned to Rome about ten months after, where he had several offices conferred on him by his own society as well as by the pope, and in 1599 was created cardinal. Three years after, he had the archbishopric of Capua given him, which he resigned in 1605, when pope Paul V. desired to have him near himself. He was now employed in the affairs of the court of Rome, till 1621, when, finding himself declining in health, he left the Vatican, and retired to the house belonging to the Jesuits, where he died the 17th of Sept. 1621. It appeared on the day of his funeral that he was regarded as a saint, and the Swiss guards belonging to the pope were obliged to be placed round his coffin, in order to keep off the crowd, which pressed to touch and kiss the body; but they could not prevent every thing he made use of from being carried away a venerable relic.

It is generally allowed that Bellarmin did great honour to his order, and that no man ever defended the church of Rome and the pope with more success. The Protestants have so far acknowledged his abilities, that during the space of forty or fifty years, there was scarce any considerable divine amongst them, who did not think it necessary to write against Bellarmin, and some of his antagonists accused him without much foundation, in their publications, a circumstance from which his party derived great advantage. Bellarmin, however, though a strenuous advocate for the Romish religion, did not agree with the doctrine of the Jesuits in some points, particularly that of predestination, nor did he approve of many expressions in the Romish litanies; and notwithstanding he allowed many passages in his writings to be altered by his superiors, yet in several particulars he followed the opinions of St. Augustin. He wrote most of his works in Latin, the principal of which is his body of controversy, consisting of four volumes in folio; the best edition that of Cologne, 1615. He there handles the questions in divinity with great method and precision, stating the objections to the doctrines of the Romish church with strength and perspicuity, and answering them in the most concise manner. Some of the Roman Catholics have been of opinion, that their religion has been hurt by his controversial writings, the arguments of the heretics not being confuted with that superiority and triumph, which, they imagined, the goodness of the cause merited. Father Theophilus Raynaud acknowledges some persons to have been of opinion, that Bellarmin’s writings ought to be suppressed, because the Protestants might make an ill use of them, by taking what they found in them for their purpose, and the Catholics might be deluded by not understanding the answers to the objections. Hence it was that our countryman, sir Edward Sandys, not being able to meet with Bellarmin’s works in any bookseller’s shop in Italy, concluded that they were prohibited, lest they should spread the opinions which the author confutes. Besides his body of controversy, he wrote also several other books. He has left us a “Commentary on the Psalms;” “A biography of Ecclesiastical Writers;” “A discourse on Indulgences, and the Worship of Images;” Two treatises in answer to a work of James I. of England; “A dissertation on the Power of the Pope in temporal matters,” against William Barclay; and several treatises on devotion, the best of which is that on the duties of bishops, addressed to the bishops of France.

Notwithstanding the zeal which Bellarmin had shewed in maintaining the power of the pope over the temporalities of kings, yet his book “De Romano Pontifice” was condemned by Sixtus V. who thought he had done great prejudice to the dignity of the pope, by not insisting that the power which Jesus Christ gave to his vicegerent, was direct, but only indirect. What he wrote against William Barclay upon the same subject, was treated with great indignity in France, as being contrary to the ancient doctrine, and the rights of the Galilean church.

Bellarmin is said to have been a man of great chastity and temperance, and remarkable for his patience. His stature was low, and his mien very indifferent, but his talents and acuteness might be discovered from the traces of his countenance. He always expressed himself with great perspicuity, and the words he first made use of to explain his thoughts were generally so proper, or at least so satisfactory to himself, that there appeared no rasure in his writings. He has been attacked and defended by so many writers, that a catalogue has been drawn up of both parties, and a list of his defenders was composed by Beraldus, an Italian. His life has been written by James Fuligati, and many particulars relating to him may likewise be found in Alegambus, Possevinus, Sponde, &c.

, a celebrated French poet, cousin to the Bellays to be noticed afterwards, was born about 1524 at Lire, a town about eight leagues from Angers. Being left an orphan at a very early age, he was committed to the guardianship of his elder brother, who neglected to cultivate the talents he evidently possessed, and although he soon discovered an equal turn for literature and for arms, he was kept in a sort of captivity, which prevented him from exerting himself with effect; and the death of his brother, while it freed him from this restraint, threw him into other embarrassments. No sooner was he out of the care of a guardian himself, than he was charged with the tuition of one of his nephews, and the misfortunes of his family, which had brought it to the brink of ruin, and certain law-suits in which he was forced to engage, occasioned solicitudes and vexations but little suited to the studies he wished to pursue, while a sickness no less dangerous than painful confined him two years to his bed. Nevertheless he courted the muses; he studied the works of the poets, Latin, Greek, and French; and the fire of their genius enkindled his own. He produced several pieces that procured him access to the court, where Francis I. Henry II. and Margaret of Navarre, admired the sweetness, the ease, and the fertility of his vein. He was unanimously called the Ovid of France. The cardinal John du Bellay, his near relation, being retired to Rome, in 1547, after the death of Francis I. our poet followed him thither within two years afterwards, where he enjoyed both the charms of society and those of study. The cardinal was a man of letters, and the hours they passed together were real parties of pleasure. His stay in Italy lasted but three years, as his illustrious kinsman wanted him in France, where he gave him the management of his affairs; but his zeal, his fidelity, and attachment to his interests, were but poorly repaid; some secret enemies having misrepresented him to his patron. His most innocent actions were turned to his reproach sinister meanings were given to his verses; and at length he was accused of irreligion and these mortifications brought on him again his old complaints. Eustache du Bellay, bishop of Paris, moved at his misfortunes, and sensible of his merit, procured him, in 1555, a canonry of his church, which, however, he enjoyed not long; a stroke of apoplexy carried him off in the night of the 1st of Jan. 1560, at the age of thirty-seven. Several epitaphs were made on him, in which he is styled “Pater elegantiarum, Pater omnium leporum.” His French poems, printed at Paris in 1561, 4to, and 1597, 12mo, established his reputation, and are certainly very ingenious; but the author was as certainly neglectful of decorum and the proprieties of his station, and imitated the ancients, not so much in what deserves imitation, as in the liberties they sometimes take. His Latin poems published at Paris, 1569, in two parts, 4to, though far inferior to his French verses, are not destitute of merit.

, cardinal, was born in 1492, and made early proficiency in learning. Francis I. who highly esteemed him, bestowed many preferments on him. He owed this favour to an accidental circumstance: The night before the pope made his public entrance into Marseilles, to meet the French king, it was discovered that the president of the parliament, who had been appointed to receive him with a Latin oration, had unluckily chosen a subject which would certainly give the pontiff offence; and yet there was no tune for a new composition. In this extremity, when the whole business of the ceremonial was deranged, Bellay offered his services to speak extempore, and did it with such uncommon propriety and elegance, that he was marked, from that time, as a man of the first genius in France. He was first bishop of Bayonne, and afterwards of Paris in 1532. The year following, Henry VIII. of England having raised just apprehensions of a schism on account of a quarrel with his queen, du Bellay, who had been sent to him in 1527, in quality of ambassador, and who is said to have managed his boisterous temper with great address, was dispatched to him a second time. He obtained of that prince that he would not yet break with Rome, provided time was granted him to make his defence by proxy. Du Bellay set out immediately, to ask a respite of pope Clement VII. which he obtained, and sent a courier to the king of England for his procuration, but the courier not returning, Clement VII. fulminated the bull of excommunication against Henry VIII. and laid an interdict on his dominions. It was this bull that furnished Henry with an opportunity, fortunately for England, of withdrawing that nation from the church of Rome, and a great source of revenue from the coffers of the pope. Du Bellay continued to be entrusted with the affairs of France under the pontificate of Paul III. who made him cardinal in 1535. The year afterwards, Charles V. having entered Provence with a numerous army, Francis I. in order to appose so formidable an enemy, quitted Paris, whither du Bellay was just returned, and the king appointed him his lieutenant-general, that he might have a watchful eye over Picardy and Champagne. The cardinal, no less intelligent in matters of war than in the intrigues of the cabinet, undertook to defend Paris, which was then in confusion, and fortified it accordingly with a rampart and boulevards, which are still to be seen. He provided with equal promptitude for the security of the other towns, which important services procured him new benefices, and the friendship and confidence of Francis I. After the death of that prince, the cardinal de Lorraine became the channel of favour at the court of Henry II., but du Bellay, too little of a philosopher, and too much affected by the loss of his influence, could no longer endure to remain at Paris. He chose rather to retire to Rome, where the quality of bishop of Ostia procured him, under Paul IV. the title of dean of the sacred college, and where his riches enabled him to build a sumptuous palace; but by some means he took care to keep the bishopric of Paris in his family, obtaining that see for Eustache du Bellay, his cousin, who was already provided with several benefices, and president of the parliament. The cardinal lived nine years after his demission; and, whether from patriotism or from the habit of business, he continued to make himself necessary to the king. He died at Rome, Feb. 16, 1560, at the age of 68, with the reputation of a dexterous courtier, an able negociator, and a great wit. Literature owed much to him. He concurred with his friend Budæus in engaging Francis I. to institute the college royal. Rabelais had been his physician. Of his writing are Several harangues, An apology for Francis I. Elegies, epigrams, and odes, collected in 8vo, and printed by Robert Stephens in 1546.

, brother of the foregoing, was, like him and his other brother William, a great general, an able negociator, and a patron of letters, and was also employed by Francis I. His historical memoirs, from 1513 to 1543, are still remaining; and are to be found with those of his brother William. Whatever pleasure the curious find in perusing these memoirs, the generality of readers complain of the length of his descriptions of the battles and sieges in which he was present; but he cannot be denied the praise of a wise and able man. He died at Perche in 1559. He was prince of Yvetot, by his marriage with Elizabeth Ch^nu, proprietor of that principality.

, another brother of the preceding, lord of Langey, a French general, who signalized himself in the service of Francis I. was also an able negociator, so that the emperor Charles V. used to say, “that Langey’s pen had fought more against him than all the lances of France.” He was sent to Piedmont in quality of viceroy, where he took several towns from the Imperialists. His address in penetrating into an enemy’s designs was one of those talents in the exercise of which he spared no expence, and thereby had intelligence of the most secret councils of the emperor and his generals. He was extremely active in influencing some of the universities of France, to give their judgment agreeably to the desires of Henry VIII. king of England, when this prince wanted to divorce his queen, in order to marry Anne Boleyn. It was then the interest of France to favour the king of England in this particular, it being an affront to the emperor, and a gratification to Henry, which might serve for the basis of an alliance between him and Francis I. He was sent several times into Germany to the princes of the proiestant league, and was made a knight of the order of St. Michael.

He was also a man of learning, and gave proofs of his abilities and genius as a writer. The most remarkable of his works was the “History of his own times,” in Latin: of this, however, nothing remains except a few fragments, sand three or four books, which Martin du Bellay, William’s brother, has inserted in his memoirs.

When Langey was in Piedmont in 1542, he had some remarkable intelligence, which he was desirous himself to communicate to the king; and, being extremely infirm, he ordered a litter for his conveyance; but, after having passed the mountain of Tarara, betwixt Lyons and Roan, he found himself so much indisposed at St. Saphorin, that he was obliged to stop: and there he died Jan. 9, 1543. He was buried in the church of Mans, and a noble monument was erected to his memory. His friends gave him the following epitaph:

, a French poet, born in 1528, at Nogent le llotrtm, lived in the family of Renatus of Lorraine, marquis of Elbeuf, general of the French gallies, and attended him in his expedition to Italy in 1557. This prince highly esteemed Belleau for his courage; and having also a high opinion of his genius and abilities, entrusted him with the education of his son Charles of Lorraine. Belleau was one of the seven poets of his time, who were denominated the French Pleiades. He wrote several pieces, and translated the odes of Anacreon into the French language; but in this he is thought not to have preserved all the natural beauties of the original. His pastoral pieces are in greatest esteem, and were so successful, that Ronsard styled him the painter of nature. He wrote also an excellent poem on the nature and difference of precious stones, which by some has been reputed his best performance; and hence it was said of him, that he had erected for himself a monument of precious stones. Belleau died at Paris, March 6, 1577. His poems were collected and published at Rouen, 1604, 2 vols. 12mo, with the exception, we believe, of a macaronic poem he wrote and published (without date) entitled “Dictamen metrificum de bello Huguenotico.”

, a French historical compiler, was born in 1530, at Sarzan, near Samatan, a little village of Comminges in Guienne. He was only seven years of age when he lost his father; but his mother, although left in poor circumstances, contributed all in her power to his education, and he had the good fortune to be supported some years by the queen of Navarre, sister to Francis I. Some time after he went to study at Bourdeaux, and thence removed to Toulouse, where, instead of applying to the study of the law as he intended, he amused himself with poetry. He went next to Paris, where he got acquainted with several men of learning, and was honoured with the friendship of many persons of quality. Here he became an author by profession, and published above fifty compilations, mostly historical, among which are, his History of the nine Charles’s of France Annotations on the books of St. Augustin his Universal History of the World; the Chronicles of Nicholas Gillet, augmented; A Universal Cosmography; and the Annals, or General History of France, all written with little judgment or accuracy, but deemed useful at a time when these qualities were not in much request. He died at Paris in 1583.

, born in 1648 at Pihyriac in the diocese of Nantes, became a Jesuit, and continued of that society for sixteen or seventeen years. It is pretended that his attachment to Cartesianism, at a time when it was no longer in fashion, obliged him to quit it, and he applied vigorously to his pen for a subsistence, sharing what he got very liberally with the poor. He died in the community of the priests of St. Francis de Sales, the 26th of April 1734, at the age of 86. He wrote French translations of several works of the fathers, of St. John Chrysostome, of St. Basil, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, of St. Ambrose, &c. of the works of Thomas à Kempis; of the Apparatus Biblicus, in 8vo, which for the most part are very unfaithful nor are his versions of the classics, of Ovid’s epistles, and others, in greater estimation. There is also by him a version of Las Casas, on the destruction of the Indies, 1697, and several moral productions: 1. Reflections on what may please and displease in the world. 2. Reflections on ridicule. 3. Models of conversation, and other moral writings, forming together 14 small volumes, all which bear strong marks of the precipitation in which the author composed them. The abb< de Bellegarde had an easy and sometimes an elegant style; but his reflections are little more than trivial moralities, without depth or ingenuity. A very indifferent translation of his “Models of conversation” was published at London in 1765, 8vo, enough to shew the absurdity of many of his sentiments, and the improbabilities of his historical facts.

, an elegant Scottish writer of the sixteenth century, was descended from an ancient and very honourable family in that kingdom, where his father, Mr. Thomas Bellenden of Auchiiioul, was director to the chancery in 1540, and clerk of accounts in 1541. It does not appear when our author was born, or where educated but from his writings (frequently intermixed with words of Gallic derivation) it was probably in France. In his youth he served in the court, and was in great favour with king James V. as himself informs us, which he might very probahly owe to his fine vein in poetry, that prince being a great admirer, and a proficient in poetical studies. Having this interest with his prince, he attained extraordinary preferment in the church, being made canon of Ross, and archdeacon of Murray, to which last dignity perhaps he opened his passage, by taking the degree of doctor of divinity at the Sorbonne. He likewise obtained his father’s employment of clerk of accounts, which was very considerable, in the minority of the king before mentioned; but he was afterwards turned out by the struggle of factions, in the same reign. We have no direct authority to prove that he had any share in the education of king James V. but from some passages in his poems, and from his addressing many of them to that king, he appears to have been in some measure particularly attached to his person; and from one of them, we may infer that he had an interest beyond that of bare duty, in forming a right disposition, and giving wholesome instructions to that prince. But the work which has transmitted his name to posterity, is his translation of Hector Boethius, or, as his countrymen call him, Hector Boeis’s History, from the Latin into the Scottish tongue, which he performedat the command of his royal master admirably, but with a good deal of freedom, departing often from his author, although generally for the sake of truth, and sometimes also adding circumstances, which perhaps might not be known to Hector Boece. This version, as he called it, was very well received both in Scotland and England. It does not appear either from his own writings or otherwise, how he came to lose his office of clerk of accounts; but he certainly recovered it in the succeeding reign, was likewise made one of the lords of session; and had credit then at court, perhaps from his zeal in respect to his religion, for he was a very warm and inflexible Romanist, and laboured assiduously, in conjunction with Dr. Laing, to impede the progress of the reformation. It may with great probability be conjectured, that the disputes into which he plunged himself on this subject, made him so uneasy, that he chose to quit his native country, that he might reside in a place, where that disposition, instead of being an hindrance, would infallibly recommend him. This (as it is supposed) carried him to Rome, where, as Dempster tells us, he died in 1550. He was unquestionably a man of great parts, and one of the finest poets his country had to boast, and notwithstanding the obsolete language of his works, they are not slightly imbued with that enthusiasm which is the very soul of poesy. His great work appeared in folio at Edinburgh, in 1536, entitled “The History and Chronicles of Scotland, compilit and newly correctit and amendit be the reverend and noble clerk Mr. Hector Boeis, chanon of Aberdene, translated lately be Mr. John Bellenden, archdene of Murray, and chanon of Rosse, at command of James the Fyfte, king of Scottis, imprintet in Edinburgh be Thomas Davidson, dwelling fornens the Fryere-Wynde.” This translation, as has been observed, was very far from being close, our author taking to himself the liberty of augmenting and amending the history he published as he thought proper. He, likewise, distinguished it into chapters as well as books, which was the only distinction employed by Boethius; which plainly proves, that it was this translation, and not the original, that Richard Grafton made use of in penning his chronicle, which Buchanan could scarcely avoid knowing, though he never misses any opportunity of accusing Grafton, as if he had corrupted and falsified this author, in order to serve his own purposes and abuse the people of Scotland; 1 which, however, is a groundless charge. Our author’s work was afterwards taken into the largest of our British histories, of which the bishop of Carlisle has given us the following account: “R. Holinshed published it in English, but was not the translator of it himself: his friend began the work and had gone a good way in it, but did not, it seems, live to finish it. In this there are several large interpolations and additions out of Major, Lesley, and Buchanan, by Fr. Thinne, who is also the chief author of the whole story after the death of king James the First, and the only penman of it from 1571 to 1586. Towards the latter end, this learned antiquary occasionally intermixes catalogues of the chancellors, archbishops, and writers of that kingdom.”

, more generally known by his Latin name of Gulielmus Belendenus, a native of Scotland, was born in the sixteenth century. We find him mentioned by Dempster as humanity professor atParis, in 1602. He is reported by the Scots to have possessed an eminent degree of favour with James VI. to whom he was master of requests, and “Magister Supplicum Libellortim,” or reader of private petitions, which, it is conceived, must have been only a nominal office, as his more constant residence was in France. By the munificence of that monarch, Bellenden was enabled to enjoy at Paris all the conveniences of retirement. While he continued thus free from other cares, he suffered not his abilities to languish; but employed his time in the cultivation of useful literature. His first work, entitled “Ciceronis princeps,” was printed at Paris in 1608, a work in which he extracted from Cicero’s writings, detached passages, and comprised them into one regular body, containing the rules of monarchical government, and the duties of the prince. To this first edition was prefixed “Tractatus de processu et scriptoribus rei politicae.” “Ciceronis Consul” was the next publication of Bellenden. It appeared also at Paris in 1612, and both were inscribed to Henry prince of Wales. In 1616 was published a second edition, to which was added “Liber de statu prisci orbis,” with a dedication to prince Charles, the surviving brother of Henry. While Bellenden was occupied in the composition of these three treatises, he was so much attracted by the admiration of Cicero, that he projected a larger work, “De Tribus Luminibus Romanorum,” and what he had already written concerning Cicero he disposed in a new order. Death, however, interrupted his pursuit, before he could collect and arrange the materials which related to Seneca and Pliny, but of the time of his death we have no account. The treatises of Bellenden which remain, have been esteemed as highly valuable, and worthy the attention of the learned. They were extremely scarce, but had been much admired by all who could gain access to them. At length they were rescued from their obscure confinement in the cabinets of the curious, by a new edition which appeared at London in 1787, in a form of typography and an accuracy of printing which so excellent an author may jusily be said to merit. It was accompanied with an eloquent Latin preface in honour of three modern statesmen. Dr. Samuel Parr, the author of the preface, and to whom literature is indebted for the restoration of such a treasure, has charged Middleton with having meanly withheld his acknowledgments, after having embellished the life of Cicero by extracting many useful and valuable materials from the works of Bellenden. This, if we mistake not, had been before pointed out by Dr. Warton in the second volume of his “Essay on Pope.”

, doctor of the Sorbonne, was born in the diocese of Lisieux, and died at Paris the 12th of April 1749, aged sixty-one. He was master of the Greek and Latin, and of several of the living languages. He published, 1. A French translation of Dionysius Halicarnensis, 1723, 2 vols. 4to. 2. A translation of the continuation of Plutarch’s Lives by Rowe, and of Derham’s Astrotheology. 3. An edition of the “Vulgate Psalms,” with an excellent preface and notes, 1728, 4to, concealing his name under the letters V. E. S. P. D. F. B. P. I. V. 4. A critical essay on the works of Rollin, on the translators of Herodotus, and the dictionary of la Martinicre, in 8vo. with a continuation. This work, though heavily written, is esteemed. The result of the first part is, that Rollin had but a slight knowledge of Greek, and that he often appropriated the sentiments and observations of French authors, without citing them. Rollin answered him in the preface to the fourth vol. of his Roman History. The two other parts are neither less just nor less learned. He left in ms. a French version of Herodotus, with notes replete with erudition. His translations are faithful; but he had neither the ease nor the elegance of style of Rollin, although he surpassed him in the knowledge of Greek.

, member of the academy of Montanban, and who held a benefice in the cathedral there, was born at Querci, and died at Paris in 1771. Several prizes gained at Marseilles, at Bourdeaux, at Pau, at Rouen, his literary and ecclesiastical learning, and the purity of his manners, caused him to be respected at Montauban. By him are, 1. “L'Adoration Chretienne, dans la devotion du rosaire,” 1754, 12mo. 2. Several pieces of eloquence. 3. “Les droits de la religion sur le coeur de rhomme,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo.

, geographical engineer of the marine, and member of the royal society of London, was born at Paris in 1703, and died the 21st of March 1772. He had a singular knowledge in his art, which he employed with great industry. He published, under the title of “< Hy-f drpgraphie Frangoise,” a series of marine charts, to the number of -fourscore. 2. “Essais geographiques sur les isles Britanniques,” 1763, in 4to. 3. “Essais sur le Guyane,” 1757, 4to. 4-.“Le petit Atlas Maritime,” 4 vols. 4to. 5. “Le Neptune Frangais,” 1753, fol. and some other works very imperfectly catalogued in our authority.

, an eminent artist, was the son of Giacopo Bellini, also an artist, and born at Venice, 1421. He was instructed by his father in the art of painting in distemper as well as in oil. He was accounted the most knowing of any artist in his time, and was employed by the doge to paint the hall of the great council; and for others of the nobility he executed several noble works. His reputation was at that time so extensive, that it reached the Ottoman court; and the emperor Mahomet II. having seen some of his performances, invited him to Constantinople, received him with great respect, sat to him for his portrait, and engaged him there for some time, giving him many rich presents, and many marks of his regard. But the emperor having ordered the head of a slave to be cut off before the face of Gentile, to convince him of an incorrectness in a picture of the decollation of St. John, he was so affected, and so terrified at the sight, that he never enjoyed peace of mind till he obtained leave to return to his own country. Mahomet, to do him honour, put a gold chain about his neck, and wrote to the senate of Venice in his favour, which at his return procured him a pension for life, and the honourable distinction of the order of St. Mark. Vasari mentions a Sea-fight, painted by this master, which had extraordinary merit, in the variety of the figures, the truth of the expressions, the great propriety of the attitudes, the perspective distances of the vessels, and the grandeur of the composition. He died 1501.

, brother to the preceding, was born at Venice in 1422, but surpassed both his father and brother in every branch of the art; and is accounted the founder of the Venetian school, by introducing the practice of painting in oil, and teaching his disciples to paint after nature. His manner of designing was but indifferent, and frequently in a bad taste; and before he knew how to manage oil-colours, his painting appeared dry; but afterwards he acquired more softness in his penciling, shewed a much greater propriety of colours, and had somewhat of harmony, though still he retained too much of what appeared dry and hard; but the airs of his heads were in a better taste than those of either Giacopo or Gentile. The school of Giovanni Bellini produced two memorable disciples, Titian and Giorgione, who brought the art of colouring to its highest perfection; and by observing the works of those famous artists, Bellini improved his own manner very considerably, so that in his latter pictures the colouring is much better, and the airs of his heads are noble, although his design is a little gothic, and his attitudes not well chosen. He died in 1512.

, an eminent Italian physician, was born at Florence, 1643. After having finished his studies in polite literature, he went to Pisa, where he was assisted by the generosity of the grand duke Ferdinand II. and studied under two of the most learned men of that age, Oliva and Borelli. Oliva instructed him in natural philosophy, and Borelli taught him mathematics. At twenty years of age, he was chosen professor of philosophy at Pisa, but did not continue lon^ in this office; for he had acquired such a reputation for his skill in anatomy, that the grand duke procured him a professorship in that science. This prince was often present at his lectures, and was highly satisfied with his abilities and performances. Bellini, after having held his professorship almost thirty years, accepted of an invitation to Florence, when he was about fifty years of age, and was advanced to be first physician to the grand duke Cosmo III. but his practice is said to have been unsuccessful. He died January 8, 1703, being sixty years of age. His works were read and explained publicly during his life, by our countryman Dr. Pitcairn, professor of physic in Leyclen. The principal of his works are, 1. “Exercitatio Anatomica de structura et usu renum.” Amst. 1665, in 12mo. 2. “Gustus Organum novissimtæ deprehensum; prccmissis ad faciliorem intelligentiam quibusdam de saporibus,” Bologna, 1665, 12mo. 3. “Gratiarum actio, ad Ser. Hetruriee ducem. Quaedam Anatoniica in epistola ad Ser. Ferdinandum II. et propositio mcchanica,” Pisa, 1670, 12mo. 4. “De urinis et pulsibus, tie missione sanguinis, de febribus, de morbis capitis et pectoris,” Bologna, 1683, 4to> Francfort and Leipsic,1685, 4to. 5. " Opuscula aliquot de urinis, de motu cordis, de motu bills, de missione sanguinis/* L. Bat. 1696, 4to. This is dedicated to Dr. Pitcairn. Haller criticises Bellini with some severity, but the fullest account and defence of him is that by Fabroni.

, valet-de-chambre to Louis XIV, and trainbearer to the queen Maria Teresa, and afterwards to the duchess of Burgundy, dauphiness of France, was a French poet and wit of considerable fame. He was born at Paris in 1645. The most esteemed of his poems are *' Les Petits-maitres,“and” Les Nouvellistes,“two satires, and his poem on the” Hotel des invalides." Several other of his pieces are to be found in the collections, particularly in that published at the Hague in 1715, 2 vols. He lived in friendship with Moliere and Racine, but incurred the displeasure of Boileau by writing against his Satire on Women, which Boileau revenged by giving him a place, not of the most honourable kind, in his tenth epistle; but Bellocq having apologised, Boileau erased his name, and put in that of Pen-in. Bellocq died Oct. 4, 1704. He was highly respected by his royal master, and his wit and agreeable manners introduced him as a welcome guest in every polite company.

, advocate general of the parliament of Toulouse, of the sixteenth century, was born at Montauban, and descended from a gentleman’s family originally of Brittany. At the age of twenty-one he was appointed regent in the university of Toulouse, and after having pleaded four or five years at the bar, he was made a counsellor, or member of the presidiai court of Toulouse. Notwithstanding his being a Roman catholic, his regard for his king and country brought him into danger. His declaring against the league made the heads of that party his enemies, and king Henry III. to gratify the Guises, ordered him to be imprisoned. This happened in 1587. They charged him with being a heretic, and an incendiary, and the year before they had prevailed with the bishop to prefer an information against him, as the author of a book which Thuanus says was written by one Breton, who was hanged for it. Belloy’s work against the league, entitled “Apologie Catholique conti'e les libelles, &c. publiées par les Liguez,” was published in 1585, and afterwards translated into Latin. Belloy at length escaped from prison, and reached St. Dennis, where the governor for the king gave him a friendly reception, and presented him to his majesty, who being now convinced of his loyalty and merit, made him advocate-general of the parliament of Toulouse. The time of his death is not recorded, but he was living in 1605, and probably much later. His other works are, 1. “Declaration du droit de légitime Succession sur le royaume de Portugal apartenant a la reine mere du roi très Christien,” à Anvers et à Paris, 1582, 8vo. 2. “Panégyric ou Remonstrance pour les Sénéchal, Juges mage et criminel de Tolose, contre les Notaires et Sécrétaires du Roi de la dite Ville,” Paris, 1582, 4to. 3. “Requeste verbale pour susdits Seigneurs et Officiers de Tolose, contenantune Apologie et Defence a PAdvertissement, public” au nom des Docteurs Regents de l'Universite de Tolose,“Paris, 1583, 8vo. 4.” Brieve Explication de Tan courant 1583, selon de Calendier Gregorien,“Paris, 1583, 8vo. 5.” Supputation des temps depuis la Creation du Monde jusqu'en 1582, separee en deux colomnes diverses,“Paris, 1584. 6.” Petri Beloii Variorum Juris Civilis Libri IV, et Disputatio de Successione ab intestato,“&c. Paris, 1583. 7.” La Conference des Edits de Pacification et Explication des Edits,“Paris, 1600, 8vo. 3.” Exposition de la Prophetic de l'Ange Gabriel touchant les septante semaines descrites par le Prophetc Daniel au Chap. iy. de ses Prophecies,“Tolose, 1605, 8vo. 9.” De l'Origine et Institution de divers Ordres de Chevalerie, taut EccleViastiques que Profanes, dédié a Monsigneur le Dauphin de Viennois, Due de Bretagne,“Montauban, 1604, 8vo. 10. Arrest de ia Cour de Parlemeul de Tolos6 prononce” en TAppellation comme d‘Abus rolevée par frere Jean Journé, religieux ue l’ordre de St. Dominique, et provincial du dit ordre en la Province de Tolose, sur la procedure contre lui ordonnce par les sieurs Evesques de Condon et d'Aure, contenarit le Plaidoye sur ce fait, par Mr. Pierre de Beloy, conseiller et avocat general du roi au dit Parlemenr, Tolose, 1612, 8vo.

, of the French academy, was born at St. Flour, in Ativergne, in 1727, and educated at Paris under one of his uncles, a distinguished advocate of parliament. After having finished his studies with applause at the College-Mazarin, he took to the bar; or rather, in entering on this profession, he followed his uncle’s inclinations in opposition to his own. Captivated bv an ardent passion for literature, and despairing of ever being able to move his benefactor, a man severe and absolute in all his determinations, he expatriated himself, and went to Russia, to exercise the profession of a comedian, that he might be dispensed from exercising that of a lawyer at Paris. Being returned to that capital in 1758, he brought upon the stage his tragedy of “Titus,” imitated from the Clemenza di Tito of Metastasio. This copy of a piece barely tolerable, is only a very faint sketch of the nervous manner of Corneille, whose style the author strove to resemble. Du Belloi afterwards wrote “Zelmire,” wherein he accumulated the most forced situations and the most affecting strokes of the dramatic art. It was attended with success in representation, but will not bear examination in the closet. The “Siege of Calais,” a tragedy which he brought out in 1765, was a shining epocha of his life. This piece, which presents one of the most striking events in the history of France, procured the author the recompense it deserved. The king sent him a gold medal, weighing twenty-five louis d'ors, and a considerable gratification besides. The magistrates of Calais presented him with the freedom of their city in a gold box; and his portrait was placed in the hôtel-de-ville, among those of their benefactors. These testimonies of gratitude were thought due to a poet who set his brethren the example of choosing their subjects from the national history; and he would have been the more deserving of them if he had taken better care of his versification, which is frequently incorrect and harsh. In style, likewise, he was very deficient; but this was overlooked in the generous and noble sentiments, and the pathetic situations which constituted the attractions of the Siege de Calais, Voltaire wrote the most flattering letters to the author, but for some reason retracted his encomiums after his death; and it was generally the fate of this tragedy to be too much extolled at first, and too much degraded afterwards. “Gaston and Bayard,” in the plan of which are several faults against probability, did not excite so lively emotions as the mayor of Calais; yet still the public admired the honest and steady character, and the sublime virtues, of the “CheValier sans peur et sans reproche.” His two pieces, “Peter the cruel,” and “Gabrielle de Vergi,” the former of which was immediately condemned, and the latter applauded without reason, are much inferior to Bayard. The author understood the proper situations for producing a grand effect; but he wanted the art to prepare them, and to bring them on in a natural manner. He substituted extraordinary theatrical efforts for the simple and true pathetic, and the little tricks of oratory for the eloquence of the heart; and by this means he contributed not a little to degrade and debase the French drama. The fall of “Peter the cruel” was a fatal stroke to his extreme sensibility, and it is said hastened the term of his life. He was attacked by a lingering distemper, which lasted for several months, and exhausted his very moderate share of bodily strength. A beneficent monarch (Louis XVI.) before whom the Siege de Calais was performed the first time, being informed of the lamentable condition of the author, sent him a present of fifty louis d'ors, and the players, from motives of a laudable generosity, gave a representation of the same tragedy for the benefit of the dying poet. He expired shortly after, on the 5th of March 1775, justly regretted by his friends, who loved him for goodness of disposition and warmth of friendship. M. Gaillard, of the acaclemie Fransoise, published his works in 1779, in 6 vols. 8vo. In this edition are contained his theatrical pieces, three of which are followed by historical memoirs of a very superior kind, with interesting observations by the editor; divers fugitive pieces in poetry, for the most part produced in Russia, but very unworthy of his pen, and the life of the author by M. Gaiilard.

, a celebrated Italian antiquary, was born at Rome about the year 1616, and was intended by his father for a place in some chancery, and with that view he was sent to his maternal uncle Francis Angeloni, secretary to the cardinal Aldobrandini; but here he imbibed a very different taste from that of official routine. Angeloni had early contracted a love for the study of antiquities, and purchased the best books he could find on the subject, and his pupil insensibly fell into the same track of curiosity, and even surpassed his master. Christina, queen of Sweden, having heard of his character, made him her librarian, and keeper of her museum. Bellori died in 1696, aged near eighty, the greater part of which long life he passed in the composition of his various works. He had also acccumulated a valuable collection of books, antiquities, &c. which afterwards made part of the royal collection at Berlin. One of his first works was written in defence of his master Angeloni, who, having, in 1641, published his “Historia Augusta, &c.” (see Angeloni) it was attacked in France by Tristan, the sieur de St. Amant, in his “Commentaires Historiques.” Bellori published a new edition of Angeloni’s work in 1685, much improved. His own works are, I. “Nota3 in numismata, turn Ephesia, turn aliarum urbium, Apibus insignita, cum eorum iconibus aeneis,” Rome, 1658, 4to. 2. “Fragmenta vestigii veteris Romae, ex lapidibus Farnesianis,” ibid, 1673, fol. 3. “La Colonna Trajana,” &c. ibid, oblong fol. 4. “Le pitture antiche del sepolcro de* Nasoni nelia via Flaminia, &c.” ibid, 1680, fol. 5. “J. P. Bellorii nummus Antonini Pii de anni novi auspiciis explicatus,” ibid, 1676, Bvo. 6. “Gli antichi sepolcri, owero Mausolei Romani et Etruschi, &c.” Rome, 1699, fol. Leyden, 1728. It was translated also into Latin by Alex. Duker, and published at Leyden, 1702, fol. Haym mentions an edition of the original at Rome, 1704. 7. “Le antiche lucerne sepolcrali, &c.” ibid. 1691, fol. 8. “Veteres arcus Augustorum, triumphis insignes, ex reliquiis quae Rom* adhuc supersunt,” Leyden, 1690, fol. 9. “Vite de pittori, scultori et architetti moderni,” Leyden, 1672, 4to. 10. “Vet. Philosophorum, Poetarum, &c. Imagines,” Rome, 1685, fol. and several of his antiquarian tracts are inserted in Gronovius’s Antiquities.

, a French surgeon, was born at Paris in 1654, and after studying medicine and surgery, became surgeon-major to the French army in Italy, and afterwards first surgeon to the duchess dowager of Savoy. His practice was extensive and successful, and he had also cultivated polite literature with considerable enthusiasm. He is now, however, principally known by a work, which was long very popular, under the title of“Le Chirurgien de l'hospital,” Paris, 1695, 1705, and translated into English and most of the continental languages. There were five editions at least of the Dutch translation. In 1725 the author published a second volume at Paris, in which he advances many facts and experiments relative to the effects of mercury, of which Bianchi, professor of anatomy at Turin, availed himself in his Latin dissertation on the use of that mineral, and is said to have claimed discoveries which were really made by Belloste. The latter, however, appears to have been somewhat of a quack, as we are told that he bequeathed to his son the secret of compounding those mercurial pills, of which he speaks so often in his “Hospital Surgeon.”

I. bishop of London in the reign of Henry I. was advanced to that sea through the interest of Roger Montgomery, earl of Shropshire, and consecrated 26th July, 1108. Immediately after his consecration, he was appointed, by the king, warden of the marches between England and Wales, and lieutenant of the county of Salop which offices he held about three years, residing for the most part of the time at Shrewsbury. This prelate expended the whole revenues of his bishopric in the structure of St. Paul’s cathedral, for which purpose he purchased several adjoining houses of the owners, which he pulled down, and converted the ground they stood upon into a church-yard, and this he surrounded with a very high wall. Bishop Godwin thinks this wall remained entire in his time, though no part of it was to be seen by reason of the houses, with which it was on all sides covered. Despairing, however, of seeing it finished, he turned the stream of his liberality another way; and, exchanging the manor of Landsworth for a place in the diocese of London called St. Osith de Chich, near Colchester in Essex, he built there a convent of regular canons. Being seized with a dead palsy, and thereby disqualified for the exercise of his episcopal functions, he intended to have resigned his bishopric, and to have spent the remainder of his life in the monastery of his own foundation: but whilst he delayed his purpose from day to day, he died Jan. 16, 1127 and he was buried in the convent of St. Osith. Tanner informs us, that, in the monastery of Peterborough there was formerly a treatise, written in verse, by bishop Belmeis, and addressed to Henry I.

II. bishop of London in the reign of king Stephen, was nephew to the preceding, and son of Walter de Belmeis. Before he came of age, he was appointed by his uncle archdeacon of Middlesex: but the bishop was prevailed upon by William, dean of London, his nephew by his sister Adelina, and by the prior of Chich, to commit the administration of the archdeaconry, during Richard’s minority, to Hugh, one of his chaplains. It was with no small difficulty that Richard afterwards recovered his archdeaconry out of the hands of this faithless guardian. In the beginning of October 1151, he was advanced to the see of London, in the room of Robert de Sigillo, and consecrated at Canterbury by archbishop Theobald, in the presence of all the bishops of England, excepting Henry of Winchester, who excused his absence, but warmly approved the choice of Richard, in a letter to the archbishop. This prelate died 4th May, 1162, leaving behind him a reputation for singular eloquence. According to Dr. Richardson, whose authority is a manuscript of the late Roger Gale, esq. our prelate was the writer of the “Codex niger,” or Black Book of the Exchequer.

, commonly called Joannes Eboracensis, or John of York, an eminent divine in the twelfth century, was born of a good family. After having laid the foundation of learning in his own country, he travelled abroad, and visited the most famous universities of France and Italy, where he acquired the reputation of being the most learned man of his age. He then returned home, and was made a canon, and treasurer of the cathedral church of York: but he soon quitted this post, and went back again into Italy, lived a considerable time at Rome, and had the honour of conversing familiarly with pope Adrian IV. who was an Knglishman by birth. Alexander III. who succeeded Adrian in 1159, made him bishop of Poitou in France, and he was consecrated at the abbey of Dole, in the diocese of Berry. He sat there above twenty years, and was translated to the archbishopric of Lyons, and became thereby primate of all France. He was archbishop of that city nearly eleven years. It is said, he returned into England in 1194, being then a very old man; but we are not told when or where he died. Bale informs us, that he vehemently opposed archbishop Becket in the contests he had with king Henry II. and that he was very expert in controversial writing. Bale and Pits mention the titles of some of his works, but it does not appear that any of them are extant. Leland could not discover any thing certainly written by him.

, M. D. of the faculty of Paris, was born about 1518, in the Maine. He travelled into Judea, Greece, and Arabia and published in 1555, in 4to, a relation of whatever he had remarked most worthy of notice in those countries. He composed several other works, now rare, which were much esteemed at the time, for their correctness, and the erudition with which they abound. The chief of them are, 1. “De Arboribus coniferis,” Paris, 1553, 4to, with plates. 2. “Histoire de la nature des Oiseaux,” 1555, folio. 3. “Portraits d'Oiseaux,” 1557, 4to. 4. “Histoire des Poissons,” 1551, 4to, with plates. 5. “De la nature et diversity des Poissons,” 1555, 8vo. The same in Latin. He was preparing other works for the press, when he was assassinated from private resentment near Paris, in 1564. Henry II. and Charles IX. vouchsafed him their esteem, and the cardinal de Tburnon his friendship, defraying the expences of his travels.

, bishop of Marseilles. This illustrious prelate was of a noble family in Guienne, had been of the order of Jesuits, and was made bishop of Marseilles in 1709. The assistance he gave his flock during the plague of 1720, that desolated the city of Marseilles, deserves to be commemorated. He was seen every where during that terrible calamity, as the magistrate, the physician, the almoner, the spiritual director of his flock. In the town-house of Marseilles there is a picture representing him giving his benediction to some poor wretches who are dying at his feet; in this he is distinguished from the rest of his attendants by a golden cross on his breast. Louis the XVth, in 1723, in consideration of his exemplary behaviour during the plague, made him an offer of the bishopric of Laon, in Picardy, a see of greater value and of higher rank than his own. Of this, however, he would not accept, saying, that he refused this very honourable translation that he might not leave a church already endeared to him by the sacrifices of life and property which he had offered. The pope honoured him with the pallium (a mark of distinction in dress worn only by archbishops), and Louis XV. insisted upon his acceptance of a patent, by which, even in the first instance, any law-suit he might be so unfortunate as to have, either for temporal or spiritual matters, was permitted to be brought before the parliament of Paris. He died in 1755, closing a life of the most active benevolence with the utmost devotion and resignation. He founded at Marseilles a college, which still bears his name. He wrote “L'histoire des Eveques de Marseille;” “Des Instructions Pastorales;” and in 1707, when he was very young, he published “La vie de Mademoiselle de Foix andale,” a relation of his, who had been eminent for her piety. A particular account of the exertions of this benevolent prelate during the terrible calamity that afflicted Marseilles is to be found in the *' Relation de la Peste de Marseilles, par J. Bertrand,“12mo, and in” Oratio funebris illust. domini de Belsunce Massiliensium episcopi," with the translation by the abbe Lanfant, 1756, 8vo.

The “Relation de la Peste de Marseilles,” by M. Bertrand, is well written and authentic. He was a physician, and staid in the town during the whole time of its ravages.

"I wish, my lord, I were as eloquent as you are full of zeal and charity, to testify my grateful acknowledegment of your liberality, aqd the charities you have procured us; but in our present consternation, we are not in a condition to express any other sentiment than that of grief. Your alms came at a very seasonable time, for I was reduced almost to the last penny. I am labouring to get money for bills for 1000 livres, which the bishop of Frejus was pleased to send us, and six more of Mr. Fontanteu, though just upon the decay of the bills of 1000 livres, they are not very current, yet I hope I shall succeed. You, my lord, have prevented these difficulties, and we are doubly obliged to you for it. Might I presume to beg the favour of you to thank, in my name, cardinal de Rohan, M. and Madame Dangeau, and the curate of St Sulpice, for their charities.

"It is but just that I give you some account of a desolate town you was pleased to succour. Never was desolation greater, nor ever was any like this. There have been many cruel plagues, but none was ever more cruel: to be sick and dead was almost the same thing. As soon as the distemper gets into a house, it never leaves it till it has swept all the inhabitants one after another. The fright and consternation are so extremely great, that the sick are abandoned by their own relations, and cast out of their houses into the streets, upon quilts or straw beds, amongst the dead bodies, which lie there for want of people to inter them. What a melancholy spectacle have we here on all sides! We go into the streets full of dead bodies half rotten, through which we pass to come to a dying body, to excite him to an act of contrition, and give him absolution. For above fourteen days together, the blessed sacrament was carried every where to all the sick, and the extreme unction was given them with a zeal of which we have few examples. But the churches being infected with the stench of the dead bodies flung at the doors, we were obliged to leave off, and be content with confessing the poor people. At present I have no more confessors; the pretended corruptors of the morality of Jesus Christ (the Jesuits), without any obligation, have sacrificed themselves, and given their lives for their brethren; whilst the gentlemen of the severe morality (the Jansenists) are all flown, and have secured themselves, notwithstanding the obligations their benefices imposed on them; and nothing can recal them, nor ferret them out of their houses. The two communities of the Jesuits are quite disabled, to the reserve of one old man of seventy-tour years, who still goes about night and day, and visits the hospitals. One more is just come from Lyons, purposely to hear the confessions of the infected, whose zeal does not savour much of trie pretended laxity. I have had twenty-four capuchins dead, and fourteen sick, but I am in expectation of more. Seven recollecs, as many cordeliers, five or six carms, and several minims, are dead, and all the best of the clergy, both secular and regular; which grievously afflicts me.

"I stand in need of prayers, to enable me to support all the crosses that almost oppress me. At last the plague got into my palace, and within seven days I lost my steward, who accompanied me in the streets, two servants, t chairmen, and my confessor: my secretary and another lie sick, so that they have obliged me to quit my palace, and retire to the first president, who was so kind as to lend me his house. We arc destitute of all succour; we have no meat; and whatsoever I could do, going all about the town, I could not meet with any that would undertake to distribute broth to the poor that were in want. The doctors of Montpelier, who came hither three or four days ago, are frightened at the horrid stench of the streets, and refuse to visit the sick till the dead bodies are removed, and the streets cleansed. They had been much more surprised had they come a fortnight sooner; then nothing but frightful dead bodies were seen on all sides, and there was no stirring without vinegar at our noses, though that could not hinder our perceiving the filthy stench of them. I had 200 dead bodies that lay rotting under my windows for the space of eight days, and but for the authority of the first president they had remained there much longer. At present things are much changed; I made my round about the town, and found but few; but a prodigious number of quilts and blankets, and of all sorts of the richest clothes, which people would touch no more, and are going to burn.

"There are actually in the streets to the value of above 200,000 livres. The disorder and confusion have hitherto been extremely great; but all our hopes are in the great care of the chevalier de Langeron, governor of the town. He has already caused some shops to be opened. The change of the governor, and of the season, by the grace of God, will be advantageous. Had we not affected to deceive the public, by assuring that the evil which reigned was not the plague; and had we buried the dead bodies which lay a whole fortnight in the streets, I believe the mortality had ceased, and we should have nothing to do but provide against the extreme misery which necessarily must be the sequel of this calamity.

When the plague had ceased, M. de Lauzun asked an abbey in commendarn for the humane and benevolent prelate who had attended his flock with such assiduity during the time of that dreadful visitation. The regent, to whom the request was made, had forgotten M. de Lauzun’s request, and appeared much embarrassed at having neglected to prefer a man of such transcendant virtue as M. de Belsunce was. When M. de Lauzun iterated his request to him, the latter, looking archly at him, said merely, “Monseigneur, il sera mieux un autrefois” The regent, however, soon afterwards gave him a benefice to hold with the bishopric of Marseilles, which he could never be prevailed upon to quit for a more lucrative one. Father Vanier, in his poem of the “Prsedi an Rusticum,” and Pope, in his Essay on Man, Ep. iv. v. 107, 108, have paid that tribute to his memory, to which he is entitled, as the friend and benefactor of mankind.

, in Lat. Petrus Bembus, one of the restorers of polite literature in Italy, was born at Venice in 1470, of an ancient and honourable family. His father, Bernardo, who died in 1518, was an accomplished scholar, and distinguished statesman, who maintained a friendly intercourse with many illustrious and learned persons of the age, and is honourably spoken of by various writers. On one of his embassies to Florence he carried his son, then in his eighth year, to improve him in the Italian language, which was supposed to be spoken and written in that city with the greatest purity. Atter two years, he returned home with his father, and was placed under the tuition of Joannes Alexander Urticius, and continued to apply to his studies with great assiduity, acquiring in particular a critical knowledge of the Latin tongue. Being solicitous of acquiring a knowledge also of the Greek, the study of which was at that time confined to very few, he resolved to undertake a voyage to Messina, and avail himself of the instructions of the celebrated Constantino Lascaris. Accordingly he set out in 1492, accompanied by Agnolo Gabrielii, a young Venetian of distinction, his friend and fellow-student, and profited greatly by the instructions of Lascaris. During this residence in Sicily, which lasted more than two years, he composed a work in Latin, entitled “P. Bembi de vEtna ad Angelum Chabrielem liber,” which was published the same year in which he returned, 1495, 4to, and is said to have been the first publication from the Aldine press “in literis rotundis.” His compositions both in Latin and Italian soon began to extend his reputation, not only through the different states of Italy, but also to distant countries. His father, flattered with the approbation bestowed on his son, was desirous of employing his talents in the service of his country in some public station, and for some time Bembo occasionally pleaded as an advocate with success and applause, until being disappointed in obtaining a place which was given to a rival much inferior in merit, he discovered that reluctance for public life, which, in obedience to his father, he had but imperfectly concealed, and determined to devote his whole attention to literature, as connected with the profession of the church. About this time, it is said, that his resolution was confirmed by accidentally going into a church when the officiating priest was reading a portion of the evangelical history, and had just come to the words, “Peter, follow me,” which Bembo looked upon as a divine admonition. There is nothing in his character, however, that can give much credibility to this story, which, it ought to be mentioned, some say occurred long after, when he was hesitating whether he should accept the office of cardinal.

After the lapse of a few years, which he spent partly at Venice and partly at Padua in the prosecution of his studies, his father being appointed vicedomino of Ferrara, young Bembo accompanied him thither, where he had an opportunity of attending the philosophical lectures of Nicolao Leoniceno, and commenced an acquaintance with Sadoleto, other learned men. He was also favourably received court, but did not desist from the prosecution of his studies. When about twenty -eight years of age, he began his “Asolani,” so called from its having been finished at Asolo, a town in the Venetian territory. This work, in which the subject of love is attempted in a moral and philosophical point of view, soon became so popular as to contribute much to his fame. It was first printed at the Aldine press in 1505, 4to, and was often reprinted. He afterwards returned with his father to Venice, where, and at Padua, he continued his studies principally with a view of improving his native language. At length, unwilling to continue burthensome to his father, he determined to try his fortune at the court of Urbino, at that time the centre of genius, fashion, and taste, and where Castiglioni laid the scene of his “II Cortegiano,” and introduced Bembo as one of the speakers. Bembo was recommended here in 1506, and soon became admired for his address, eloquence, and manners, while he still prosecuted his favourite studies, and produced his “Rime,” and various Latin compositions. He also occasionally visited the court of Rome, where the duchess of Urbino Elizabetha Gonzaga zealously endeavoured to promote his interest. In the last year of the pontificate of Julius II. he accompanied Sadoleto and other persons of distinction to that city; and among other literary services rendered by him to the pope, he decyphered an ancient manuscript written in abbreviated characters, a task which others had in vain attempted, and which the pope appears to have rewarded by some ecclesiastical preferments of the sinecure kind.

In 1513, when Leo X. became pope, he appointed Bembo one of his secretaries, who, now in his forty-third year, settled at Rome in this character, and had his friend Sadoleto for his colleague. By them the pope’s correspondence was carried on in pure and classical Latin, a thing which Casa says was neither practised before nor thought practicable, former secretaries having compounded their Latin of all manner of languages and provincialisms. Bembo in other respects rendered himself so acceptable to Leo, that he employed him in commissions of the highest trust, which he rewarded with liberality. But the court of this pope was at the same time the seat of voluptuousness, and what Bembo gained in courtly promotion and literary fame, he lost in morals and moral character. All the excuse Casa can make is that he was not yet in holy orders. He here formed an illicit connexion with, a, girl of sixteen years of age, by whom he had three sons and a daughter. Among other objections to Bembo’s character, it is said that he participated in Leo’s ill-concealed contempt for religion, and, what was perhaps true, because characteristic, he professed to avoid the perusal of his bible and breviary, for fear of spoiling his Latinity.

The letters which Bembo wrote in Latin in the name of Leo X. were published with the rest of his epistles. Among other commissions of importance in which he was engaged, he undertook at the pope’s instance an embassy to Venice, for the purpose of detaching his countrymen from their alliance with the king of France, and engaging them to take a part in the coalition formed against that monarch by the emperor, the king of Spain, and the pope.

An indisposition of a tedious and obstinate nature, the effect of late watching, close application, and the fatigues of office, rendering some respite and a change of situation absolutely necessary, with the advice of his physicians, seconded by the instances of Leo, Bembo retired to Padua for the sake of its air and baths. It is thought, however, by one of his biographers, that he had some cause of dissatisfaction with the pontiff, and that he left Rome with a resolution never to return. Be this as it may, he appears to have relished his retirement, dividing his time between his literary labours and the conversation of his learned friends. His hours, we are told, were sometimes agreeably diversified by the delights of an extensive garden, where he amused and recreated himself with botanical researches, usually spending the summer season at Villa Bozza, in the vicinity of Padua, his paternal inheritance, and the scene of a great part of his juvenile studies. In this retirement, likewise, he completed his “Prose,” which had been begun long before, and which was now published under the title of “Prose di M. Pietro Bembo,” Venice, 1525, fol. Upon the death of Andrea Navagero, in 1529, to whom the task had been publicly deputed of recording the transactions of the Venetian republic, the council of ten unanimously fixed upon Bembo to supply this loss, which although now in his sixtieth year he undertook, professedly taking the style of Caesar as his model. On the accession of Paul III. in 1534, this pontiff, willing to manifest his regard for the republic of Venice, by the advancement of one of its nobility, is supposed to have destined Bembo to the rank of cardinal. But in consequence of the objections urged against some of his writings, and past life, his appointment was not publicly announced till the beginning of 1539. On accepting this dignity, he is said to have determined to devote himself wholly to the duties of his office, and there is no reason to think that he did not conduct himself as became his now elevated character.

His death was accelerated by an accident which he met with while riding on horseback. In passing through a small postern, he received a bruise on his side, which brought on a slow fever. He was sensible of his approaching dissolution, and conversed cheerfully with his friends on that subject. He died Jan. 20, 1547, aged seventy-six years and eight months, and was interred in the church of S. Maria ella Minerva at Rome, behind the great altar, and between the tombs of Leo X. and Clement VII. with an inscription by his son Torquato.

, a landscape painter, was born at Bamberg, April 1, 1745, and received the first instructions in his art from his father, John Christopher, who was painter to the court. He then went to Nuremberg, and studied the works of the best masters, some of whose styles, as in the trees of Waterloo, and the rocks of Berghem, Salvator Rosa, Meyer, &c. he imitated with considerable success. His favourite subjects were sea-views, tempests, fires, and sun-rising and setting, which were in much request in England. He died at Nuremberg, Nov. 26, 1796, without having been able to finish some pictures bespoke for England.

, also a landscape painter, and probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born at Utrecht in 1630, and was one of the best scholars of Herman Sachtleven, or Zaftleven. For improvement he afterwards visited Rome, and sketched every beautiful scene that occurred to him as he travelled in the neighbourhood of Rome, and particularly about Tivoli, by wnich means he furnished himself with excellent materials for his future compositions. He then settled at Nuremberg, where his principal works were long to be seen, and where he died Nov. 10, 1708. His colouring is lively and natural, if not sometimes a little too green; but his figures, and the boats, barges, and other vessels, which he always introduces on the rivers, or stationed near the banks, are well designed, and touched with spirit. His trees, indeed, are somewhat stiff and formal; but in general his pictures have a pleasing effect, as the distances are conducted with judgment, and every part handled in a masterly manner. The lights and shadows of his landscapes are distributed with singular skill; and his skies are usually clear, warm, and natural. His son John George, who died in 1723, was also an artist of some eminence, especially for his battle-pieces.

, in Latin Marcus Mantua Benavidius, an eminent lawyer, the son of John Peter Benavidio, a physician, was born at Padua, in 1489. He excelled in the study of polite literature and the civil and canon law, which last he taught for sixty years at Padua, with distinguished approbation. During this honourable career, he was often solicited to leave his situation for higher preferment, particularly by the university of Bologna, the king of Portugal, the pope, and other sovereigns, but he preferred living in his own country, where he received and deserved so much respect. He was three times honoured by the title of chevalier, by the emperor Charles V. in 1545, by Ferdinand 1. in 1561, and by pope Pius IV. in 1564. He died March 28, 1582, in the ninety-third year of his age. His principal works are: 1. “Dialogus de concilio,” Venice, 1541, 4to, in which he prefers the decision of a council to that of the pope in matters of faith. 2. “Epitome illustriumjurisconsultorum,” Padua, 1553, 8vo, printed afterwards in Fichard’s Lives of Lawyers, Padua, 1565, and in Hoffman’s edition of Pancirollus, Leipsic, 1721, 4to. 3. “Illustrium jurisconsultorum imagines,” Rome, 1566, fol. and Venice, 1567, with twentyfour portraits. 4. “Observationes legales,” Venice, 1545, 8vo. 5. “Polymatbise Libri duodecim,” Venice, 1558. 6. “Collectanea super jus Csesareum,” Venice, 1584, fol. All these works were highly esteemed for learning, and are now of r;ire occurrence. His adding the name of Mantua to his own on some occasions, as in his “Observationes legales,” is said to have been in compliment to his father, who was a native or' that city.

, a brave English admiral, descended of an ancient Shropshire family, reduced in fortune by its adherence to Charles I. was born about the year 1650, at Coton-hill, Shrewsbury, an ancient house now occupied by Mr. Bishop, a maltster of that place. His father, colonel John Benbow, dying when he was very young, this son had no other provision than being bred to the sea, a profession which he eagerly adopted, and in which he was so successful, that before he was thirty he became master, and partly owner, of a ship called the Benbow frigate, employed in the Mediterranean trade, in which he would have probably acquired a good estate, if an accident had not brought him to serve in the British navy. In the year 1686, he was attacked in his, passage to Cadiz by a Sallee rover, against whom he defended himself, though very unequal in' the number of men, with the utmost bravery, and, although the Moors boarded him, they were quickly beat out of the ship again, with the loss of thirteen men, whose heads captain Benbow ordered to be cut off, and thrown into a tub of pork pickle. When he arrived at Cadiz, he went ashore, and ordered a negro servant to follow him, with the Moors heads in a sack. He had scarcely landed before the officers of the revenue inquired of his servant, what he had in his sack? The captain answered, “Salt provisions for his own use.” The officers insisted upon seeing them, which captain Benbow refused. The officers told him that the magistrates were sitting, and he might appeal to them, but that it was not in their power to act otherwise. The captain consented to the proposal, and the magistrates treated him with great civility, told him they were sorry to make a point of such a trifle, but that since he had refused to shew the contents of his sack to their officers, the nature of their employments obliged them to demand a sight of them; and that as they doubted not they were salt provisions, the shewing them could be of no great consequence. “I told you,” said the captain sternly, “they were salt provisions for my own use. Caesar, throw them down upon the table, and, gentlemen, if you like them, they are at your service.” The Spaniards were exceedingly struck at the sight of the Moors’ heads, and no less astonished at the account of the captain’s adventure, who with so small a force had been able to defeat such a number of barbarians. This anecdote, in our opinion, reflects but little credit on the feelings of our seaman, nor does it clearly appear why he should think this barbarous display necessary for his reputation. These magistrates, however, sent an account of the matter to the court of Madrid, and Charles II. then king of Spain, invited Benbow to court, where he was received with great respect, dismissed with a handsome present, and his Catholic majesty wrote a letter in his 'behalf to king James, who, upon the captain’s return, gave him a ship, which was his introduction to the royal navy. After the revolution he was constantly employed, and frequently at the request of the merchants, was appointed to cruize in the channel, where he ably protected our own trade, and annoyed and distressed that of the enemy. He was likewise generally made choice of for bombarding the French ports, in which he shewed the most intrepid courage, by going in person in his boat to encourage and protect the engineers, sharing in all their hardships. It is certain that several of those dreadful bombardments spoiled several ports, and created a terror on the French coast, notwithstanding all the precautions their government could take to keep up their spirits. This vigour and activity recommended Benbow so effectually to king William, that he was very early promoted to a flag, and intrusted with the care of blocking up Dunkirk; the privateers from thence proving extremely detrimental to our trade during all that war. In 1695, we find him thus employed with a few English and Dutch ships, when the famous Du Bart had the good luck to escape him, with nine sail of clean ships, with which he did a great deal of mischief, both to our trade and to that of the Dutch. Rearadmiral Benbow, however, followed him as well as he could; but the Dutch ships having, or pretending to have no orders, quitted him, which hindered from going to the Dogger-bank, as he intended, and obliged him to sail to Yarmouth roads; and here he received advice that Du Bart had fallen in with the Dutch fleet of seventy merchantmen, escorted by five frigates, and that he had taken all the latter, and thirty of the vessels under their convoy; which might probably have been prevented, if the rear-admiral could have persuaded the Dutch to have continued with him. As it was, he safely convoyed a great English fleet of merchantmen to Gottenburgh, and then returned to Yarmouth roads, and from thence to the Downs, for a supply of provisions. He afterwards resumed his design of seeking Du Bart; but his ships being much cleaner than the rear-admiral’s, he escaped him a second time, though once within sight of him. In 1697, he sailed the 10th of April, from Spithead, with seven third-rates and two fireships, and after some time returned to Portsmouth for provisions; after which he had the good fortune to convoy the Virginia and West-India fleets safe into port. He then repaired to Dunkirk, where he received from captain Bowman two orders or instructions from the lords of the admiralty; one to pursue M. Du Bart, and to destroy his ships if possible, at any place, except under the forts in Norway and Sweden; the other to obey the king’s commands, pursuant to an order from his majesty for that purpose. On the 30th of July, rear-admiral Vandergoes joined him with eleven Dutch ships, when he proposed that one of the squadrons should be so placed, as that Dunkirk might be south of them, and the other in or near Ostend road, that if Du Bart should attempt to pass, they might the better discover him: but the Dutch commander objected that his ships being foul, they were not in a condition to pursue him. Rear-admiral Benbow being disappointed in this project, immediately formed another; for, observing in the beginning of August that ten French frigates were hauled into the bason to clean, he judged their design was to put to sea by the next spring-tide; and therefore, as his ships were all foul, he wrote up to the board, to desire that four of the best sailers might be ordered to Sheerness to clean, and that the others might come to the Downs, not only to take in water, but also to heel and scrub, which he judged might be done before the next spring-tide gave the French an opportunity of getting over the bar. But this was not then thought advisable, though he afterwards received orders for it, when it was too late. By this unlucky accident, the French had an opportunity of getting ut with five clean ships; which, however, did not hinder the admiral from pursuing them as well as he was able, and some ships of his squadron had the good luck to take a Dunkirk privateer of ten guns and sixty men, which had done a great deal of mischief. This was one of the last actions of the war, and the rear-admiral soon after received orders to return home with the squadron under his command. It is very remarkable, that as the disappointments we met with in the course of this war occasioned very loud complaints against such as had the direction of our maritime affairs, and against several of our admirals, there was not one word said, in any of the warm and bitter pamphlets of those times, to the prejudice of Mr. Benbow. On the contrary, the highest praises were bestowed upon him in many of those pieces, and his vigilance and activity made him equally the favourite of the seamen and the merchants; the former giving him always the strongest marks of their affection, and the latter frequently returning him thanks for the signal services he did them, and for omitting no opportunity that offered of protecting their commerce, even in cases where he had no particular orders. With respect to political parties, he never seems to have had any attachments, which probably made him be respected by them all. On one occasion king William consulted him about a question agitated in those times, respectingthe expediency of preferring tars, as they were called, or gentlemen in the navy; and though Mr. Benbow considered himself, and was considered by all the world, as one of the former, yet he told the king it was safest to employ both, and that the danger lay in preferring gentlemen without merit, and tars beyond their capacities.

After the conclusion of the peace of Ryswick, and even while the partition treaties were negociating, king William formed a design of doing something very considerable in the West-Indies, in case his pacilic views should be disappointed, or Charles II. of Spain should die suddenly, as was daily expected. There were, indeed, many reasons which rendered the sending a squadron at that time into those parts highly requisite. Our colonies were in a very weak and defenceless condition, the seas swarmed with pirates; the Scots had established a colony at Darien, which gave the English little satisfaction, at the same time that it provoked the Spaniards. King William himself fixed upon rear-admiral Benbow to command this squadron, consisting only of three fourth-rates; and when he went to take upon him his command, he received private instructions from the king to make the best observations he could on the Spanish ports and settlements, but to keep as fair as possible with the governors, and to afford them any assistance he could, if they desired it.

Rear-admiral Benbow sailed in the month of November 1698, and did not arrive in the West Indies till the Feb. following, where he found that most of our colonies were in a bad condition, many of them engaged in warm disputes with their governors, the forces that should have been kept up in them for their defence so reduced by sickness, desertion, and other accidents, that little or nothing was to be expected from them; but the admiral carried with him colonel Collingwood’s regiment, which he disposed of to the best advantage in the Leeward Islands. This part of his charge being executed, he began to think of performing the other part of his commission, and of looking into the state of the Spanish affairs, as it had been recommended to him by the king; and a proper occasion of doing this very speedily offered, for, being informed that the Spaniards at Carthagena had seized two of our ships, with an intent to employ them in an expedition they were then meditating against the Scots at Darien, he resolved to restore those ships to their right owners. With this view he stood over to the Spanish coast, and coming before Boccacbica castle, he sent his men ashore for wood and water, which, though he asked with great civility of the Spanish governor, he would scarcely permit him to take. This highly incensed the admiral, who sent his own lieutenant to the governor, with a message, importing that he not only wanted those necessaries, but that he came likewise for the English ships that lay in the harbour, and had been detained there for some time, which, if not sent to him immediately, he would come and take by force. The governor answered him in very respectful terms, that if he would leave his present station, in which he seemed to block up their port, the ships would be sent out to him. With this request the admiral complied, but finding the governor trifled with him, and that his men were in danger of falling into the country distemper, he sent him another message, that if in twenty-four hours the ships were not sent him, he would have an opportunity of seeing the regard an English officer had to his word. The Spaniards immediately sent out the ships, with which the admiral returned to Jamaica. There he received an account, that the Spaniards at PortoBello had seized several of our ships employed in the slavetrade, on the old pretence, that the settlement at Darien was a breach of peace. At the desire of the parties concerned, the admiral sailed thither also, and demanded these ships, but received a rude answer from the admiral of the Barlovento fleet, who happened to be then at Porto-Bello. Rear-admiral Benbow expostulated with him, insisting, that as the subjects of the crown of England had never injured those of his Catholic majesty, he ought not to make prize of their ships for injuries done by another nation. The Spaniards replied shrewdly, that since both crowns stood on the same head, it wa; no wonder that he took the subjects of the one crown for the other. After many altercations, however, and when the Spaniards saw the colony at Darien received no assistance from Jamaica, the ships were restored. On his return to Jamaica, towards the latter end of the year, he received a supply of provisions from England, and, soon after, orders to return home, which he did with six men of war, taking New England in his way, and arrived safe, bringing with him from the Plantations sufficient testimonies of his having discharged his duty, which secured him from all danger of censure; for, though the house of commons expressed very high resentment at some circumstances that attended the sending this fleet, the greatest compliments were paid to his courage, capacity, and integrity, by all parties; and the king, as a signal mark of his kind acceptance of his services, granted him an augmentation of arms, which consisted in adding to the three bent bows he already bore, as many arrows. His majesty also consulted him as much or more than any man of his rank, and yet without making the admiral himself vain, or exposing him in any degree to the dislike of the ministers. When the new war broke out, his majesty’s first care was to put his fleet into the best order possible, and to distribute the commands therein to officers that he could depend upon, and to this it was that Mr. Benbow owed his being promoted to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue. He was at that time cruising off Dunkirk, in order to prevent an invasion; but admiral Benbow having satisfied the ministry that there was no danger on this side, it was resolved to send immediately a strong squadron to the West Indies, consisting of two third-rates and eight fourths, under the command of au officer, whose courage and conduct might be relied on. Mr. Benbow was thought on by the ministry, as soon as the expedition was determined, but the king would not hear of it. He said that Benbow was in a manner just come home from thence, where he had met with nothing but difficulties, and therefore it was but fit some other officer should take his turn. One or two were named and consulted; but either their health or their affairs were in such disorder, that they mo^t earnestly desired to be excused. Upon which the king said merrily to some of his ministers, alluding to the dress and appearance of these gentlemen, “Well then, I find we must spare our Beans, and send honest Benbow” His Majesty accordingly sent for him upon this occasion, and asked him whether he was willing to go to the West Indies, assuring him, that if he was not, he would not take it at all amiss if he desired to be excused. Mr. Benbow answered bluntly, that he did not understand such compliments, that bethought he had no right to druse his station, and that if his majesty thought fit to send him to the East or West Indies, or any where else, he would cheerfully execute his orders as became him. To conceal, however, the design of this squadron, and its force, sir George Rooke, then admiral of the fleet, had orders to convoy it as far as the Isles of Scilly, and to send a strong squadron with it thence, to see it well into the sea, aH which he punctually performed. It is certain that king William formed great hopes of this expedition, knowing well that Mr. Benbow would execute, with the greatest spirit and punctuality, the instructions he had received, which were, to engage the Spanish governors, if possible, to disown ling Philip, or in case that could not be brought about, to make himself master of the galleons. In this design it is plain that the admiral would have succeeded, notwithstanding the smallness of his force; and it is no less certain, that the anxiety the vice-admiral was under about the execution oi his orders, was the principal reason for his maintaining so strict a discipline, which proved unluckily the occasion of his coming to an untimely end. The French, who had the same reasons that we had to be very attentive to what passed in the West Indies, prosecuted their designs with great wisdom and circumspection, sending a force much superior to ours, which, however, would have availed them little, if admiral Benbow’s officers hatl done their duty. Bis squadron, consisting of two third and eight fourth rates, arrived at Barbadoes on the 3d of November, 1701, from whence he sailed to the Leeward Islands, in order to examine the state of the French colonies and our own. He found the former in some confusion, and the latter in so good a situation, that he thought he ran no hazard in leaving them to go to Jamaica, where, when he arrived, his fleet was in so good a condition, the admiral, officers, and seamen being most of them used to the climate, that he had not occasion to send above ten men to the hospital, which was looked upon as a very extraordinary thing. There he received advice of two French squadrons being arrived in the West Indies, which alarmed the inhabitants of that island and of Barbadoes very much. After taking 'care, as far as his strength would permit, of both places, he formed a design of attacking Petit Guavas; but before he could execute it, he had intelligence that Monsieur du Casse was in the neighbourhood of Hispaniola, with a squadron of French ships, in order to settle the Assiento in favour of the French, and to destroy the English and Dutch trade for negroes. Upon this he detached rear-admiral Whetstone in pursuit of him, and on the 11 th of July, 1702, he sailed from Jamaica, in order to have joined the rear-admiral; but having intelligence that du Casse was expected at Leogane, on the north side of Hispaniola, he plied for that port, before which he arrived on the 27th. Not far from the town he perceived several ships at anchor, and one under sail, who sent out her boat to discover his strength, which coming too near was taken; from the crew of which they learned that there were six merchant ships in the port, and that the ship they belonged to was a man of war of fifty guns, which the admiral pressed so hard, that the captain seeing no probability of escaping, ran the ship on shore and blew her up. On the 28th the admiral came before the town, where he found a ship of about eighteen gnns hauled under the fortifications, which, however, did not hinder his burning her. The rest of the ships had sailed before day, in order to get into a better harbour, viz. Cui de Sac. But some of our ships between them and that port, took three of them, and sunk a fourth. The admiral, after alarming Petit Guavas, which he found it impossible to attack, sailed for Donna Maria Bay, where he continued till the 10th of August, when, having received advice that Monsieur du Casse was sailed for Carthagena, and from thence was to sail to Porto Bello, he resolved to follow him, and accordingly sailed that day for the Spanish coast of Santa Martha. On the 19th of August, in the afternoon, he discovered ten sail near that place, steering westward along the shore, under their topsails, four of them from sixty to seventy guns, one a great Dutch-built ship of about thirty or forty, another full of soldiers, three small vessels, and a sloop. The vice-admiral coming up with them, about four the engagement began. He had disposed his line of battle in the following manner: viz. th^ Defiance, Pendennis, Windsor, Breda, Greenwich, Ruby, and Falmouth. But two of these ships, the Defiance and Windsor, did not stand above two or three broadsides before they loofed out of gun-shot, so that the two ster.imost ships of the enemy lay on the admiral, and galled him very much; nor did the ships in the rear come up to his assistance with the diligence they ought to have done. The fight, however, lasted till dark, and though the firing then ceased, the vice-admiral kept them company all night. The next morning, at break of day, he was near the French ships, but none of his squadron except the Ruby was with him, the rest being three, four, or five miles a-stern. Notwithstanding this, the French did not fire a gun at the vice-admiral, though he was within their reach. At two in the afternoon the French drew into a line, though at the same time they made what sail they could without fighting. However, the vice-admiral and the Ruby kept them company all night, plying their chase-guns. Thus the viceadmiral continued pursuing, and at some times skirmishing with the enemy, for four days more, but was never duly seconded by several of the ships of his squadron. The 23d, about noon, the admiral took from them a small English ship, called the Anne Galley, which they had taken off Lisbon, and the Ruby being disabled, he ordered her to Port Royal. About eight at night the whole squadron was up with the vice-admiral, and the enemy not two miles off. There was now a prospect of doing something, and the vice-admiral made the best of his way after them, but his whole squadron, except the Falmouth, fell astern again. At two in the morning, the 24th, the vice-admiral came up with the enemy’s stern most ship, and fired his broadside, which was returned by the French ship very briskly, and about three the vice-admiral’s right leg was broken to pieces by a chain-shot. In this condition he was carried down to be dressed, and while the surgeon was at work, one of his lieutenants expressed great sorrow for the loss of his leg, upon which the admiral said to him, “I am sorry for it too, but I had rather have lost them both, than have seen this dishonour brought upon the English nation. But, do ye hear, if another shot should take me off, behave like brave men, and fight it out.” As soon as it was practicable, he caused himself to be carried up, and placed, with his cradle, upon the quarter-deck, and continued the fight till day. They then discovered the ruins of one of the enemy’s ships, that carried seventy guns, her main-yard down and shot to pieces, her fore top-sail yard shot away, her mizen-mast shot by the board, all her rigging gone, and her sides tore to pieces. The admiral, soon after, discovered the enemy standing towards him with a strong gale of wind. The Windsor, Pendennis, and Greenwich, ahead of the enemy, came to the leeward of the disabled ship, fired their broadsides, passed her, and stood to the southward. Then came the Defiance, fired part of her broadside, when the disabled ship returning about twenty guns, the Defiance put her helm a-weather, and run away right before the wind, lowered both her top-sails, and ran. in to the leeward of the Fahnouth, without any regard to the signal of battle. The enemy seeing the other two ships stand to the southward, expected they would have tacked and stood towards them, and therefore they brought their heads to the northward; but when they saw those ships did not tack, they immediately bore down upon the admiral, and ran between their disabled ship and him, and poured in all their shot, by which they brought down his main top-sail yard, and shattered his rigging very much, none of the other ships being near him or taking the least notice of his signals, though captain Fogg ordered two guns to be fired at the ship’s head, in order to put them in mind of their duty. The French, seeing things in this condition, brought to, and lay by their own disabled ship, remanned, and took her into tow. The Breda’s rigging being much shattered, she was forced to lie by till ten o'clock, and being then refitted, the admiral ordered the captain to pursue the enemy, then about three miles to the leeward, his line of battle signal out all the while; and captain Fogg, by the admiral’s orders, sent to the other captains, to order them to keep the line and behave like men. Upon this captain Kirkby came on board the admiral, and told him, “He had better desist, that the French were very strong, and that from what had passed he might guess he could make nothing of it.” The brave admiral Benbow, more surprised at this language than at all that had hitherto happened, said very calmly, that this was but one man’s opinion, and therefore made a signal for the rest of the captains to come on board, which they did in obedience to his orders; but when they came, they fell too easily into captain Kirkby’s sentiments, and, in conjunction with him, signed a paper, importing, that, as he had before told the admiral, there was nothing more to be done; though at this very time they had the fairest opportunity imaginable of taking or destroying the enemy’s whole squadron; for ours consisted then of one ship of seventy guns, one of sixty-four, one of sixty, and three of fifty, their yards, masts, and in general all their tackle, in as good condition as could be expected, the admiral’s own ship excep-ted, in which their loss was considerable; but in the rest they had eight only killed and wounded, nor were they in any want of ammunition necessary to continue the fight. The enemy, on the other hand, had but four ships of between sixty and seventy guns, one of which was entirely disabled and in low, and all the rest very roughly handled; so that even now, if these officers had done their duty, it is morally certain they might have taken them all. But vice-admiral Benbow, seeing himself absolutely without support (his own captain having signed the paper before mentioned) determined to give over the fight, and to return to Jamaica, though he could not help declaring openly, that it was against his own sentiments, in prejudice to the public service, and the greatest dishonour that had ever befallen the English navy. The French, glad of their escape, continued their course towards the Spanish coasts, and the English squadron soon arrived safe in Port-Royal harbour, where, as soon as the vice-admiral came on shore, he ordered the officers who had so scandalously misbehaved, to be brought out of their ships and confined, and immediately after directed a commission to rear-admiral Whetstone to hold a court-martial for their trial, which was accordingly done, and upon the fullest and clearest evidence that could be desired, some of the most guilty were condemned, and suffered death according to their deserts. Although now so far recovered from the fever induced by his broken leg, as to be able to attend the trials of the captains who deserted him, and thereby vindicate his own honour, and that of the nation, yet he still continued in si declining way, occasioned partly by the heat of the climate, but chiefly from that grief which this miscarriage occasioned, as appeared by his letters to his lady, in which he expressed much more concern for the condition in which he was like to leave the public affairs in the West Indies, than for his own. During all the time of his illness, he behaved with great calmness and presence of mind, having never flattered himself, from the time his leg was cut off, with any hopes of recovery? but shewed an earnest desire to be as useful as he could while he was yet living, giving the necessary directions for stationing the ships of his squadron, for protecting commerce, and incommoding the enemy. He continued thus doing his duty to the last moment of his life. His spirits did not fail him until very near his end, and he preserved his senses to the day he expired, Nov. 4, 1702. He left several sons and daughters; but his sons dying without issue, his two surviving daughters became coheiresses, and the eldest married Paul Calton, esq. of Milton near Abington in Berkshire, who contributed much of the admiral’s memoirs to the Biographia Britannica. One of his sons, John, was brought up to the sea, but in the year his father died was shipwrecked on the coast of Madagascar, where, after many dangerous adventures, he was reduced to live with, and in manner of the natives, for many years, and at last, when he least expected it, he was taken on board by a Dutch captain, out of respect to the memory of his father, and brought safe to England, when his relations thought him long since dead. He was a young gentleman naturally of a very brisk and lively temper, but by a long series of untoward events, his disposition was so far altered that he appeared very serious or melancholy, and did not much affect speaking, except amongst a few intimate friends. But the noise of his remaining so long, and in such a condition, upon the island of Madagascar, induced many to visit him; for though naturally taciturn, he was very communicative on that subject, although very few particulars relating to it can now be recovered. It was supposed by Dr. Campbell, jn his life of the admiral, that some information might have been derived from a large work which Mr. John Benbow composed on the history of Madagascar, but it appears from a letter in the Gent. Mag. vol. XXXIX. p. 172, that this was little more than a seaman’s journal, the loss of which may perhaps be supplied by Drury’s description of Madagascar, one of the fellow-sufferers with Mr. Benbow, of which work a new edition was published a few years ago, Mr. Benbow’s ms. was accidentally burnt by a fire which took place in the house, or lodgings, of his brother William, a clerk in the Navy office, who died in 1729. The whole family is now believed to be extinct, and a great part of the admiral’s fortune is said to remain in the bank of England, in the name of trustees, among the unclaimed dividends. One William Briscoe, a hatter, and a member of the corporation of Shrewsbury, who was living in 1748, was supposed to be his representative, but was unable to substantiate his pretensions.

, an Italian orator and poet, was born at Aquapendente in 1542, and received his early education from his father. He was then sent to Rome, anu in 1563 began to attend the Jesuits’ college for the study of philosophy and jurisprudence, which he pursued for six years. His master was the celebrated Muretus, but for some time, as his biographer informs us, the love of the world predominated, notwithstanding the voice of conscience, to which, however, at length he listened, and, in 1570, entered into the society of the Jesuits, going through the regular probations. He now changed his name, which was Plautus, to that of Francis, a practice usual among the religious of that order. Yet still his new engagements did not interrupt his favourite studies, which led him to high reputation as an orator and poet. For many years likewise he taught rhetoric at Sienna, Perugia, and Rome, and was regarded by his learned contemporaries, as another Muretus. Flattered, however, as he might have been by these lavish praises, and encouraged to hope for preferment adequate to such acknowledgments of his merit, he is said to have been a man of great modesty, and entirely free from ambition. Muretus had admitted him to the closest intimacy, and Benci no further presumed on his friendship than to request he would introduce more of the Christian in his life and writings than had yet been visible. Muretus acknowledges this very handsomely in the dedication to Benci, of his Latin translation of Aristotle’s rhetoric. Benci died in the Jesuits’ college at Rome, May 6, 1594. An edition of his works was published at Lyons in 1603, but most of them had been separately and very often printed. They consist of orations, Latin dramas and poems, and some religious treatises, enumerated by Moreri.

, an Italian writer, was born in 1728, the last branch of a noble and ancient family in Tuscany. He rendered himself eminent in the literary and political world, and filled some situations of importance; and among others, more connected with his favourite pursuits, he was director of the once magnificent gallery of Florence, of which he wrote “Saggio Historico,” &c. “An historical essay concerning the Gallery,” vol. I. and II. 1779, 8vo, and which, we believe, was continued in more volumes, but we find these only noticed in the Monthly Review, vol. LXII. He wrote also the eloges of many eminent characters, a “life of Dante,” which is much esteemed, some “academical dissertations,” and other works without his name. He died July 31, 1808. His mind was a library open to all his friends, and his heart a hospitable asylum for the unhappy. He was learned without pedantry, pious without superstition, benevolent without ostentation, the friend of virtue wherever he found it, and his death, it is added, was as placid and calm as his life had been.

, was a native of Sienna, which circumstance has procured him to be recorded in some biographical works under the name of Hugo Senensis, and Freher, otherwise a correct biographer, has given these as distinct persons. He became one of the most celebrated physicians of the fifteenth century, and not less esteemed as a philosopher and divine. In such admiration was he held, that his contemporaries hailed him as another Aristotle and a new Hippocrates; and such was his memory, that he could readily and promptly give answers to any questions or doubts that were propounded from the works of Plato or Aristotle. He was, according to Ghilini, professor of medicine at Ferrara, and was a member of the council called to adjust the religious disputes between the Greeks and Latins. Castellanus informs us, that when Nicholas of Este founded the university of Parma, Bencius was appointed one of its first professors, and this Bencius himself confirms in the introduction to his commentary on Galen. He died at Rome in 1438, according to Castellanus, or in 1448, according to Ghilini. tjis principal works are, 1, “In aphorismos Hippocratis,” &c. expositio,“ Venice, 1498, folio, reprinted 1.517, 1523. 2.” Consilia saluberrima ad omnes Ægritudines,“Venice, 1518, folio. 3.” In tres libros Microtechni Galeni luculentissimi expositio,“ibid. 1523, fol. 4.” In primi canonis Avicennufc Fen primam expositio,“ibid. 1523, fol. 5.” Supra quarta Fen primi Avicennae expositio,“ib. 1717. 6.” In quarti canonis Avicennse Fen primam expositio," ibid. 1523. There is an edition of his works, Venice, 2 vols, folio, 1518, but whether it includes the above is not mentioned in our authorities.

a field-marshal in the Austrian service, was born in the Brisgaw, 1713, and entered very young into the Austrian service. He was engaged in the war of 1741, and in the seven years war against the Prussians, and distinguished himself in various engagements, in which he received several wounds. He had attained the rank of captain, when he married a countess of the house of Isembourg, by the influence of which alliance he attained successively the rank of major, colonel, and major-general, and had the command of the Brisgaw. Having been appointed lieutenant-general, the government of the important fortress of Luxemburgh was intrusted to him. On the commencement of the insurrection in 1789, he was commander-in-chief in the Netherlands, and directed the principal part of the operations, notwithstanding his great age. In 1790 he was promoted to the rank of fieldmarshal, and obtained the grand cross of Maria Teresa. In 1792 his infirmities did not permit him to take an active part in the war against France, and he remained at Luxemburgh, when blockaded by the French in 1794. There he defended himself bravely for eight months, but in spite of his reiterated demands, this fortress had been left unsupported with provisions, and was forced to surrender, June 1, 1794, when the garrison, however, obtained an honourable capitulation, and were sent back to Germany, on condition that they should not bear arms for a year. M. de Bender was then appointed governor-general of Bohemia, and having retired to Prague, died there November 20, 1798.

, a poet of considerable note in his day, was son and heir of Andrew Bendlowes, esq. and born in 1613. At sixteen years of age he was admitted a fellow-commoner of St. John’s college in Cambridge, to which he was afterwards a benefactor; and as such his portrait is hung up in the master’s lodge. From Cambridge he travelled through several countries, and visited seven courts of princes, and returned home a most accomplished gentleman both in behaviour and conversation, but a little tinctured with the principles of popery. Being very imprudent in the management of his worldly concerns, he made a shift (though he was never married) to squander away his estate, which amounted to seven hundred or a thousand pounds a year, on poets, musicians, buffoons, and flatterers, and in, buying curiosities. He gave a handsome fortune with a niece named Philippa, who was married to Blount, of Maple-Durham in Oxfordshire, esq.; but being security for the debts of some persons, which he was not able to discharge, he was put into prison at Oxford, and upon his release spent the remainder of his life, which was eight years, in that city. He was esteemed in his younger days a great patron of the poets, especially Quarles, Davenant, Payne, Fisher, &c. who either dedicated books to him, or wrote epigrams and poems on him. His flatterers used to style him “Benevolus,” byway of anagram on his name, in return for his generosity towards them. About the latter end of his life, he was drawn off from his inclination to popery, and would often take occasion to dispute against the Papists and their opinions, and particularly disliked the favourers of Arminius and Socinus. This gentleman, reduced, through his own indiscretion, to great want, died at Oxford, Dec. 18, 1686, and was buried in the north aile of St. Mary’s church, the expences of his funeral being defrayed by a contribution of several scholars who respected him. His picture is in the Bodleian gallery.

Among his poetical pieces Wood mentions the following, 1. “Sphinx Theologica, seu Musica Templi, ubi discordia concurs,” Camb. 1626, 8vo. 2. “Honorifica armorurii cessatio, sive pacis et fidei associatio,” Feb. 11, 1643, 8vo. 3. “Theophila, or Love-Sacrifice,” a divine poem, Lond. 1652, folio, with the author’s picture before it. Several parts of this poem were set to music by Mr. John Jenkyns, an eminent musician whom Mr. Bendlowes patronized; and a whole canto of it, consisting of above three hundred verses, was turned into elegant Latin verse, in the space of one day, by Mr. John Hall of Durham. 4. “A summary of Divine Wisdom,” London, 1657, 4to. 5. “A glance at the glories of Sacred Friendship,” London, 1657, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper. 6. “De Sacra Amicitia,” printed with the former in Latin verse and prose. 7. “Threnothriambeuticon, or Latin poems on king Charles II.'s Restoration,” London, 1660, printed on a side of a large sheet of paper. A few were printed on white satin, one copy of which, in a frame suitable to it, he gave to the public library at Oxford. 8. “Oxonii Encomium,” Oxon. 1672 r in four sheets folio, mostly in Latin verse. 9. “Oxonii Elogia,” Oxon. 1673, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper it consists of twelve stanzas, and is followed by I, “Oxonii Elegia” II. “Academicis Serenitas” III. “Academicis Temperantia” IV. “Studiosis Cautela,” and some other pieces. 10. “Magia Caelestis,” Oxon. 1673, a Latin poem, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper. The three last-mentioned pieces were composed at Oxford. 11. “Echo veridica joco-seria,” Oxon. 1673, printed on one side of a large sheet of paper, a Latin poem, chiefly against the pope, the Papists, Jesuits, &c. 12. “Truth’s touch-stone,” consisting of an hundred distichs, printed on one side of a long sheet of paper, and dedicated to his niece Mrs. Phiiippa Blount. 13. “Annotations for the better confirming the several truths in the said poem;” uncertain when printed. 14. Mr. Bendlowes wrote a “Mantissa” to Richard 'Fenn’s “Panegyricon Inaugurale,” entitled, “De celeberrima et florentiss. Trinobantiados Augustoe Civ. Praetori, reg. senatui populoque,” Lond. 1673, 4to; in the title of which piece he styles himself “Turmae Equestris in Com. Essex. Prsefectus.” These writings, according to Wood, acquired Mr. Bendlowes the name of a Divine Author, but we fear the value of that character is considerably suok; although we cannot agree with Pope, that “Bendlowes, propitious to blockheads, bows,” nor with his commentator Warburton, that “Bendlowes was famous for his own bad poetry, and for patronising bad poets.” In his “Theophila” there are many uncommon and excellent thoughts, but it must be allowed that his metaphors are often strained and far-fetched, and he sometimes loses himself in mystic divinity. Granger, who thinks his Latin verses better than his English, quotes a passage from his prayer in “Theophila,” which has been deservedly admired for piety and sense.

, the founder of the order of the Benedictin monks, was a native of Norcia, formerly an episcopal see in Umbria, and was born about the year 480. He was sent to Rome when he was very young, and there received the first part of his education. At fourteen years of age he was removed from thence to Sublaco, about forty miles distant. Here he lived a most retired life, and shut himself up in a cavern, where nobody knew any thing of him except St. Romanus, who, we are told, used to descend to him by a rope, and supply him with provisions; but being afterwards discovered by the monks of a neighbouring monastery, they chose him for their abbot. Their manners, however, not agreeing with those of Benedict, he returned to his solitude, whither many persons followed him, and put themselves under iiis direction, and in a short time he was enabled to build twelve monasteries. About the year 528, he retired to Mount Cassino, where idolatry was still prevalent, a temple of Apollo being erected there. He instructed the people in the adjacent country, and having converted them, broke the image of Apollo, and built two chapels on the mountain. Here he founded also a monastery, and instituted the order of his name, which in time became so famous, and extended over all Europe. It was here too that he composed his “Regula Monachorum,” which Gregory the Great speaks of as the most sensible and best written piece of that kind ever published. Authors are not agreed as to the place where Benedict died; some say at Mount Cassino, others affirm it to have been at Rome, when he was sent thither by pope Boniface. Nor is the year ascertained, some asserting it to have been in 542 or 543, and others in 547, but the calendar fixes the day on Saturday, March 25. St. Gregory the Great has written his life in the second book of his Dialogues, where he has given a long detail of his pretended miracles. Du Pin says, that the “Regula Monachorum” is the only genuine work of St. Benedict. There have been several editions of these rules. Several other tracts are, however, ascribed to him, as particularly a letter to St. Maurus; a sermon upon the decease of St. Maurus a sermon upon the passion of St. Placidus and his companions and a discourse “De ordine monasterii.”

, abbot of Peterborough in the twelfth century, was educated at Oxford, became a monk in the monastery of Christ’s church, Canterbury, and some time after was chosen prior by the members of that society. Though he had been a great admirer of archbishop Becket, and wrote a life of that prelate, he was so much esteemed by Henry II. that by the influence of that prince he was elected abbot of Peterborough, in 1177. He assisted at the coronation of Richard I. 1189, and was advanced to be keeper of the great seal in 1191, but he did not long enjoy this high dignity, as he died on Michaelmas day, 1193. He composed a history of Henry II. and Richard I. from 1170 to 1192, which has been esteemed by many of our antiquaries, as containing one of the best accounts of the transactions of those times. A beautiful edition of this work was published at Oxford by Hearne, 1735, 2 vols. 8vo. With respect to his life of Becket, Bale and Pits speak of two pieces, which probably are but one the first entitled “Vita Thomae Cantuariensis” the other, “Miracula Thomae Marty ris.” Leland, who mentions only “the Life of Becket” as written by our author, gives it the character of an elegant performance. But Bale treats it as a mere heap of lies and forgeries, in order to palm Becket on the multitude for a first-rate saint, and intercessor with God. Nor is this author’s zeal confined to Benedict, but extends itself to the monks of those times in general, whom he represents as a set of debauchees and impostors, concealing their vices under a mask of piety, and cheating the people with the most diabolical illusions. Dr. Cave tells us, that the author of the “Quadrilogus” transcribed a great part of Benedict’s Life of Becket into the third and fourth books of his work. This “Quadrilogus, or De Vita et Processu S. Thomse Cantuariensis et Martyris super Libertate ecelesiastica” (Nicolson tells us), is collected out of four historians, who were contemporary and conversant with Becket, in his height of glory, and lowest depression; namely, Herbert de Hoscham, Johannes Carnotensis, William of Canterbury, and Alan of Teuksbury; who are brought in us so many several relaters of matters of fact, interchangeably. Here is no mention of our Benedict in this list; so that either the doctor is mistaken in his assertion, or the bishop is not exact in his account of the authors from whence the Quadrilogus was compiled.

, a famous abbot in the seventh century, was born of a noble family among the English Saxons, and flourished under Oswi and Egfrid kings of Northumberland. In the twenty-fifth year of his age, he abandoned all temporal views and possessions, to devote himself wholly to religion, and for this purpose travelled to Rome in the year 653, where he acquired a knowledge of ecclesiastical discipline, which, upon his return home, he laboured to establish in Britain. In the year 665, he took a second journey to Rome; and after some months stay in that city, he received the tonsure in. the monastery of Lerins, where he continued about two years in a strict observance of the monastic discipline. He was sent back by pope Vitalian, and upon his return, took upon himself the government of the monastery of Canterbury, to which he had been elected in his absence. Two years after, he resigned the abbey to Adrian, an abbot, and went a third time to Rome, and returned with a very large collection of the most valuable books. Then he went to the court of Egfrid, king of Northumberland, who had succeeded Oswi. That prince, with whom he was highly in favour, gave him a tract of land on the east side of the mouth of the river Were; where he built a large monastery, called, from its situation, Weremouth; in which, it is said, he placed three hundred Benedictine monks. The church of this convent was built of stone after the Roman architecture, and the windows glazed by artificers brought from France, in the year of Christ 674, and the fourth of king Egfrid; and both the monastery and the church were dedicated to St. Peter. In the year 678, Benedict took a fourth journey to Rome, and was kindly received by pope Agatho. From this expedition he returned loaded with books, relics of the apostles and martyrs, images, and pictures, when, with the pope’s consent, he brought over with him John, arch-chanter of St. Peter’s, and abbot of St. Martin’s, who introduced the Roman manner of singing mass. In the year 682 kingEgfrid gave him another piece of ground, on the banks of the Tyne, four miles from Newcastle where he built another monastery called Girwy or Jarrow, dedicated to St. Paul, and placed therein seventeen monks under an abbot named Ceolfrid. About the same time he appointed a Presbyter named Easterwinus to be a joint abbot with himself of the monastery of Weremouth soou after which, he took his fifth and last journey to Rome, and, as before, came back enriched with a farther supply of ecclesiastical books and pictures. He had not been long at home before he was seized with the palsy, which put an end to his life on the 12th of January, 690. His behaviour during his sickness appears to have been truly Christian and exemplary. He was buried in his own monastery of Weremouth. He wrote some pieces, but Leland ascribes to him only a treatise on the Agreement of the rule of the Monastic life. Bale and Pits give this book N the title of “Concordia Regularum,” and the last-mentioned author informs us, that the design of this book was to prove, that the rules of all the holy fathers tallied exactly with that of St. Benedict, founder of the Benedictines. He wrote likewise “Exhortationes ad Monachos;” “De suo Privilegio.” And “De celebratione Festorum totius anni.” Mr. Warton, in his History of Poetry, mentions Benedict Biscop as one of the most distinguished of the Saxon ecclesiastics. The library which he added to his monastery, was stored with Greek and Latin volumes. Bede has thought it worthy to be recorded, that Ceolfrid, his successor in the government of Weremouth abbey, augmented this collection with three volumes of Pandects, and a book of cosmography, wonderfully enriched with curious workmanship, and bought at Rome. The historian Bede, who wrote the lives of four of the abbots of Weremouth and Jarrow, was one of the monks in those convents, and pronounced a homily on the death of Benedict. His body was deposited in the monastery of Thorney, in Cambridgeshire.

, was a native of Trevigi, belonging to the state of Venice, and the son of a shepherd, or, as some say, of a notary. His name was Nicholas Bocasini. For some time he earned a livelihood by teaching children at Venice, but becoming afterwards a Dominican, he applied himself diligently to his studies, and acquired such superiority among his order, that in 1298 he was appointed general; and, by Boniface VIII. created cardinal bishop of Sabina, from which he was soon after translated to that of Ostia. He discharged likewise several embassies with great reputation, and having returned from Hungary when Boniface was taken and imprisoned in his own palace at Anagni, he was one of the two cardinals who remained with him, when all the others fled. On the death of that pope, in 1303, our cardinal bishop was chosen to succeed him, and took the name of Benedict, the Christian name of his predecessor, in honour of him who had been the cause of his advancement from a low station. Among his first measures he granted absolution to the king of France, and annulled the decrees of Boniface against him, which restored peace to that country, and this he farther promoted by reinstating the Colonna family in all their honours and possessions. He made it his study to quiet the disturbances that his predecessor had raised, not only in France, but in most other kingdoms, and to regain by conciliatory measures those whom the haughty and imperious behaviour of his predecessor had alienated from the apostolic see; but his pontificate was short. He died the year following his election, July 6, 1304, not without suspicion of poison, administered, as some think, by the relations of Boniface? in revenge for his having received that pope’s enemies into favour, but others impute this crime to the Florentines, whose city he had laid under an interdict, when it was distracted by two barbarous factions, called the Neri and the Bianchi. The writers of Benedict’s time concur in reporting that he was a man exemplary in every respect, inclined to peace and conciliation, and one who had no desire to enrich his family. One trait of his character seems to support this last instance of forbearance. His mother approaching him in a very rich dress to congratulate him on his promotion, he affected to consider her as an impostor, and said: “My mother is not a princess, but a poor woman;” but next day, when she returned in her ordinary dress, he embraced her with affection, and treated her with every mark of respect. He wrote comments on the gospel of St. Matthew, the book of Job, and the Revelations, besides several sermons, and letters to the king of France and other princes, concerning the reformation of abuses that had crept into the church in their respective kingdoms; but of his works, the only one printed is a comment on the fifth chapter of Matthew, and some letters in Rainald, Wadding, and Cherubini.

, whose name was James Fournier, was a native of Saverdun, in the diocese of Pamier, the son of a miller, or of an obscure person; but some are of opinion that he was descended of a noble family. He embraced a religious Hie when young, among the Cistertians, and having afterwards received the degree of master of divinity in the university of Paris, he was made abbot of Fontfroide, in Narbonne, and when he had governed that monastery for six years, with great applause, he was made first bishop of Pamiers, and nine years after translated to Mirepoix. In December 1327, pope John XXII. created him cardinal presbyter of St. Prisca, and in 1334, he was elected pope, contrary to all expectation. The conclave had chosen Comminge, cardinal bishop of Porto, as the most proper person, but the French cardinal insisting that he should promise never to go to Rome, he refused to accept the office on a condition so prejudicial to the church. In this dilemma, the cardinals being at a loss whom to nominate, some of them proposed James Fournier, the most inconsiderable of the whole college, “omnium infimus,” and he was unanimously elected: this unexpected turn gave occasion to some of the writers of his days to attribute the whole to divine inspiration, with as good reason, no doubt, as in the case of any of his predecessors or successors.

Benedict was as much surprised as any of his brethren, and either out of humility, or because he was conscious he knew little of public affairs, candidly told them that they had elected an ass. His actions, however, did not justify this comparison. He was indeed a stranger to the arts of the court, but he was a learned divine, well versed in the civil and canon law, and a man of exemplary life and probity. His first act was that of liberality. The day after his election, he distributed among the cardinals 100,000 florins out of the treasure left by his predecessor; and a few days after gave 50,000 for repairing the churches of Rome. In nis first public sermon he preached on the beatific vision, and maintained that the just on their death saw God face to face, before the day of the general resurrection, contrary to the doctrine held by his predecessor; and he was so impressed with the necessity of establishing this doctrine, that he published in 1336 a constitution, as it was called, directly in opposition to the notion of purgatory in any shape. The whole of his political administration appears to have been of the pacific kind, and in providing for the interests of the church, he preferred men of merit to vacant benefices, and was an enemy to pluralities; and in some of the religious orders he introduced reformations which we may be certain were beneficial and wise, because they raised the indignation of the monks, who have on that account painted his character in, the blackest colours. His last effort for the peace of Europe was to reconcile the kings of France and England, then at war, but while employed on this, he died of a short illness, the consequence of suppressed evacuation, April 25, 1342. Like his predecessor, he avoided aggrandizing his family, as most other popes had done, and could scarcely be prevailed upon to admit his relatives into his presence, when they came to congratulate him on his promotion. He used to say “James Fournier had relations, but pope Benedict has none,” and contented himself with ordering the expences of their journey to be defrayed out of the apostolic chamber. The monks whom he had reformed, however, contrary to all contemporary evidence, have accused him of avarice, debauchery, and in particular, of an intrigue with the sister of the celebrated Petrarch. On the other hand, all the best historians havei extolled him as a man of sanctity and a pattern of every virtue. He wrote two volumes on the state of the soul before the general judgment; eleven questions upon the same subject sermons for the chief festivals of the year; all which are in ms. in the Vatican library. He wrote, likewise, several constitutions relating to the reformation of some religious orders, commentaries upon the psalms, various letters, and some poetical pieces.

, otherwise Vincenzo Maria Orsini, a Dominican friar, was a native of the kingdom of Naples, and the eldest son of the duke of Grayina. Being of a religious turn of mind from his tender years, he embraced a monastic life among the Dominicans, In 1672, partly by his t'amily influence, he was preferred to the dignity of cardinal, and soon after to the archbishopric of Benevento, but was with the utmost difficulty prevailed upon, to accept of the papal dignity, alleging that he was utterly unacquainted with state affairs, and too old to acquire that species of knowledge. Being, however, obliged to acquiesce, he began with those measures which corresponded with his previous disposition, and the retired life he had led; reducing the pleasures and pomp of his court, suppressing abuses, and restraining the licentiousness of his clergy. With a view to these changes, he held a provincial synod in the Lateran in 1725, but the Jesuits, of which three were at this time cardinals, highly provoked at his approving the doctrine of the Dominicans, concerning grace and predestination, found means to render all his endeavours ineffectual. On another occasion, he rose above the bigotry of his predecessors, by expressing a wish for the diffusion of scriptural knowledge; and with that, view, he permitted the people in general to peruse the sacred volume, and encouraged the multiplication of copies in the modern languages, which, although it displeased the rigid catholics, was approved by a majority of the members of that church. Benedict, about the same time, testified his devotion to the muses, by publicly decorating Perfetti, a Tuscan poet, with a crown of laurel.

One leading object with him was to unite the four religious communities in Christendom. He proposed that four councils should be held at different places, each consisting of a certain number of representatives of the Romish, Greek, Lutheran, and Calvinist churches; but it is unnecessary to add that this scheme was found impracticable. In all his transactions, however, with the catholic sovereigns of Europe, he endeavoured to operate by a conciliatory temper, and although not always successful, yet the purity of his intentions was visible. It has been said that he was more of a monk than of a pope, by which we may probably understand, that he was more attached to what he conceived to be the genuine interests of the church, than to her political influence. Indefatigable in his apostolical duties, he continued to preach and pray, attended to all pontifical and sacerdotal functions, and directed the conduct of subordinate prelates, and ministers of the church. He frequently visited the poor, and not only gave them spiritual comfort, but relieved them by his bounty, selling for that purpose the presents which he received. He habituated himself to the plainest fare, and lived in the most frugal manner, like a hermit in his cell, that he might more liberally bestow upon others the blessings of fortune. His chief blemish was that easiness of temper, and reluctance to active business, which led him to suffer cardinal Coscia, an unprincipled Neapolitan, to have the entire management of the government, and would listen to no complaints against him, although Coscia was guilty of the most enormous and notorious extortions. Yet he died, without losing his popularity, Feb. 21, 1730, in the sixth year of his pontificate. His works were published in 3 vols. 1728, fol. under the title of “Opera di Benedetto XIII.”

, whose name was Prosper Lambertini, was born in 1675, at Bologna. He was appointed canon of the Basilicon, or great church of St. Peter, then successively archbishop of Theodosia, and bishop of Ancona. He received the cardinal’s hat in 1728, was deputy of the congregation of the holy office the same year, became archbishop of Bologna in 1731, and succeeded pope Clement XII. August 17, 1740. He then took the name of Benedict XIV. zealously endeavoured to calm the dissensions which had arisen in the church, patronised arts and sciences, founded several academies at Rome, and declared openly in favour of the Thomists. This pope did justice to the memory of the celebrated cardinal Noris; published the bull “Omnium sollicitudinum” against certain ceremonies, and addressed a brief to cardinal Saldanha for the reformation of the Jesuits, which was the foundation of their destruction. He had also established a congregation to compose a body of doctrine, by which the troubles of the church might be calmed. This pontiff was a very able canonist, and well acquainted with ecclesiastical history and antiquities. Though he governed with great wisdom, and was very zealous for religion, he was lively in his conversation, and fond of saying bonmots. He died 1758, aged 83. His works were published before his death in 16 vols. 4to, by Azevedo. The four last contain his briefs, bulls, &c. The five first are, “A treatise on the Beatification and Canonization of haints,” in which the subject is exhausted; an abridgement of it was published in French, 1759, 12mo. The sixth contains the actions of the saints whom he canonized. The two next consist of supplements, and remarks on the preceding ones. The ninth treats on the “Sacrifice of the Mass,” and the tenth on the “Festivals instituted in honour of Jesus Christ and the Holy Virgin.” The eleventh is entitled “Ecclesiastical Institutions;” an excellent work, containing his instructions, mandates, letters, &c. while he was hishop of Ancona, and afterwards archbishop of Bologna. The twelfth is a “Treatise on Diocesan Synods.” All the above are in Latin. Caraccioli published his life at Paris, 1784, 12mo. It was begun in the life time of Benedict, and part of it submitted to him by the author, to whom the pope said, “If you were a historian, instead of a panegyrist, I should thank you for the picture you have drawn, and with which I am perfectly satisfied.”

, a famous doctor of the Sorbonne, and curate of St. Eustathius at Paris in the sixteenth century, was born at Sevenieres near Angers. He was a secret favourer of the protestant religion; and that his countrymen might be able to read the Bible in their own tongue, he published at Paris the French translation which had been made by the reformed ministers at Geneva. This translation was approved by several doctors of the Sorbonne before it went to the press; and king Charles IX. had granted a privilege for the printing of it, yet when published it was immediately condemned. In 1587 king Henry III. appointed Benedict to be reader and regius professor of divinity in the college of Navarre at Paris. He had been before that time confessor to the unhappy Mary queen of Scotland, during her stay in France, and attended her when she returned into Scotland. Some time before the death of Henry III. Benedict, or some of his friends with his assistance, published a book, entitled “Apologie Catholique,” to prove that the protestant religion, which Henry king -of Navarre professed, was not a sufficient reason to deprive him of his right of succeeding to the crown of France; first, because the Huguenots admitted the fundamental articles of the catholic faith, and that the ceremonies and practices which they exploded had been unknown to the primitive church. Secondly, because the council of Trent, in which they had been condemned, was neither general, nor lawful, nor acknowledged in France. After the murder of Henry III. a factious divine wrote an answer to that book, which obliged Benedict to publish a reply. When king Henry IV. was resolved to embrace the Roman Catholic religion, he wrote to Benedict, commanding him to meet him, The doctor on this consulted with the pope’s legate, who was then at Paris, and advised him to answer the king, that he could not go to him without the pope’s leave, which exasperated the people at Paris, because they understood by this advice, that he favoured the Spanish faction, and endeavoured only to protract the civil war. However, Benedict assisted some time after at the conference which was held at St. Dennis, and in which it was resolved, that the king, having given sufficient proofs of his fa^h and repentance, might be reconciled to the church, without waiting for the pope’s consent. Benedict also assisted at that assembly, in which king Henry abjured the reformed religion, and having embraced the Roman Catholic faith, was absolved by the archbishop of Bourges. The king promoted him afterwards, about 15^7, to the bishopric of Troyes in Champagne, but he could never obtain the pope’s bulls to be installed, and only enjoyed the temporalities till 1604, when he resigned it with the king’s leave to Renatus de Breslay, archdeacon of Angers, He died at Paris, March 7, 1608, and was buried near the great altar in his parish church of St. Eustathius. Dr. Victor Cayet made his funeral oration. Besides the books, which we have mentioned, he wrote three or four other pieces, the titles of which are mentioned by father le Long, but they are of little note, except perhaps his history of the coronation of king Henry III. “Le Sacre et Couronnement du roi Henry III. Pan 1575, par Rene Benoit, docteur en theologie,” Reims, 1575, 8vo, and inserted in Godefrey’s “Ceremonial de France,” Paris, 1619, 4to.

, or Benedetti, a very eminent physician and medical writer of the fifteenth century, was born at Legnano in the territory of Verona. When he had completed his studies, he went to Greece and the isle of Candy, as army surgeon, and on his return, he was made professor of medicine at Padua, where he remained until 1495, when he settled at Venice. The time of his death is not ascertained, but it appears that he was alive in 1511. Haller mentions him as at the head of the original medical writers, and says his style was far preferable to that of his predecessors. His works are, 1. “De observatione in Pestilentia,” Venice, 1493, 4to, Bonon, 1516, fol. Basil, 1538, 8vo, &c. 2. “Collectiones medicinæ, sive, aphorismi de medici et ægri officio,” Leyden, 1506. 3. “Anatomiae, sive de historia corporis humani, lib. v.” Venice, 1493, often reprinted. 4. “De omnium a capite ad calcem morborum causis, signis, differentiis, indicationibus, et remediis, lib. triginta,” Venice, 1500, foh also often reprinted. There are some remains of medical superstition in this work, but many excellent observations and useful cases. 5. “Opera omnia in unum collecta,” Venice, 1533, fol. Basil, 1539, 4to, and 1549 and 1572, fol.

, a celebrated Maronite, was born at Gusta in Phenicia, 1663, of a noble family, and sent to the Maronite college at Rome when but nine years old, where he made a great progress in the oriental languages, returned afterwards to the east, and applied himself to preaching the gospel there. The Maronites of Antioch sent him back to Rome, as a deputy from their church. Cosmo III. grand duke of Tuscany, invited Benedict to his court; heaped many honours and favours upon him, and made him professor of Hebrew at Pisa, and Clement XI. appointed him one of the correctors of the Greek press. He entered among the Jesuits at the age of forty: his amiable temper, integrity, and profound skill in the oriental languages, procured him the esteem of all the learned. He died September 22, 1742, at Rome, aged 80. He published the first volumes of that excellent edition of St. Ephraim, which has been continued and finished by M. Assemani.

, an eminent divine of the seventeenth century, was born August 12, 1559, at Prestonbury in Gloucestershire. He was admitted, at seventeen years of age, a scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and probationer-fellow of the same house, April 16, 1590. After he had taken the degree of master of arts, he went into holy orders, and distinguished himself as a preacher. In 1599, he was appointed rhetoric -reader of his college, and the year following was admitted to the reading of the sentences. In 1608, he took the degree of doctor in divinity, and five years after was chosen Margaret professor in that university. He filled the divinity chair with great reputation, and after fourteen years resigned it. He had been presented, several years before, to the rectory of Meysey-Hampton, near Fairford in Gloucestershire, upon the ejection of his predecessor for simony and now he retired to that benefice, and spent there the short remainder of his life (about four years) in a pious and devout retreat from the world. Dr. Benefield was so eminent a scholar, disputant, and divine, and particularly so well versed in the fathers and schoolman, that he had not his equal in the university. He was strongly attached to the opinions of Calvin, especially that of predestination; insomuch that Humphrey Leach calls him a downright and doctrinal Calvinist. He has been branded likewise with the character of a schismatic: but Dr. Ravis, bishop of London, acquitted him of this imputation, and declared him to be “free from schism, and much abounding in science.” He was remarkable for strictness of life and sincerity; of a retired and sedentary disposition, and consequently less easy and affable in conversation. This worthy divine died in the parsonage house of Meysey-Hampton, August 24, 1630, and was buried in the chancel of his parish church, the 29th of the same month. His works are, 1. “Doctrinac Christianas sex Capita totidem praelectionibus in schola theologica Oxoniensi pro forma habitis discussa et disceptata,” Oxon. 1610, 4to. 2. “Appendix ad Caput secundum de consiliis Evangelicis, &c. adversus Humphredum Leach.” This is printed with the foregoing treatise. 3. “Eight sermons publicly preached in the university of Oxford, the second at St. Peter’s in the East, the rest at St. Mary’s church. Began Dec. 14, 1595,” Oxford, 1614, 4to. 4. “The sin against the Holy Ghost discovered, and other Christian doctrines delivered, in twelve Sermons upon part of the tenth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews,” Oxford, 1615, 4to. 5. “A commentary or exposition upon the first chapter of Amos, delivered in twenty-one sermons in the parish-church of Meysey-Hampton in the diocese of Gloucester,” Oxford, 1613, 4to. This work was translated into Latin by Henry Jackson of Corpus Christi college, and printed at Oppenheim in 1615, 8vo. 6. “Several Sermons, on occasional subjects.” 7. “A commentary, or exposition upon the second chapter of Amos, delivered in twenty-one sermons, in the parish-church of Meysey-Hampton, &c.” London, 1620, 4to. 8. “Prselectiones de perseverantia Sanctorum,” Francfort, 1618, 8vo. 9. “A commentary, or exposition on the third chapter of Amos, &c.” London, 1629, 4to. 10. There is extant likewise a Latin sermon of Dr. Benefield’s on Revelations v. 10. printed in 1616, 4to.

, an Italian surgeon, was born in 1685 in the dutchy of Spoletta, and at the age of nine, was sent to Florence, where after going through a classical course, he studied philosophy, anatomy, and surgery, and acquired great reputation for his skill in disorders of the eyes and in ruptures. In 1755, he was appointed principal surgeon of the hospital of St. Mary in Florence, and died in that city, May 7, 1756. He wrote, 1. “Lettera sopra cataratta gleucomatosa,” Florence, 1722, 8vo. 2. “Nuova propozitione intorno alia caruncula dell' uretra della carnosita, &c.” ibid. 1724, 12mo. 3. “Manifesto sopra alcune accuse contenute in uno certo parere del signor P. P. Lupi,” ibid. 1734, 4to. 4. “Giustificatione delle replicati accuse del signor P.P. Lupi,” ibid. 1734, 4to. 5. “Dissertazioni sopra l‘origine deli’ ernia intestinale, &c.” ibid. 1747, 4to.

, an American philanthropist, in early life was put apprentice to a merchant; but finding commerce opened temptations to a worldly spirit, he left his master, and bound himself apprentice to a cooper. Finding this business too laborious for his constitution, he declined it, and devoted himself to school-keeping; in which useful employment he continued during the greatest part of his life. He was author of “A Caution to Great Britain and her Colonies, in a short representation of the calamitous state of the enslaved negroes in the British dominions,” 1767, 8vo; “Some historical account of Guinea, with an enquiry into the rise and progress of the Slave Trade, its nature, and lamentable effects,” 1772, 8vo, and some other tracts on the same subject. He possessed uncommon activity and industry in every thing he undertook. He declared he did every thing as if the words of his Saviour were perpetually sounding in his ears, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” He used to say, “the highest act of charity in the world was to bear with the unreasonableness of mankind.” He generally wore plush clothes; and gave as a reason for it, that after he had worn them for two or three years, they made comfortable and decent garments for the poor. He once informed a young friend, that his memory began to fail him “but this,” said he, “gives me one great advantage over you; for you can find entertainment in reading a good book only once but I enjoy that pleasure as often as I read it; for it is always new to me.” Few men since the days of the apostles ever lived a more disinterested life; and yet upon his death-bed he said, he wished to live a little longer, that “he might bring down self.” The last time he ever walked across his room, was to take from his desk six dollars, which he gave to a poor widow whom he had long assisted to maintain. He died at Philadelphia in 1784. His funeral was attended by persons of all religious denominations, and by many hundred negroes. An officer, who had served in the American army during the late war, in returning from the funeral, pronounced an eulogium upon him. It consisted only of the following words: “I would rather,” said he, “be Anthony Benezet in that coffin, than George Washington with all his fame.”

, a learned German divine, principally known in this country for his excellent edition of the Greek Testament, was born June 24, 1687, at Winneden in the duchy of Wirtemberg. He was, says the writer of the meagre account in the Diet. Hist, the first of the Lutheran divines who published a learned, profound, and complete criticism on the New Testament, or rather an accurate edition. He became a critic from motives purely conscientious. The various and anxious doubts which he entertained, from the deviations exhibited in preceding editions, induced him to examine the sacred text with great care and attention, and the result of his labours was, 1. his “Novi Testarmenti Graeci recte cauteque adornandi prodromus,” Stutgard, 1725, 8vo. 2. “Notitia Nov. Test. Grrcc. recte cauteque adornati,” ibid. 1731, 8vo, and 3. his edition entitled “Novum Test. Grace, cum introdnctione in Crisin N. T. Apparatu Critico, et Epilogo,” ibid. 1734, 4to. He afterwards published, 4. “Gnomon Nov. Test, in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas sensuum ccelestium indicatur,” ibid. 1742, and 1759, and lastly in 1763, at Ulm, in which same year, a new edition of his “Apparatus Criticus” was published, with many additions, by Phil. D, Burkius, 4to. Bengal’s most formidable enemies were Ernesti and Wet stein, neither of whom treated him with the courtesy that becomes men of letters. His edition of the New Testament is unquestionably a lasting monument of the author’s profound learning and solid piety, and has often been reprinted to gratify the public demand. In 1745, Bengel published “Cyclus, sive de anno magno solis, luna?, stellarum consideratio, ad incrementum doctrinse propheticre atque astronomies accommodata,” Ulm, 8vo, and after his death, which took place in 1752, appeared his “Ordo temporifm, a principio per periodos ceconomise divinoe historicas atque propheticas, at finem usque ita deductus, ut tota series et quarumvis partium analogia sempiternae virtutis ac sapientiae cultoribus ex script. Vet. et Nov. Test, tanquam uno revera documento proponatur,” Stutgard, 1753. Bengel maintained the doctrine of the millenium, or second appearance of Christ upon earth to reign with his saints a thousand years. His “Introduction to his Exposition to the Apocalypse,” was translated and published by John Robertson, M. D. London, 1757.

, professor of eloquence in the university of Padua, was a native a of Candia, where he was born in 1553, and whence he was brought in his infancy to Gubio in the duchy of Urbino. He was in the society of Jesuits for some time, but quitted them upon their refusing him permission to publish a commentary on the banquet of Plato. He was fond of critical controversy, and maintained a dispute with the academy della Crusca of Florence, publishing a treatise against their Italian dictionary, under the title of “Anti-Crusca.” He had likewise another contest with the same academy with respect to Tasso, whose defence he undertook, and published two pieces on this subject. In one of these he compares Tasso to Virgil, and Ariosto to Homer, in some particulars giving Tasso the preference to these two ancients: in the other he answers the critical censures which had been made against this author. He published also some discourses upon the Pastor Fido of Guajini. These pieces were in Italian; but he has left a greater number of works in Latin, among which are, 1. “Commentarii in 6 lib. priores Virgilii.” 2. “ Commentarii in Aristotelis poeticarn et lib. Rhetor.” 3. “Cominentarii in Sullustium.” 4. “Platonis Poetica ex dialogis collecta.” 5. “Dispensatio de Baronii annalibus.” 6. “Disputatio de historia.” 7. “Disputatio de auxiliis.” 8. “Orationes 75.” 9. “Decades tres in Platonis Timeeum;” all collected in 5 vols. fol. Venice, 1622. He died the J 2t'i of February 1625. He was undoubtedly a man of extensive learning, but loquacious and prolix.

, a Jewish rabbi, and author of the “Itinerary,” was the son of Jonas of Tudela, and born in the kingdom of Navarre. He flourished about the year 1170. He travelled over several of the most remote countries, and wherever he came, wrote a particular account of what he either saw himself, or was informed of by persons of credit. He died in 1173, not long after his return from his travels. Casimir Oudin tells us, that he was a man of great sagacity and judgment, and well skilled in the sacred laws; and that his observations and accounts have been generally found to be exact upon examination, our author being remarkable for his love of truth. There have been several editions of his “Itinerarium.” It was translated from the Hebrew into Latin by Benedict Arius Montanus, and printed by Plantin at Antwerp in 1575, 8vo. Constantine PEmpereur likewise published it with a Latin version, and a preliminary dissertation, and large notes; which was printed by Elzevir in 1633, 8vo. J. P. Baratier translated it into French, 1731, 2 vols. 8vo, but the most remarkable translation is that published at London in 1783 by the Rev. B. Gerrans, lecturer of St. Catherine Coleman, and second master of Queen Elizabeth’s Free Grammar school, St. Clave, Southwark. The author of this translation, which is taken from the Elzevir edition abovementioned, hesitates not to speak of Benjamin as contemptible, doubts whether he ever left his native Tudela, but allows, although with some reluctance, that he may have travelled through Spain and some part of Italy. Mr. Gerrans, having thus, as he says, “unmasked, chastised, and humbled his author,” allows that as he wrote in a century so obscure, we ought to be glad of the least monument to cast a glimmering light on it. He allows also that the pure and simple style in which the book is written, renders it one of the best introductions to the Rahinical dialect: it throws more light on the times than a whole catalogue of monkish writers: it shews the ignorance of the Jewish teachers in matters of geography and history, and the state and numbers of their own people. The chief use, the translator adds, which he wishes to make of the book, is to confirm lukewarm and indifferent Christians, in the principles of their religion, and to combat the errors and impenitence of the Jews by their own weapons. This work is no doubt a curiosity, as the production of a Jew in the twelfth century, and the translator’s observations also may be allowed to have some weight: but considered in itself, the rabbi’s book has only a small portion of real worth; for in addition to the fabulous narrations, which lead the reader to suspect him even when he speaks truth, there are many other errors, omissions, and mistakes. Benjamin’s principal view seems to have been to represent the number and state of his brethren in different parts of the world, and accordingly he mentions merely the names of many places to which we are to suppose he travelled, furnishing no remark, except,perhaps, a brief account of the Jews to be found there. When he relates any thing farther, it is often trifling, or fictitious, or mistaken, as he frequently is, even in numbering his countrymen.

, archbishop of Armagh in Ireland, was the immediate successor of St. Patrick in that see, anno 455 though it must be confessed, that this is a point which lias afforded some controversy. Writers differ as to his name: some call him Stephen, some Beneneus, others Beona, and by an Irish termination of the word Benin, in Latin Benignus. It is probable that St. Patrick baptized him by the name of Stephen, and that he obtained the name of Benin from his sweet disposition, and his great affection to St. Patrick, the word bin, in the Irish language, signifying sweet; and that from thence the other names flowed. He was the son of Sesgnen, a man of wealth and power in Meath, who, in the war in 433, hospitably entertained St. Patrick in his journey from the port of Colp, where he landed, to the court of king Leogair at Tarah, and, with his whole family, embraced Christianity and received baptism. The youth grew so fond of his father’s guest, that he could not be separated from his company. St. Patrick took him away with him at his departure, and taught him his first rudiments of learning and religion: Benin profited greatly under such a master, and became afterwards a man eminent for piety and virtue, whom St. Patrick thought worthy to fill the see of Armagh, which he resigned to him in the year 455. Benin died in the year 468, on the ninth of November, having also resigned his see three years before his death. The writers of the dark ages, however different they are from one another in other particulars, yet in the main agree as to the succession of St. Benin in the government of the see of Armagh, but there is some discordance among them as to the place of his death and burial, which we shall not attempt to reconcile; some contending he died and was buried at Armagh, and others at Glastonbury. The following writings are ascribed to him 1 “A book partly in Latin, and partly in Irish, on the virtues and miracles of St. Patrick” to which Jocelin confesses he was indebted. 2. “An Irish Poem, written on the Conversion of the people of Dublin to the Christian Faith.” 3. “The Minister Book of reigns,” called by some Leabhar Bening, or Bening’s Book, and by others Leabhar na Geart, qu. d. the book of Genealogy, which is ascribed to him by Nicolson.

, a celebrated poet of Florence, who died in 1542, aged eighty-nine, was one of the first who, following Lorenzo de Medici and Politian, contributed essentially to the advancement of Italian poetry. The greater part of his poems turn upon divine love. His “Canzone dell' Amor celeste e divino” was in great esteem, as containing, what now is thought its chief defect, the sublime ideas of the philosophy of Plato, on love. This work was printed at Florence in 1519, in 8vo, with other poetical pieces of the same author. There had already been an edition of his works, at Florence, in folio, 1500, which is extremely scarce. Another performance of his is entitled, “Commento di Hieronimo Benivieni, cittadino Florentine, sopra a piu sue Canzone e Sonnetti deilo amore e della belleza divina,” &c. printed at Florence in 1500, in folio: an edition much prized by the curious. Benivieni, not less estimable for the purity of his manners than for the extent of his talents, was intimately connected with the celebrated John Pico de Mirandola, and made it his request to be interred in the same grave with him, which was granted.

, a nonconformist clergyman of Dorsetshire, was born at or near Egremond, in Cumberland, Nov. 1600, and educated at St. Bees. Thence he entered Queen’s college, Oxford, Wood thinks, as a servitor, but left the university without taking a degree, on obtaining a presentation to the living of Oakingriain, in Berkshire; but upon Mr. Bateman’s having got another presentation to the same living, a gentleman who was his contemporary at Oxford, they agreed jointly to perform the duty, and divide the profits, rather than contest the matter at law. Mr. Benn became afterwards chaplain to the marchioness of Northampton, with whom he resided in Somersetshire, leaving Oakingham to Mr. Bateman In 1629, the celebrated Mr. White, usually called the patriarch of Dorchester, invited him to that town, by whose interest he obtained the rectory of All Saints; and, excepting two years ttiat he attended Mr. White at Lambeth, continued here until Bartholomew-day, when he was ejected for nonconformity. Not satisfied with his constant labours in the church, while he held his rectory, he preached gratis, on week-days, to prisoners in the gaol, and the room not being large enough for his auditory, he built a chapel within the prison limits, principally at his own expence. In 1654, he was one of the assistants to the commissioners for ejecting such as were called scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers, and school-masters. After his own ejectment, he continued to preach occasionally, and was sometimes fined and imprisoned. He died March 22, 1680, and was buried in All Saints church-yard. Wood records three particulars of him the first, that he was, as already mentioned, assistant to the commissioners, &c. secondly, that although he lived to be eighty, he never used spectacles, and yet read and wrote much, writing all his sermons as he delivered them; and thirdly, that he prayed in his study seven times a day, and commemorated certain deliverances from dangers which he had experienced on certain days of his life. His only works were an “Answer to Mr. Francis Bamph'eld’s Letter, in vindication of the Christian Sabbath against the Jewish,” Lond. 1672, 8vo; and a volume of sermons, on “Soul prosperity,” 1683, 8vo.

, a dissenting minister of considerable note in the beginning of the last century, was born at Temple-hall, in the hamlet of Whellesburgh in Leicestershire, in 1674; and educated, it is believed, at the neighbouring free-school of Market Bosworth. After going through a course of theological studies, he was first settled as a preacher at a meeting-house, erected in 1710, on Temple Farm, the place of his nativity, from which he was called to succeed Dr. Gilpin at Newcastle upon Tyne, where he continued until his death, Sept. 1, 1726, exercising his ministerial functions with success and popularity, and acquiring a high character among hi* brethren for his talents and piety. He wrote several books, 1. “A memorial of the Reformation,” 1721, 8vo, an historical sketch of that event, full of prejudice against the church of England. 2. “A Defence” of the same, 1723, 8vo. 3. “Discourses on Popery,” 1714, 8vo. 4. “Irenicum, or a review of some late controversies about the Trinity, &c.” 1722, 8vo. Of this work one of his biographers says, that, “like many other good men, he was not aware of the pernicious effects of Arianism, and entertained a more favourable idea of the sentiments of some of the dissenting ministers than they deserved. The general principles of the book are good, but not suitably applied.” 5. “Sermons on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.” But his most popular work, and which has gone through many editions, is his “Christian Oratory,” which the biographer just quoted calls the “Dissenters’ Whole Duty of Man.” Job Orton, a very emiitent divine among the dissenters, appears by one of his letters, to have read this book at least ten times.

, an eminent physician of the seventeenth century, and a medical writer, was the son of John Ben net of Raynton in Somersetshire, and became a commoner of Lincoln college in Qxford, in Michaelmasterm, 1632, being then fifteen years of age. After he had taken the degrees of bachelor and master of arts, he entered upon the study of physic, but was created doctor in that faculty elsewhere. He was afterwards chosen a fellow of the college of physicians in London, where he practised with great success. Dr. Beunet died in April, 1655, and was buried on the 2d of May, in St. Gregory’s church, near St. Paul’s, in London. He gave the public a treatise on Consumptions, entitled “Theatri Tabidorum Vestibuhun, &c.” Lond. lt>54, 8vo. Also “Exercitationes Diagnosticir, cum hisioriis demonstratives, quibus alinientorum et sanguinis vitia deteguntur in plerisque morbis, &c.” Our author corrected and enlarged a book written originally by Dr. Thomas MotFet, and entitled “Health’s Improvement, or rules comprising or discovering the nature, method, and manner of preparing all sorts of food used in this nation,” Lond. 1655, 4to. Dr. Bennet had one or two more pieces ready for the press at the time of his death. It may be necessary to add that in his Latin works, he assumed the Latinized name of Benedictus.

, earl of Arlington, was descended from an ancient family, and was second son of sir John Bennet of Arlington in Middlesex, by Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham in the county of Norfolk. He was born in 1618, and educated at Christ-church in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, and distinguished himself by his poetical compositions, several of which were occasionally inserted in books of verses published under the name of the university, and in others in that time. In the beginning the civil war, when king Charles I. fixed his chief residence at Oxford, he was appointed under-secretary to lord George Digby, secretary of state; and afterwards entered himself as a volunteer in the royal cause, and served very bravely, especially at the sharp encounter near Andover in Hampshire, where he received several wounds. When the wars were ended, he did not leave the king, when success did, but attended his interest in foreign parts; and, in order to qualify himself the better for his majesty’s service, travelled into Italy, and made his observations on the several countries and states of Europe. He was afterwards made secretary to James, duke of York, and received the honour of knighthood from king Charles II. at Bruges in March, 1658, and was soon after sent envoy to the court of Spain; in which negociation he acted with so much prudence and success, that his majesty, upon his return to England, soon called him home, and made him keeper of his privy purse. On the 2d of October, 1662, he was appointed principal secretary of state in the room of sir Edward Nicholas; but by this preferment some advances were evidently made towards the interest of Rome; since the new secretary was one who secretly espoused the cause of popery, and had much influenced the king towards embracing-that religion, the year before his restoration, at Fontarabia on Which' account he had been so much threatened by lord Culpepper, that it was believed he durst not return into England, till after the death of that nobleman.

In March 14, 1664, he was advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of Lord Arlington of Arlington in Middlesex, and in 1670, was one of the cabinet council, distinguished by the title of the Cabal, and one of those ministers, who advised the shutting up of the exchequer. April 22, 1672, he was created viscount Thetford and earl of Arlington and on the 15th of June following, was made knight of the garter. On the 22d of the same month he was sent to Utrecht, with the duke of Buckingham and lord Hallifax, as ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiaries, to meet jointly with such as should be appointed by the king of France, and with the deputies from the States-General, but this negociation had no great effect. In April 1673, he was appointed one of the three plenipotentiaries from the court of Great Britain to Cologne, in order to mediate a peace between the emperor and king of France. In January following, the house of commons resolving to attack him, as well as the dukes of Lauderdale and Buckingham, who were likewise members of the Cabal, the last endeavoured to clear himself by casting all the odium upon the earl of Arlington; who being admitted to make his defence in that house, answered some parts of the duke of Buckingham’s speech, but was so far from giving them satisfaction with regard to his own conduct, that they immediately drew up articles of impeachment against him, in which he was charged to have been a constant and vehement promoter of popery and popish councils; to have been guilty of many undue practices in order to promote his own greatness; to have embezzled and wasted the treasure of the nation; and to have falsely and traiterously bet ayed the important trust reposed in him, as a counsellor and principal secretary of state. Upon this he appeared before the house of commons, and spoke much more than was expected; excusing himself, though without blaming the king. This had so good an effect, that though he, as secretary of state, was more exposed than any other, by the many warrants and orders which he had signed; yet he was acqu.tted by a small majority. But the care, which he took to preserve himself, and his success in it, lost him his high favour; with the king, as the duke of York was greatly offended with him; for which reason he quitted his post, and was made lord chamberlain on the lith of September 1671-, with this public reason assigned, that it was in recompence of his long and faithful service, and particularly for having performed the office of principal secretary of state for the space of twelve years to his majesty’s great satisfaction. But finding, that his interest began sensibly to decline, while that of the earl of Danby increased, who succeeded lord CiiHord in the office of lord high treasurer, which had ever been the height of lord Arlington’s ambition, he conceived an implacable hatred against that earl, and used his utmost effort* to supplant him, though in vain. For, upon his return from his unsuccessful journey to Holland in 1674-5, his credit was so much sunk, that several persons at court took the liberty to mimic his person and behaviour, as had been formerly done against lord chancellor Clarendon; and it became a common jest for some courtier to put a black patch upon his nose, and strut about with a white staff in his hand, in order to divert the king. One reason of his majesty’s disgust to him is thought to have been the earl’s late inclining towards the popular opinions, and especially his apparent zealous proceedings against the papists, while the court knew him to be of their religion in his heart, [n confirmation of this a remarkable story is told; that col. Richard Talbot, afterwards earl of Tyrconnel, having been some time absent from the court, upon his return found lord Arlington’s credit extremely low; and seeing him one day acted by a person with a patch and a staff, he took occasion to expostulate this matter with the king, with whom he was very familiar, remonstrating, how very hard it was, that poor Harry Ben net should be thus used, after he had so long and faithfully served his majesty, and followed him every where in his exile. The king hereupon began to complain too, declaring what cause he had to be dissatisfied with his conduct, “who had of late behaved himself after a strange manner; for, not content to come to prayers, as others did, he must be constant at sacraments too.” “Why,” said colonel Taibot interrupting, “does not your majestydo the same thing?” “God’s fish,” replied the king with some warmth, “I hope there is a difference between Harry Bennet and me.” However, in 1679, lord Arlington was chosen one of the new council to his majesty; and upon the accession of king James II. to the throne, was confirmed by him in the office of lord chamberlain. He died July J8, 1685, aged sixty-seven years, and was interred at Euston in Suffolk. By his lady Isabella, daughter of Lewis de Nassau, lord Beverwaert, he had one only daughter, Isabella, married to Henry, duke of G ration.

He was, according to bishop Burnet, a proud man; and his parts were solid, but not quick. He had the art of observing the king’s temper, and managing it beyond all the men of that time. He was believed a papist, for he had once professed it, and at his death again reconciletl himself to the church of Rome. Yet in the whole course of his ministry, he seemed to have made it a maxim, that the king ought to shew no favour to popery, since all his. affairs would be ruined, if ever he turned that way: which made the papists become his mortal enemies, and accuse him as an apostate, and the betrayer of their interests. His character is drawn by Mr. Macpherson, in his History of Great Britain, with conciseness, spirit, and justice. *' Arlington supplied the place of extensive talents by an artful management of such as he possessed. Accommodating in his principles, and easy in his address, he pleased when he was known to deceive; and his manner acquired to him a kind of influence where he commanded no respect. He was little calculated for bold measures, on account of his natural timidity; and that defect created an opinion of his moderation, that was ascribed to virtue. His facility to adopt new measures was forgotten in his readiness to acknowledge the errors of the old. The deficiency of his integrity was forgiven in the decency of his dishonesty. Too weak not to be superstitious, yet possessing too much sense to own his adherence to the church of Rome, he lived a Protestant, in his outward profession; but he died a Catholic. Timidity was the chief characteristie of his mind; and that being known, he was even commanded by cowards. He was the man of the least genius of the parry; but he had most experience in that slow and constant current of business, which perhaps, suits affairs of state better than the violent exertions of men of great parts."

, knt. grandfather to the preceding, and second son of sir Richard Bennet, was created on the 6th of July, 1589, doctor of laws by the university of Oxford, having been one of the proctors there. He was afterwards vicar-general in spirituals to the archbishop of York, and prebendary of Langtoft in the church of York. In the 24th of ELz. bearing the title of doctor of laws, he was in commission with the lord-keeper Egerton, the lord-treasurer Buckhurst, and several other noblemen, for the suppression of heresy. He was also in that reign returned to parliament for the city of York, and was a leading member of the house of commons, as appears from several of his speeches in Townshend’s collections. He received the honour of knighthood from king James before his coronation, on the 23d of July 1603, at Whitehall, and was made in that reign chancellor to queen Anne (consort of king James), judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, and chancellor to the archbishop of York. In the beginning of 1617, he was sent ambassador to Brussels to question the archduke, in behalf of his master the king of Great Britain, concerning a libel written and published, as it was supposed, by Erycius Puteanus, but he neither apprehended the author, nor suppressed the book, until he was solicited by the king’s agent there: he only interdicted it, and suffered the author to fly out of his dominions. In 1620, sir John Bennet being entitled judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, was in a special commission with the archbishop of Canterbury, and other noblemen, to put in execution the laws against all heresies, great errors in matters of faith and religioH, &c. and the same year bearing the title of chancellor to the archbishop of York, he was commissioned with the archbishop of York, and others, to execute all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the province of York. He died in the parish of Christ church in London, in the beginning of 1627, having had issue by Anne his wife, daughter of Christopher Weekes of Salisbury, in the county of Wilts, esq. sir John lien net, his son and heir; sir Thomas Bennet, knt. second son, doctor of the civil law, and master in chancery; and Matthew, third son, who died unmarried. His eldest son, sir John Bennet of Dawley, received the honour of knighthood in the life-time of his father, at Theobalds, on the 15th of June, 1616. He married Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham, in the county of Norfolk, knt. by whom he had issue six sons, the second of whom was afterwards created earl of Arlington. This account drawn up also by Dr. Campbell as a note to his life of Arlington, partakes of the partiality of that account by suppressing that in 1621, certain mal-practices were detected in the judicial conduct of sir John, and he was committed to the custody of the sheriffs of London, and afterwards to prison, fined 20,000l. and deprived of his offices. In consequence of this, according to Mr. Lodge, he died in indigence and obscurity, in the parish of Christ church, in Surrey, not in London, at the time mentioned above; but another account says that he was merely required to find security to that amount for his appearance to answer to the charges brought against him. If the fine was imposed, we may conclude it was remitted; for in a letter from lord Bacon to king James, we read these words, “Your majesty hath pardoned the like (corruption) to sir John Bennet, between whose case and mine (not being partial to myself, but speaking out of the general opinion), there was as much difference, I will not say, as between black and white, but as between black and grey or ash-coloured.”

a nonconformist divine, was educated at Oxford, and was presented by lord Wharton to the rectory of Waddesden in the county of Buckingham, wiiere he continued till he was ejected for nonconformity in 1662. He afterwards settled at Aylesbury, where he preached privately to a small congregation, and from thence removed to Abington, where he died April 6, 1687. He was author of an excellent work, entitled “A theological Concordance of the synonymous words in, Scripture,” 1657, 8vo. .

, an eminent divine in the eighteenth century, was born at Salisbury, May 7, 1673, and educated in the free-school there; where he made so great a progress in learning, that he was sent to St. John’s college, Cambridge, in the beginning of 1688, before he was full fifteen years of age. He regularly took the degrees of bachelor and master of arts; the latter in 1694, when but twenty-one years old; and was chosen fellow of his college. In 1695, he wrote a copy of Hebrew verses on the death of queen Mary, printed in the collection of poems of the university of Cambridge upon that occasion. The first of his publications was “An answer to the dissenters pleas for Separation, or an abridgment of the London cases; wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse,” Lond. 1699, 8vo. About the end of 1700, he took a journey to Colchester, to visit his friend Mr. John Rayne, rector of St. James’s in Colchester; and finding him dead when he came, he undertook the office of preaching his funeral sermon, which was so highly approved of by the parishioners, that their recommendation was no small inducement to Dr. Compton, then bishop of London, to present him to that living. He had institution to it January 15, 1700-1, and applied himself with great diligence and success to the several duties of his function. Possessing great learning, a strong voice, and good elocution, he was extremely followed and admired; and the more, as most of the other livings were but indifferently provided for: so that he became minister, not only of his own two parishes, but in a manner of that whole town, and the subscriptions and presents he had from all parts, raised his income to nearly three hundred pounds a year. But that afterwards was very much reduced, as xvill appear in the sequel. In the beginning of 1701, he published “A confutation of Popery, in three parts,” Canibr. 8vo. About the same time, he was engaged in a controversy with some dissenters, which produced the following book of his, “A discourse of Schism shewing, 1 What is meant by schism. 2. That schism is a damnable sin. 3. That there is a schism between the established church of England and the dissenters. 4. That this schism is to be charged on the dissenters’ side. 5. That the modern pretences of toleration, agreement in fundamentals, &c. will m;t excuse the dissenters from being guilty of schism. Written by way of letter to three dissenting ministers in Essex, viz. Mr. Gilson and Mr. Gledhili ol Colchester, and Mr. Shepherd of Brain tree. To which is annexed, an answer to a book entitled” Thomas against Bennet, or the Protestant dissenters vindicated from the charge of schism,“Cambr. 1702, 8vo. This book being animadverted upon by Mr. Shepherd, our author published” A defence of the discourse of Schism; in answer to those objections which Mr. Shepherd has made in his three sermons of Separation, &c.“Cambr. 1703, 8vo. And, towards the end of the same year,” An answer to Mr. Shepherd’s considerations on the defence of the discourse of Scnism,“Cambr. 8vo. As also a treatise entitled” Devotions, viz. Confessions, Petitions, Intercessions, and Thanksgivings, for every day in the week and also before, at, and after, the Sacrament with occasional prayers for all persons whatsoever,“8vo. In 1705, he published” A confutation of Quakerism; or a plain proof of the falsehood of what the principal Quaker writers (especially Mr. R. Barclay, in his Apology and other works) do teach concerning the necessity of immediate revelation in order to a saving Christian faith, &c.“Cambr. 8vo. In 1707 he caused to be printed in a small pamphlet, 12mo,” A discourse on the necessity of being baptized with Water and receiving the Lord’s Supper, taken out of the confutation of Quakerism,“Cambr. For the sake of those who wanted either money to purchase, or time to peruse, the Confutation of Quakerism, the year following he published” A brief history of -the joint use of precomposed set forms of Prayer,“Cambr. 8vo. The same year he published likewise” A discourse of joint Prayer,“Cambr. 8vo. Towards the end of the same year he published” A paraphrase with annotations upon the book of Common Prayer, wherein the text is explained, objections are answered, and advice is humbly offered, both to the clergy and the laity, for promoting true devotion in the use of it,“Lond. 8vo. The next thing he printed was” Charity Schools recommended, in a sermon preached in St. James’s church in Colchester, on Sunday, March 26, 1710,“8vo. The same year he wrote” A letter to Mr. B. Robinson, occasioned by iiis * Review of the case of Liturgies, and their imposition';“and” A second letter to Mr. B. Robinson, &c. on the same subject,“Lond. 1710, 8vo. In 17 11 he published” The rights of the Clergy of the Christian church; or, a discourse shewing that God has given and appropriated to the clergy, authority to ordain, baptize, preach, preside in church-prayer, and consecrate the Lord’s supper. Wherein also the pretended divine right of the laity to elect either the persons to be ordained, or their own particular pastors, is examined and disproved,“London, 1711, 8vo. He had begun a second part of this work, but it was never published, in which he intended to shew, that the clergy are, under Christ, the sole spiritual governors of the Christian church, and that God has given and appropriated to them authority to enact laws, determine controversies, inflict censures, and absolve from them. The pre^­tended divine institution of lay elders was also disproved, and the succession of the present clergy of the established church vindicated. And to this was annexed a” Discourse of the Independency of the Church on the State, with an account of the sense of our English laws, and the judgment of archbishop Cranmer touching that point.“About this time he took the degree of D. D. In 1714 he published <c Directions for studying, I. A general system or body of divinity; II. The thirty-nine articles of religion. To which is added St. Jerom’s epistle to Nepotianus,” London, 8vo. The year following was published his “Essay on the thirty-nine articles of Religion, agreed on in 1562, and revised in 1571, wherein (the text being first exhibited in Latin and English, and the minutest variations of eighteen the most ancient and authentic copies carefully noted) an account is given of the proceedings of convocation in framing and settling the text of the articles, the controverted clause of the twentieth article is demonstrated to be genuine, and the case of subscription to the articles is considered in point of law, history, and conscience; with a prefatory epistle to Anthony Collins, esq. wherein the egregious falsehoods and calumnies of the author of ‘Priestcraft in perfection’ are exposed,” London, 1713, 8vo. Before the publication of this book, he found it necessary to leave Colchester; for, the other livings being filled up with persons of good reputation and learning, his large congregation and subscriptions fell off, and his income fell to threescore pounds a-­year, on which account, by the advice of his friends, he accepted the place oi' deputy-chaplain to Chelsea hospital, under Dr. Cannon. Soon after, preaching the funeral sermon of his friend Mr. Erington, lecturer of St. Olave’s in South wark, it was so highly approved of by that parish, that he was unanimously chosen lecturer in the next vestry, without the least canvassing. Upon that he entirely left Colchester, in January 1715-16, and fixed himself in London, where he was likewise appointed morning preacher at St. Lawrence Jewry, under Dr. Mapletoft. In 1716 he published a pamphlet entitled “The Non juror’s separation from the public assemblies of the church of England examined, and proved to be schismatical upon their own principles,” London, 8vo. And “The case of the Reformed Episcopal Churches in Great Poland and Polish Prussia, considered in a sermon preached on Sunday, November 18, 1716, at St. Lawrence-Jewry, London, in the morning, and St. Olave’s, Southwark, in the afternoon,” London, 8vo. Soon after, he was presented by the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, London, which afforded him a plentiful income of nearly five hundred pounds a-year. But he had little quiet enjoyment of it; for, endeavouring to recover some dues that unquestionably belonged to that church, he was obliged to engage in tedious law-suits, which, hesides the immense charges they were attended withal, gave him a great deal of vexation and uneasiness, and very much embittered his spirits; however, he recovered a hundred and fifty pounds a-year to that living. After he was settled in it, in 1717, he married Mrs. Elizabeth Hunt of Salisbury, a gentlewoman of great merit, and by her he had three daughters. The same year he published “A Spital sermon preached before the lord mayor, aldermen. &c. of London, in St. Bridget’s church, on April 24, 1717,” London, 8vo; and in 1718, “A discourse of the ever-blessed Trinity in Unity, with an examination of Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine of the Trinity,” London, 8vo. But, from this time, the care of his large parish, and other affairs, so engrossed his thoughts, that he had no time to undertake any new work, except an Hebrew grammar, which was published at London in 1726, 8vo, a,ud is reckoned one of the best of the kind. He mentions, indeed, in one of his books written about 1716, that he had then “several tasks” in his hands, “which would find him full employment for many years;” but whatever they might be, none of them were ever finished or made public. He died of an apoplexy at London, October 9th, 1728, aged fifty-live years, five months, and two days, and was buried in his own church.

As to his person, Dr. Bennet was tall, and of a strong and robust constitution. He was a man of strong passions, and not without haughtiness, but of very great integrity. With regard to nis learning, he was a perfect master of the Eastern and other learned languages, well skilled in controversy, and an able champion for the church of England. Few scholars have equalled him as an exact reasoner, and an accurate textuary, and though he had an uncommon share of knowledge in various kinds of learning, he wisely gave himself up to the improvement of those talents in which his duel excellence lay. One of his antagonists, Mr. Emlyn, does not scruple to own, that he could truly esteem and respect him for his valuable abilities, for his industrious application of mind to an examination and inquiry into the important matters of our Christian religion, and for divers other worthy qualities, particularly. for his candour and civility, and for his resoi-.te contempt of those false topics of persuasion, by which ignorant and degenerate minds are led into error, viz. human decisions, by councils or churches’ authority, when their judgment is not agreeable to the holy scriptures, in which case he speaks as if he had the courage and honesty to oppose the most triumphant errors of the age. Finally, he declares he esteemed him for his zealous profession of integrity, and exciting others to act honestly and openly according to their judgments, and not to use arts of disguise and hypocrisy in sacred matters.

Dr. Bennet was undoubtedly a divine of eminent piety and distinguished learning. The zeal and diligence with which he engaged in the studies and duties of his profession were highly commendable, and shew that h had no conception that the life of a clergyman was to be an idle or trifling life. Several of his works, however, being upon subjects of temporary controversy, are, we apprehend, not much read at present. This will ever be the case when disputes turn upon matters which are not of lasting importance, or upon some trivial circumstances in questions otherwise momentous, and it will especially be the case, when a man of abilities has to contend with insufficient adversaries. Dr. Kippis remembered being told, in his youth, by Dr. Doddridge, that the dissenting ministers, in and near Colchester, who endeavoured to answer Dr. Bennet, and particularly Mr. Shepherd, were persons of very mean talents. The doctor, in some of his subsequent writings, met with far abler 'antagonists. The question concerning-schism was deemed of gr^at importance during the last century, and in the beginning of the present. The Papists charged this crime upon the Protestants, and the members of the church of England upon the Dissenters. A concise and rational account of the general controversy with regard to schism, and of the variations and inconsistencies to which it hath given rise, would be no incurious subject in the history of theological literature.

Dr. Bennet was perhaps too ready to engage in the debates of his time, upon questions of divinity, which led him sometimes into difficulties, obliged him to have recourse to distinctions and refinements which would not always bear examination, and laid him open to the attacks of his adversaries. Of all the doctor’s controversial pieces, those on the doctrine of the Trinity, and on subscription to the articles of the church of England, have been the most brought into view in the present age. This is owing to these subjects being still eagerly debated, and on account of their acknowledged importance, will probably long continue to be debated. Dr. Bennet’s explication of the Trinity is singular; and it would require much logical nicety to defend it from that heterodoxy which the learned author not only wished to avoid, but, no doubt, sincerely abhorred. This was an unfortunate circumstance in a man who, in another work, had employed himself in vindicating the Athanasian creed. However, he was but in the same case with many other eminent and learned divines, who, while they have imagined that they were defending Athanasianism, have, in fact, run into Sabellianism or Socinianism.

, was born in the village of Loosdrecht, about 1606, and had scarcely reached his twenty-third year, when his talents recommended him to a professorship in the university of Leyden, where he died 1642, in the thirty-sixth year of his age. His works, printed at Leyden in 1631, 12mo, contain a satire on the manners of youth, a little too highly coloured in some parts; some Latin poetical addresses to his learned contemporaries; and several Latin poems, which were reprinted at Leyden in 1637, 12mo, under the title of “Joan Bodecheri Benningii poemata,” 4to. He was also author of “Dissertatio epistolica de philosophise et poetices studiis conjungendis,” which is printed with the preceding.

, or Benno, a writer of the eleventh century, was created a cardinal by the anti-pope Guibert, who assumed the name of Clement III. Benno, who was one of his most zealous partisans, made many attacks on the popes, accusing Sylvester II. of magic, Gregory VI. of simony, &c. and wrote, under the title of a “Life of Gregory VII.” a bitter satire against that pontiff. He died about the close of the eleventh century. His life of Gregory was printed in the “Fasciculus rerum Expetendarum et Fugiendarum,” 1535, by Gratius, and in a collection of pieces, in favour of tUe emperor Henry IV. against Gregory, published by Goldastus.

, the son of a Calvinist, who was keeper of the hotel de laTremouille, was born in 1640. In his youth he appears not to have been exempt from dissipation, but the love of study predominated, and after the regular course he was chosen minister of Alenc.on. While there, he had a dispute with father Larue, a Jesuit, on the pretended falsifications in the Geneva translation of the Bible, and the celebrated Huet took his part so far as to blame the intemperance of this Jesuit. The letters which passed on this occasion may be seen in the first volume of a collection published by the abbe Tilladet. On the revocation of the edict of Nantes, Benoit went to Delft, and became minister of the Walloon church, in which situation he remained until his death in 1728. Much of this long life was embittered by his marrying a woman of a mean, sordid, and irritable temper, and some part of it was disturbed by controversy. Besides the dispute already mentioned, he had another with Jacquelot, respecting the union of the two churches; one likewise with Le Clerc, on the first chapter of the gospel of St. John, and one with Van der Honert, on the style of the New Testament. His principal works were, 1. “Histoire de Pedit de Nantes,” Delft, 1693 95, 5 vols. 4to. 2. “Histoire et Apologie de la retraite des pasteurs a cause de la persecution,” Francfort, 1687, 12mo. 3. “Defense” of this apology against d'Artis, ibid. 1688, 12mo. 4. “Melanges de remarques critiques, historiques, philosophiques, et theologiques,” against some of Toland’s writings, Delft, 1712, 8vo. 5. “Sermons et des Lettres.”

, a French poet and wit of the seventeenth century, was born at Lyons-la-Foret, a small town in Upper Normandy, in 1612. He was born but not educated a Protestant, his father having turned Catholic when he was very young; and when about seven or eight years of age, he went to be confirmed, the bishop who performed the ceremony asked him “if he was not willing to change his name of Isaac for one more Christian.” *' With all my heart,“replied he,” provided I get any thing by the exchange.“The bishop, surprized at such a ready answer, would not change his name.” Let his name be Isaac still,“said he,” for whatever it is, he will make the most of it." Benserade lost his father when he was very young; and being left with little fortune, and this much involved in law, he chose rather to give it up than sue for it. His mother’s name, however, being Laporte, he claimed relationship to the cardinal Richelieu, who without examining too nicely into the matter, had him educated, and would have provided for him in the church if he had not preferred the court, where he soon became famous for his wit and poetry; and Richelieu granted him a pension, which was continued till the death of this cardinal. It is probable that Benserade would have found the same protection in the duchess of Aiguillon, if the following four verses, which he had made on the death of the cardinal, had not given her great offence:

We are told in one of Costar’s letters to the marchioness de Lavardin, that Benserade was named envoy to Christina, queen of Sweden; but he never went on this employment, and hence the humorous Scarron thus dates an epistle of his to the countess de Fiesque:

Benserade had surprising success in what he composed for the court dramatic entertainments. There was an original turn in them which characterised at once the poetical divinities, and the persons who represented them. “With the description of the gods and other personages,” says the author of the “Recueil de bons contes,” supposed to be M. de Calliere, “who were represented in these interludes, he mixed lively pictures of the courtiers, who represented them, discovering their inclinations, attachments, and even their most secret adventures; but in a manner so agreeable and delicate, that those who were rallied were pleased, and his jests left no resentment or concern in their minds.” The sonnet which Benserade sent to a young lady, with his paraphrase on Job, implying that Job could reveal his griefs, but he was obliged to suffer in silence, rendered his name very famous. A parallel was drawn betwixt it and the Urania of Voiture; and a dispute thence arose, which divided the wits, and the whole court. Those who gave the preference to that of Benserade were styled the Jobists, and their antagonists the Uranists. The prince of Conti declared himself a Jobist, and the duchess de Longueville, an Uranist. Benserade wrote rondeaus upon Ovid, some of which are reckoned tolerable, but upon the whole the attempt was too absurd for serious approbation; and his Ovid, without occasioning any controversy, dropt into oblivion almost as soon as it was published, although it appeared in a highly ornamented 4to, printed at Paris, 1676, with engravings to theexpence of which the king contributed 10,000 livres. So much was he attached to the rondeau, that his preface and even his errata are in the same species of composition. The latter is perhaps the best of the whole; as he candidly acknowledges that he can discover but two errors of any consequence, viz. the plan and the execution:

Olivet, however, remarks that the execution is not worse than that of the author’s works in general; but the age of point and antithesis was gone before the rondeaus appeared, and a better taste was beginning to prevail. Some fables in the same style were Benserade’s last work of the amusing kind. Disgusted with the world, which he no longer pleased, he withdrew from court, and made Gentilly the place of his retirement. Olivet says that when he was a youth, it was the custom to visit the remains of the ornaments with which Benserade had embellished his house and gardens, where every thing savoured of his poetical genius. The barks of the trees were full of inscriptions, and Dr. Johnson has translated the lines “a son lit.”

Mr. Voltaire is of opinion that these inscriptions were the best of his productions, and he regrets that they have not been collected. Benserade suffered at last so much from the stone, that, notwithstanding his great age, he resolved to submit to the operation of cutting. But his constancy was not put to this last proof, for a surgeon letting him blood by way of precaution, pricked an artery, and, instead of endeavouring to stop the effusion of blood, Fan away Commire, his friend and confessor, was called in, who arrived in time to witness his death, Oct. 19, 1691. He had been a member of the French academy from 1674. Pascal says he was the repeater of many bad bons-mots, and those which his biographers have recorded are certainly of that description. His theatrical pieces, Cleopatra, the death of Achilles, &c. were printed singly from 1636 to 1641, 4to; but his whole works, including a selection from his rondeaus taken from Ovid, were printed at Paris, 1697, 2 vols. 12mo.

, a learned and eminent dissenting teacher, was born at Great Salkeld, in Cumberland, September 1699. He was early destined by his parents for the ministry, on account of the seriousness of his disposition and his love of learning; which was so strong and successful, that at eleven years of age he was able to read the Greek testament. After finishing his grammar learning, he went to an academy kept by Dr, Dixon at Whitehaven, from whence he removed to Glasgow; where, with great application and success, he pursued his studies until May 1721, when he left the university. Towards the close of the year he came to London; and having been examined and approved by several of the most eminent presbyterian ministers, he began to preach; first at Chertsey, and afterwards in London. The learned Dr. Calamy, who was his great friend, and kindly took him for a time into his family, recommended him to go to Abingdon in Berkshire; where, after preaching as a candidate, he was unanimously chosen their pastor, by the congregation of protestant dissenters in that town. During his stay here, which was about seyen years, he preached and published three serious practical discourses, addressed to young persons, which were well received. But he afterwards suppressed them, as not containing what be thought on further inquiry the exact truth, in relation to some doctrines of Christianity. He had been educated a Calvinist, but was now, like many of his brethren, receding from those principles. In 1729 he received a call from a society of protestant dissenters in Southwark, among whom he laboured with diligence and fidelity for eleven years, and was greatly beloved by them. In 1740 he was chosen by the congregation at Crutched Friars, colleague to Dr. Lardner; and when infirmities obliged Dr. Lardner to quit the service of the church, the whole care of it devolved on him.

From the time of uis engaging in the ministry, he seems to have proposed to himself the “critical study of the Scriptures, and particularly of the New Testament, as a principal part of his business; and to have pursued the discovery of the sacred truths it contained, with uncommon diligence and fidelity. The first fruit of these studies which he presented to the public was,” A defence of the reasonableness of Prayer, with a translation of a discourse of Maximus Tyrius, containing some popular objections against prayer, and an answer to these.“Some time after this, he extracted from the” Memoirs of Literature,“and reprinted, Mr. dela Roche’s account of the persecution and burning of Servetus by Calvin, with reflections on the injustice and inconsistence of this conduct in that reformer. To this he afterwards added,” A defence of the account of Servetus; and a brief account of archbishop Laud’s cruel treatment of Dr. Leighton.“About the same time, to guard against the corruptions of popery, and to prevent their being urged by the deists as plausible objections against Christianity; he published” A dissertation on 2 Thess. ii. ver. 1 12.“Jn illustrating the observations of the learned Joseph Mede, he shewed these gross corruptions of the best religion to have been expressly foretold, and Christians strongly cautioned against them; and that, in this view, they were among the evidences of the divine authority of the scriptures; as they proved the sacred writers to have been inspired by a divine spirit, which could alone clearly foretel events so distant, contingent, and unlikely. The light which Mr. Locke had thrown on the obscurest parts of St. Paul’s epistles, by making him his own expositor, encouraged and determined Mr. Benson to attempt an illustration of the remaining epistles in the same manner. In 1731 he published” A paraphrase and notes on the epistle to Philemon.“4to, as a specimen. This was well received, and the author encouraged to proceed in his design. With the epistle to Philemon was pubJished” A short dissertation, to prove from the spirit and sentiments of the apostle, discovered in his epistles, that he was neither an enthusiast nor impostor; and consequently, that the religion which he asserted he received immediately from heaven, and confirmed by a variety of miracles, is indeed divine." This argument haih since been improved and illustrated, with great delicacy and strength, in a review of the apostle’s entire conduct and character, by lord Lyttelton. Mr. Benson proceeded with great diligence and reputation to publish paraphrases and notes on the two epistles to the Thessaloniaus, the first and second to Timothy, and the epistle to Titus; adding dissertations on several important subjects, particularly on inspiration.

, an English critic, once of some fame, the son of sir William Benson, formerly sheriff of London, was born in 1682. After receiving a liberal education, he made a tour on the continent, during which he visited Hanover and some other German courts, and Stockholm. In 1710, he served the office of high sheriff of Wilts; and soon after wrote a celebrated letter to sir Jacob Banks of Mihehead, by birth a Swede, but naturalized, in which he represented the miseries of the Swedes, after they had made a surrender of their liberties to arbitrary power; which, according to his account, was then making great advances at home. When summoned for this letter before the privy council, he avowed himself the author, but no prosecution appears to have followed, as he put his name to the subsequent editions, of which 100,000 are said to have been sold in English, or in translations. He afterwards wrote “Two letters to sir Jacob Banks, concerning the Minehead doctrine,” 1711, 8vo.

He became member of parliament for Shaftesbury in the first parliament of George I. and in 17 Is was made surveyor general, in the place of sir Christopher Wren, on which occasion he vacated his seat in parliament. Why such a disgrace should be inBicted on sir Christopher Wren, now full of years and honours, cannot be ascertained. Benson, however, gained only an opportunity, and that soon, to display his incapacity, and the amazing contrast between him and his predecessor. Being em-­ployed to survey the house of lords, he gave in a report that that house and the painted-chamber adjoining were in immediate danger of falling. On this the lords were about to appoint some other place for their meeting, when it was suggested that it would be proper to take the opinion of some other builders, who reported that the building was in very good condition. The lords, irritated at Benson’s ignorance and incapacity, were about to petition the king to remove him, when the earl of Sunderland, then secretary, assured them that his majesty would anticipate their wishes. Benson was accordingly dismissed. He was in some measure consoled, however, by the assignment of a considerable debt due to the crown in Ireland, and by the reversion of one of the two offices of auditor of the imprests, which he enjoyed after the death of Mr, Edward Harley. In 1724, he published “Virgil’s Husbandry, with notes critical and rustic;” and in 1739, “Letters concerning poetical translations, and Virgil’s and Milton’s arts of verse.” This last was followed by an edition of “Arthur Johnston’s Psalms,” accompanied with the Psalms of David, according to the translation in the English Bible, printed in 4to, 8vo, and 12mo; with a “Prefatory discourse,” 1740; in 1741 “A conclusion to his prefatory discourse” and in the same year, “A supplement to it, in which is contained, a comparison betwixt Johnston and Buchanan.” In this comparison, given in favour of Johnston, he was so unlucky, or, rather for the sake of taste, so lucky as to excite the indignation of the celebrated Ruddiman, who wrote an elaborate and unanswerable defence of Buchanan, in a letter to Mr. Benson, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. George Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms,” Edinburgh, 1745, 8vo. Benson, although a man who had spent the greater part of his life among books, yet a short time before his death, contracted an unconquerable aversion to them, and perhaps to society likewise, as the latter years of his life were passed in close retirement at his house at Wimbledon, where he died Feb. 1754. His character has been variously represented. It was his misfortune, if not his fault, in the outset, that he was placed in the invidious situation of suc-s cessor to sir Christopher Wren, who was most improperly dismissed; and this procured him a place in the Dunciad, which probably served to keep up the remembrance of whaj he would willingly have forgot. Dr. Warton, however, has endeavoured to do him justice in his notes on Pope. “Benson,” says that amiable critic, “is here spoken of too contemptuously. He translated faithfully, if not very poetically, the second book of the Georgics, with useful notes he printed elegant editions of Johnston’s psalms; he wrote a discourse on versification he rescued his country from the disgrace of having no monument erected to the memory of Milton in Westminster-abbey; he encouraged and urged Pitt to translate the yEneid; and he gave Dobson of.1000 for his Latin translation of Paradise Lost.” Another testimony we have of his liberality which ought not to be suppressed. In 1735, a book was published, entitled “The cure of Deism.” The author, Mr. Elisha Smith, was at that time confined in the Fleet prison for a debt of ^^Oo. Benson, pleased with the work, inquired who was the author, and having received an account of his unfortunate state, not only sent him a handsome letter, but discharged the whole debt, fees, &o. and set him at liberty.

, canon of Christ-church, Oxford, and king’s professor of divinity in that university, was born in the college at Ely, July 23, 1707. His father, Mr. Samuel Bentham, was a very worthy clergyman, and vicar of Witchford, a small living near that city; who having a numerous family, his son Edward, on the recommendation of Dr. Smalridge, dean of Christ-church, was sent in 1717 to the school of that college. Having there received the rudiments of classical education, he was in Lent term 1723, when nearly 16 years of age, admitted of the university of Oxford, and placed at Corpus-Christi college under his relation Dr. John Burton. In this situation, his serious and regular deportment, and his great proficiency in all kinds of academical learning, recommended him to the notice of several eminent men; and, among others, to the favour of Dr. Tanner, canon of Christ-church, by whose death he was disappointed of a nomination to a studentship in that society. At CorpusChristi college he formed a strict friendship with Robert Hoblyn, esq. of Nanswydden in Cornwall, afterwards representative for the city of Bristol, whose character, as a scholar and a member of parliament, rendered him deservedly esteemed by the lovers of literature and of their country. In company with this gentleman and another intimate friend, Dr. Ratcliff, afterwards master of Pembroke college, Mr. Bentham made, at different times, the tour of part of France, and other countries. Having taken the degree of B. A. he was invited by Dr. Cotes, principal of Magdalen-hall, to be his vice-principal; and was accordingly admitted to that society, March 6, 1730. Here he continued only a short time, for, on the 23d of April in the year following, he was elected fellow of Oriel college. In act term, 1732, he proceeded to the degree of M. A. and, about the same time, was appointed tutor in the college; in which capacity he discharged his duty, in the most laborious and conscientious manner, for more than twenty years. March 26, 1743, Mr. Bentham took the degree of B. D.; and April 22, in the same year, was collated to the prebend of Hundreton, in the cathedral church of Hereford. July 8, 1749, he proceeded to the degree of D. D.; and in April 1754 was promoted to the fifth stall in that cathedral. Here he continued the same active and useful course of life for which he had always been distinguished. He served the offices of sub-dean and treasurer, for himself and others, above twelve years. The affairs of the treasury, which Dr. Bentham found in great confusion, he entirely new modelled, and put into a train of business in which they have continued ever since, to the great ease of his successors, and benefit of the society. 80 intent was he upon the regulation and management of the concerns of the college, that he refused several preferments which were offered him, from a conscientious persuasion that the avocations they would produce were incompatible with the proper discharge of the offices he had voluntarily undertaken. Being appointed by the king to fill the divinity chair, vacant by the death of Dr. Fanshavve, Dr. Bentham was, with much reluctance, and after having repeatedly declined it, persuaded, by archbishop Seeker and his other learned friends, to accept of it; and, on the 9th of May, 1763, he was removed to the 8th stall in the cathedral. His unwillingness to appear in this station was increased by the business he had to transact in his former situation, and which he was afraid would be impeded by the accession of new duties: not to say that a life spent in his laborious and sedentary manner had produced some unfavourable effects on his constitution, and rendered a greater attention than he had hitherto shewn to private ease and health, absolutely necessary. Besides, as the duties, when properly discharged, were great and interesting, so the station itself was of that elevated and public nature to which his ambition never inclined him: 66 latere maluit atque prodesse.“The diffidence he had of his abilities had ever taught him to suspect his own sufficiency; and his inauguratory lecture breathed the same spirit, the text of which was,” Who is sufficient for these things?" But whatever objections Dr. Bentham might have to the professorship before he entered upon it, when once he had accepted of it, he never suffered them to discourage him in the least from exerting hi* most sincere endeavours to render it both useful and honourable to the university. He set himself immediately to draw out a course of lectures for the benefit of young students in divinity, which he constantly read at his house at Christ-church, gratis-^ three times a week during term-time, till his decease. The course took up a year; and he not only exhibited in it a complete system of divinity, but recommended proper books, some of which he generously distributed to his auditors. His intense application to the pursuit of the plan he had laid clown, together with those concerns in which his affection for his friends, and his zeal for the public good in every shape, involved him, proved more than a counterbalance for all the advantages of health and vigour that a strict and uniform temperance could procure. Jt is certain that he sunk under the rigorous exercise of that conduct he had proposed to himself: for though 6-; years are a considerable proportion in the strongest men’s lives, yet his remarkable abstemiousness and self-denial, added to a disposition of body naturally strong, promised, in the ordinary course of things, a longer period. Dr. Bentham was a very early riser, and had transacted half a day’s business before many others begin their day. His countenance was uncommonly mild and engaging, being strongly characteristic of the piety and benevolence of his mind; and at the same time it by no means wanted expression, but, upon proper occasions, could assume a very becoming and affecting authority. In his attendance upon the public duties of religion, he was exceedingly strict and constant; not suffering himself ever to be diverted from it by any motives, either of interest or pleasure. Whilst he was thus diligent in the discharge of his own duty, he was not severe upon those who were not equally so in theirs. He could scarcely ever be prevailed upon to deliver his opinion upon subjects that were to the disadvantage of other men; and when he could not avoid doing it, his sentiments were expressed with the utmost delicacy and candour. No one was more ready to discover, commend, and reward every meritorious endeavour. Of himself he never was he? rd to speak and if his own merits were touched upon in the slightest manner, he felt a real uneasiness. Though he was not fond of the formalities of visiting, he entered into the spirit of friendly society and intercourse with great pleasure. His constant engagements, indeed, of one kind or other, left him not much time to be devoted to company; and the greater part of his leisure hours he spent in the enjoyment of domestic pleasures, for which his amiable and peaceable disposition seemed most calculated.

Till within the last half-year of his life, in which he declined very fast, Dr. Bentham was scarcely ever out of order; and he was never prevented from discharging his duty, excepting by weakness that occasionally attacked his eyes, and which had been brought on by too free an use of them when he was young. That part of his last illness which confined him, was only from the 23d of July to the first of August. Even death itself found him engaged in the same laborious application which he had always directed to the glory of the supreme being, and the benefit of mankind; and it was not till he was absolutely forbidden by his physicians, that he gave over a particular cotrrse cf reading, that had been undertaken by him with a view of making remarks on Mr. Gibbon’s Roman History. Thus he died in the faithful discharge of the duties of religion. That serenity of mind and meekness of disposition, which he had manifested on every former occasion, shone forth in a more especial manner in his latter moments; and, together with the consciousness of a whole life spent in the divine service, exhibited a scene of true Christian triumph. After a few days illness, in which he suffered a considerable degree of pain without repining, a quiet sigh put a period to his temporal existence, on the first of August 1776, when he had entered into the 69th year of his age. His remains were deposited in the west end of the great aile in the cathedral of Christ-church, Oxford. Dr. Bentham resided, the principal part of the year, so regularly at Oxford, that he never missed a term from his matriculation to his death. In the summer he generally made a tour of some part of the kingdom with his family; and, for the last thirty years of his life, seldom failed in carrying them to meet all his brothers and sisters at Ely, amongst whom the greatest harmony and affection ever prevailed. Dr. Bentham married Elizabeth, second daughter of Thomas Bates, esq. of Alton, in Hampshire, by whom he had three children, two of whom, with his widow, survived him, but she died in 1790, and his son, Thomas, rector of Swanton Newarsh, in Norfolk, died in 1803. Dr. Bentharn’s publications were as follows: 1. “The connection between Irreligion and Immorality; a Sermon preached at St. Mary’s in Oxford, at the assizes, March the 1st, 1743-4,” 1744, 8vo. 2, “An Introduction to Moral Philosophy,” 1745, and 1746, 8vo. To this tract is annexed a table of reference to English Discourses and Sermons upon moral subjects, ranged according to the order of the introduction; and a table of several of the principal Writers in moral philosophy. 3. “A Letter to a young gentleman,” 1748, 8vo. 4. “A Letter to a fellow of a college; beingthe sequel of a Letter to a young gentleman of Oxford,” 1740, 8vo. 5. “Advice to a young man of rank upon coming to the university.” 6. “A Sermon preached before the honourable House of Commons, at St. Margaret’s Westminster, on Tuesday, January 30, 1749-50,” 1750, 4to. 7. “Reflections on Logic,” 3vo; a second edition came out in 1755. Our author having been charged, in the Biographia Britannica, under the article Locke, with a design of excluding from the schools that great man’s Essay on the Human Understanding, he subjoined, in 1760, a short, but satisfactory, vindication of himself, to the remaining copies of the Reflections. 8. " Ti> ILxXaiwv, &c. Ewmxpioi.“” Funeral Eulogies upon Military Men from Thucydides, Plato, Lysias, Xenophon. In the original Greek. To which are added, extracts from Cicero. With Observations and Notes in English,“8vo. The second edition, with additions, appeared in 1768. The impression is beautiful, and the notes and observations shew Dr. Bentham’s great acquaintance with classic antiquity, and the Greek language. 9.” De Studiis Theologicts Proelectio,“1764. 10.” Reflections upon the study of Divinity. To which are subjoined, heads of acourse of Lectures,“1771, 8vo. This tract contains many judicious observations; and the heads of a course of Lectures exhibit, perhaps, as complete a plan of theological studies as was ever delivered. 11.” De Vita et Moribus Johannis Burtoni, S. T. P. Etonensis. Epistola Edvardi Bentham, S. T. P. R. ad reverendum admodum Robertum Lowth, S. T. P. Episcopum Oxoniensem.“12.” A Sermon preached in the parish church of Christ Church, London, on Thursday, April the 30th, 1772: being the time of the yearly meeting of the children educated in the charity-schools in and about the cities of London and Westminster,“4to. 13.” An introduction to Logic, scholastic and rational,“1773, 8vo. The Specimen Logicoe Ciceronianse annexed, displays Cicero’s close attention to the study of logic, and our author’s intimate knowledge of Cicero. 14.” De Tumultibus Americanis deque eorum concitatoribus seniljs meditatio." This was occasioned by some members of parliament having censured the university of Oxford for addressing the king in favour of the American war. Dr. Bentham, like many other wise and good men, did not imagine that the contest would turn out to be so formidable as it afterwards appeared. He takes occasion, in the course of the pamphlet, to pay a high compliment to his friend Dr. Tucker.

, M. A. and F. A. S. prebendary of Ely, rector of Bow-brick-hill in the county of Bucks, and domestic chaplain to the right-hon. lord Cadogan, was the brother of the above-mentioned Edward. Having received the rudiments of classical learning in the grammar-school of Ely, he was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, March 26,1727, where he proceeded B. A. 1730, and M. A. 1738, and was elected F. A. S. 1767. In the year 1733 he was presented to the vicarage of Stapleford in Cambridgeshire, which he resigned in 1736, on being made minor canon in the church of Ely. In 1767 he was presented by bishop Mavvson to the vicarage of Wymondharn in Norfolk, which he resigned in the year following for the rectory of Feltwell St. Nicholas, in the same county. This he resigned in 1774 for the rectory of Northwold, which in 1779 he was induced by bishop Keene to change for aprebendal stall in the church of Ely, though he was far from improving his income by the change. But his attachment to his native place, with which church the family had been connected without any intermission for more than 100 years, surmounted every other consideration. In 1783 he was presented to the rectory of Bow-brick-hill, by the rev. Edward Guellaume. From his first appointment to an office in the church of Ely, he seems to have directed his attention to the study of church architecture. It is probable that he was determined to the pursuit of ecclesiastical antiquities by the eminent example of bishop Tanner (a prebendary of the same stall which Mr. Bentham afterwards held), who had honoured the family with many marks of his kindness and friendship. For researches of this kind Mr. Bentham seems to have been excellently qualified. To a sound judgment and a considerable degree of penetration, accompanied by a minuteness and accuracy of inquiry altogether uncommon, Mr. Bentham added the most patient assiduity and unwearied industry. The history of the church with which he was connected afforded him full scope for the exercise of his talents. It abounds with almost all the various specimens of church architecture used in England to the time of the reformation. Having previously examined with great attention every historical monument and authority which could throw any light upon his subject, after he had circulated, in 1756, a catalogue of the principal members of this church (Ely), viz. abbesses, abbots, bishops, priors, deans, prebendaries, and archdeacons, in order to collect further information concerning them, he published “The History and Antiquities of the conventual and cathedral Church of Ely, from the foundation of the monastery, A. D. 675, to the year 1771, illustrated with copper-plates,” Cambridge, 1771, 4to. The sheets of Mr. Bentham’s work were carefully revised by his brother Dr. Bentham, and by the Rev. W. Cole, of Milton; and both were considerable contributors to it. This was probably the cheapest book ever published, the subscription price being only eighteen shillings, which was raised to non-subscribers to a guinea and a half. It has of late years seldom been sold under twelve or fourteen guineas, but a new edition has just been published, 1812, which, for paper and typography, reflects honour on the Norwich press.

In the introduction the authorthought it might be useful to give some account of Saxon, Norman, and what is usually called Gothic architecture. The many novel and ingenious remarks, which occurred in this part of the work, soon attracted the attention of those who had turned their thoughts to the subject. This short essay was favourably received by the public, and has been frequently cited and referred to by most writers on Gothic architecture. By a strange mist-ike, these observations were hastily attributed to the celebrated Mr. Gray, merely because Mr. Bentham has mentioned his name among that of others to whom he conceived himself indebted for communications and hints. Mr. Bentham was never informed of this extraordinary circumstance till the year 1783, when he accidentally met with it in the Gentleman’s Magazine for the month of February in that year; upon which he immediately thought it necessary to rectify the mistake, and to vindicate his own character and reputation as an author from the charge of having been obliged to Mr. Gray for that treatise, when he had published it as his own; and this he was enabled to do satisfactorily, having fortunately preserved the only letter which he had received from Mr. Gray on the subject. The truth was, that Mr. Bentham had written the treatise long before he had the honour of any acquaintance with Mr. Gray, and it was that which first introduced him to Mr. Gray. What his obligations were will appear by reference to a copy of that letter, which he received from Mr. Gray when he returned the six sheets which Mr. Bentham had submitted to him at his own request. It happened that the two last sheets, though composed, were not worked off, which gave Mr. Bentham an opportunity of inserting some additions alluded to in Mr. Gray’s letter. In the Magazine for July 1784, may be seen the full and handsome apology which this explanation produced from a correspondent, who, under the signature of S. E. had inadvertently ascribed these remarks to Mr. Gray. These remarks have been since printed in an excellent collection of “Essays on Gothic Architecture,” published by Mr. Taylor, of Holborn. When the dean and chapter of Ely had determined upon the general repair of the fabric of their church, and the judicious removal of the choir from the dome to the presbytery at the east end, Mr. Bentham was requested to superintend that concern as clerk of the works. With what indefatigable industry and attention he acquitted himself in that station, and how much he contributed to the improvement and success of the publ.c works then carrying on, appears as well by the minutes of those transactions, as by the satisfaction with which the body recognized his services. This employment gave him a thorough insight into the principles and peculiarities of these antient buildings, and suggested to him the idea of a general history of antient architecture in this kingdom, which he justly considered a desideratum of the learned and inquisitive antiquary. He was still intent upon this subject, and during the amusement of his leisure hours continued almost to the last to make collections with a view to some further illustration of this curious point, though his avocations of one kind or another prevented him from reducing them to any regular form or series. But he did not suffer these pursuits to call him off from the professional duties of his station, or from contributing his endeavours towards promoting works of general utility to the neighbourhood. To a laudable spirit of this latter kind, animated by a zeal for his native place, truly patriotic, is to be referred his steady perseverance in recommending to his countrymen, under all the discouragements of obloquy and prejudice, the plans suggested for the improvement of their fens by draining, and the practicability of increasing their intercourse with the neighbouring counties by means of turnpike roads; a measure till then unattempted, and for a long time treated with a contempt and ridicule due only to the most wild and visionary projects, the merit of which he was at last forced to rest upon the result of an experiment made by himself. With this view, in 1757, he published his sentiments under the title of “Queries offered to the consideration of the principal inhabitants of the city of Ely, and towns adjacent, &c.” and had at length the satisfaction to see the attention of the public directed to the favourite object of those with whom he was associated. Several gentlemen of property and consideration in the county generously engaged in contributing donations towards setting on foot a scheme to establish turnpike roads. By the liberal example of lord-chancellor Hardwicke, lord Royston, and bishop Mawson, and the seasonable bequest of 200l. by Geo. Riste, esq. of Cambridge, others were incited to additional subscriptions. In a short time these amounted to upwards of 1000l. and nearly to double that sum on interest. The scheme being thus invigorated by these helps, and by the increasing loans of those whose prejudices began now to wear away, an act was obtained in 1763 for improving the road from Cambridge to Ely. Similar powers and provisions were in a few years obtained by subsequent acts, and the benefit extended to other parts of the isle in all directions, the success of which hath answered the most sanguine expectations of its advocates. With the same beneficent disposition, Mr. Bentham in 1773 submitted a plan for inclosing and draining a large tract of common in the vicinity of Ely, called Gruntiten, containing near 1300 acres, under the title of “Considerations and Reflections upon the present state of the fens near Ely,” &c. Cambridge, 1778, 8vo. The inclosure, however, from whatever cause, did not then, take place; but some of the hints therein suggested have formed the groundwork of many of the improvements which have since obtained in the culture and drainage of the fens. Exertions of this kind could not fai^o procure him the esteem and respect of all who knew him, especially as they were wholly unaccompanied with that parade and ostentation by which the best public services are sometimes disgraced. Mr. Bentham was naturally of a delicate and tender constitution, to which his sedentary life and habits of application were very unfavourable; but this was so far corrected by rigid temperance and regularity, that he was rarely prevented from giving clue attention either to the calls of his profession or to the pursuits of his leisure hours. He retained his faculties in full vigour to the last, though his bodily infirmities debarred him latterly from attendance upon public worship, which he always exceedingly lamented, having been uniformly exemplary in that duty. He read, with full relish and spirit, most publications of note or merit as they appeared, and, till within a few days of his death, continued his customary intercourse with his friends. He died Nov. 17, 1794, in the eightysixth year of his age. He left only one son, the Rev. James Bentham, vicar of West Braddenham in Norfolk, a preferment for which he was indebted to the kind patronage of the late bishop of Ely, the hon. Dr. James Yorke. Mr. Joseph Bentham, brother to the Historian and to Dr. Bentham, and an alderman of Cambridge, was many years printer to the university, and died in 1778. The History of Ely being the last work he printed, this circumstance is recorded on the last page by the words “Finis hie officii atque laboris.” A fourth brother, the Rev. Jeffery Bentham, precentor of the church of Ely, &c. died in 1792, aged seventy two. A fifth, the Rev. Edmund Bentham, B.D. rector of Wootton-Courtnay, Somersetshire, died in Oct. 1781, at Moulsey Grove, near Hampton. Mr. Cole, who in his ms Athenae, gives some account of the Benthams, with a mixture of spleen and respect, remarks that this Edmund died in a parish in which he was not buried, was buried in a parish with which he had no connexion, and has a monument in a church (Sutton) where he was not buried, but of which he had been curate for near forty years.

, a learned and pious English divine, bishop of Litchfield and Coventry in the sixteenth century, was born about the year 1513, at Shirebourne in Yorkshire, and educated at Magdalen-college in Oxford. He took his bachelor’s degree in arts, Feb. 20, 1543, and was admitted perpetual fellow of that college, November 16, 1546, and took his master’s degree in arts the year following, about which time he applied himself wholly to the study of divinity and the Hebrew language, in which he was extremely well skilled, as well as in the Latin and Greek tongues. The compiler of “Anglorum Speculum” tells us, that he was converted from popery in the first year of queen Mary; but we find him very zealous against the popish religion during the reign of king Edward VI. upon which account, and his assisting one Henry Bull of the same college, in wresting the censer out of the bands of the choristers, as they were about to offer their superstitious incense, he was ejected from his fellowship by the visitors appointed by queen Mary to regulate the university; soon after which he retired to Zurich, and afterwards to Basil in Switzerland, and became preacher to the English exiles there, and expounded to them the entire book of the Acts of the Apostles; a proper subject and portion of scripture, Fuller observes, to recommend patience to his banished countrymen; as the apostle’s sufferings so far exceeded theirs. This exposition was left by him at the time of his death, very fairly written, and fit for the press, but it does not appear to have been printed. In exile, as at home and in college, he led a praise-worthy, honest, and laborious life, with little or no preferment. Afterwards, being recalled by some of his brethren, he returned to London under the same queen’s reign, where he lived privately and in disguise, and was made superintendent of a protestant congregation in that city; whom Bentham, by his pious discipline, diligent care and tuition, and bold and resolute behaviour in the protestant cause, greatly confirmed in their faith and religion; so that they assembled with the greatest constancy to divine worship, at which there often appeared an hundred, sometimes two hundred persons; no inconsiderable congregation this to meet by stealth, notwithstanding the danger of the times, daily, together at London, in spite of the vigilant and cruel Bonner. At length, when queen Elizabeth came to the throne, he was, in the second year of her reign, nominated for the see of Litchfield and Coventry, upon the deprivation of Dr. Ralph Bayne, and had the temporalities of that see restored to him, Feb. 20, 1559, being then about forty-six years of age. On the 30th of October 1556, he was created, with some others, professor of divinity at London, by Laurence Humphrey, S.T.P. and John Kenal, LL. D. who were deputed by the university of Oxford for that purpose; and in the latter end of October 1568, he was actually created doctor of divinity, being then highly esteemed on account of his distinguished learning. He published a Sermon on Matth. iv. 1—11, printed at London, 8vo. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, tells us, that our author translated into English the Book of Psalms, at the command of queen Elizabeth, when an English version of the Bible was to be made, and that he likewise translated Ezekiel and Daniel. He died at Eccleshal in Staffordshire, the seat belonging to the see, Feb. 19, 1578, aged sixty-five years, and was buried under the south wall of the chancel of that church.

, earl of Portland, &c. one of the greatest statesmen of his time, and the first that advanced his family to the dignity of the English peerage, was a native of Holland, of an ancient and noble family in the province of Guelderland. After a liberal education, he was promoted to be page of honour to William, then prince of Orange (afterwards king William III. of England), in which station his behaviour and address so recommended him to the favour of his master, that he preferred him to the post of gentleman of his bedchamber. In this capacity he accompanied the prince into England, in the year 1670, where, going to visit the university of Oxford, he was, together with the prince, created doctor of civil law. In 1672, the prince of Orange being made captain-general of the Dutch forces, and soon after Stadtholder, M. Bentinck was promoted, and had a share in his good fortune, being made colonel and captain of the Dutch regiment of guards, afterwards esteemed one of the finest in king William’s service, and which behaved with the greatest gallantry in the wars both in Flanders and Ireland. In 1675, the prince falling ill of the small-pox, M. Bentinck had an opportunity of signalizing his love and affection for his master in an extraordinary manner, and thereby of obtaining his esteem and friendship, by one of the most generous actions imaginable: for the small-pox not rising kindly upon the prince, his physicians judged it necessary that some young person should lie in the same bed with him, imagining that the natural heat of another would expel the disease. M. Bentinck, though he had never had the small-pox, resolved to run this risque, and accordingly attended the prince during the whole course of his illness, both day and night, and his highness said afterwards, that he believed M. Bentinck never slept; for in sixteen days and nights, he never called once that he was not answered by him. M. Bentinck, however, upon the prince’s recovery, was immediately seized with the same distemper, attended with a great deal of danger, but recovered soon enough to attend his highness into the field, where he was always next his person; and his courage and abilities answered the great opinion his highness had formed of him, and from this time he employed him in his most secret and important affairs. In 1677, M. Bentinck was sent by the prince of Orange into England, to solicit a match with the princess Mary, eldest daughter of James, at that time duke of York (afterwards king James II.) which was soon after concluded. And in 1685, upon the duke of Monmouth’s invasion of this kingdom, he was sent over to king James to offer him his master’s assistance, both of his troops and person, to head them against the rebels, but, through a misconstruction put on his message, his highness’s offer was rejected by the king. In the year 1688, when the prince of Orange intended an expedition into England, he sent M. Bentinck, on the elector of Brandenburgh'a death, to the new elector, to communicate to him his design upon England, and to solicit his assistance. In this negociation M. Bentinck was so successful as to bring back a more favourable and satisfactory answer than the prince had expected; the elector having generously granted even more than was asked of him. M. Bentincfc had also a great share in the revolution; and in this difficult and important affair, shewed all the prudence and sagacity of the most consummate statesman. It was he that was applied to, as the person in the greatest confidence with the prince, to manage the negociations that were set on foot, betwixt his highness and the English nobility and gentry, who had recourse to him to rescue them from the danger they were in. He was also two months constantly at the Hague, giving the necessary orders for the prince’s expedition, which was managed by him with such secrecy, that nothing was suspected, nor was there ever so great a design executed in so short a time, a transport fleet of 500 vessels having been hired in three days. M. Bentinck accompanied the prince to England, and after king James’s abdication, during the interregnum, he held the first place among those who composed the prince’s cabinet at that critical time, and that, in such a degree of super-eminence, as scarcely left room for a second: and we may presume he was not wanting in his endeavours to procure the crown for the prince his master; who, when he had obtained it, was as forward on his part, in rewarding the faithful and signal services of M. Bentinck, whom he appointed groom of the stole, privy purse, first gentleman of the royal bedchamber, and first commoner upon the list of privy counsellors. He was afterwards naturalised by act of parliament; and, by letters patent bearing date the 9th of April 1689, two clays before the king and queen’s coronation, he was created baron of Cirencester, viscount Woodstock, and earl of Portland. In 1690, the earl of Portland, with many others of the English nobility, attended king William to Holland, where the earl acted as envoy for his majesty, at the grand congress held at the Hague the same year. In 1695, king William made this nobleman a grant of the lordships of Denbigh, Bromtield, Yale, and other lands, containing many thousand acres, in the principality of Wales, but these being part of the demesne thereof, the grant was opposed, and the house of commons addressed the king to put a stop to the passing it, which his majesty accordingly complied with, and recalled the grant, promising, however, to find some other way of shewing his favour to lord Portland, who, he said, had deserved it by long and faithful services. It was to this nobleman that the plot for assassinating king William in 1695 was first discovered; and his lordship, by his indefatigable zeal, was very instrumental in bringing to light the whole of that execrable scheme. The same year another affair happened, in which he gave such a shining proof of the strictest honour and integrity, as has done immortal honour to his memory. The parliament having taken into consideration the affairs of the East India company, who, through mismanagement and corrupt dealings, were in danger of losing their charter, strong interest was made with the members of both houses, and large sums distributed, to procure a new establishment of their company by act of parliament. Among those noblemen whose interest was necessary to bring about this affair, lord Portland’s was particularly courted, and an extraordinary value put upon it, much beyond that of any other peer; for he was offered no less than the sum of 50,000l. for his vote, and his endeavours with the king to favour the design. But his lordship treated this offer with all the contempt it deserved, telling the person employed in it, that if he ever so much as mentioned such a thing to him again, he would for ever be the company’s enemy, and give them all the opposition in his power. This is an instance of public spirit not often mst with, and did not pass unregarded; for we find it recorded in an eloquent speech of a member of parliament, who related this noble action to the house of commons, much to the honour of lord Portland. It was owing to this nobleman, also, that the Banquetting-house at Whitehall was saved, when the rest of the Palace was destroyed by fire. In February 1696, he was created a knight of the garter, at a chapter held at Kensington, and was installed at Windsor on the 25th of March, 1697, at which time he was also lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces: for his lordship’s services were not confined to the cabinet; he likewise distinguished himself in the field on several occasions, particularly at the battle of the Boyne, battle of Landen, where he was wounded, siege of Limerick, Namur, &c. As his lordship thus attended his royal master in his wars both in Ireland and Flanders, and bore a principal command there, so he was honoured by his majesty with the chief management of the famous peace of Ryswick; having, in some conferences with the marshal BoufHers, settled the most difficult and tender point, and which might greatly have retarded the conclusion of the peace. This was concerning the disposal of king James; the king of France having solemnly promised, in an open declaration to all Europe, that he would never lay down his arms tilt he had restored the abdicated king to his throne, and consequently could not own king William, without abandoning him. Not long after the conclusion of the peace, king William nominated the earl of Portland to be his ambassador extraordinary to the court of France; an, honour justly due to him, for the share he had in bringing about the treaty of Hysvvick; and the king could not have fixed upon a person better qualified to support his high character with dignity and magnificence. The French likewise had a great opinion of his lordship’s capacity and merit; and no ambassador was ever so respected and caressed in France as his lordship was, who, on his part, filled his employment with equal honour to the king, the British nation, and himself. According to Prior, however, the earl of Portland went on this embassy with reluctance, having been for some time alarmed with the growing favour of a rival in king William’s affection, namely, Keppel, afterwards created earl of Albermarle, a DutchmLin, who had also been page to his majesty. “And,” according to Prior, “his jealousy was not ill-grounded for Albemarle so prevailed in lord Portland’s absence, that he obliged him, by several little affronts, to lay down all his employments, after which he was never more in favour, though the king always shewed an esteem for him.” Bishop Burnet says “That the earl of Portland observed the progress of the king’s favour to the lord Albemaiie with great uneasiness they grew to be not only incompatible, as all rivals for favour must be, but to hate and oppose one another in every thing; the one (lord Portland) had more of the confidence, the other more of the favour. Lord Portland, upon his return from his embassy to France, could not bear the visible superiority in favour that the other was growing up to; so he took occasion, from a small preference given lord Albemarle in prejudice of his own post, as groom of the stole, to withdraw from court, and lay down all his employments. The king used all possible means to divert him from this resolution, but could not prevail on him to alter it: he, indeed, consented to serve his majesty still in his state affairs, but would not return to any post in the household.” This change, says bishop Kennet, did at first please the English and Dutch, the earl of Albermarle having cunningly made several powerful friends in both nations, who, out of envy to lord Portland, were glad to see another in his place; and it is said that lord Albemarle was supported by the earl of Sutherland and Mrs. Villiers to pull down lord Portland: however, though the first became now the reigning favourite, yet the latter, says bishop Kennet, did ever preserve the esteem and affection of king William. But king William was not one of those princes who are governed by favourites. He was his own minister in all the greater parts of government, as those of war and peace, forming alliances and treaties, and he appreciated justly the merit of those whom he employed in his service. It is highly probable, therefore, that lord Portland never Jost the king’s favourable opinion, although he might be obliged to give way to a temporary favourite. The earl of Albemarle had been in his majesty’s service from a youth, was descended of a noble family in Guelderland, attended king William into England as his page of honour, and being a young lord of address and temper, with a due mixture of heroism, it is no wonder his majesty took pleasure in his conversation in the intervals of state business, and in making his fortune, who had so long followed his own. Bishop Burnet says, it is a difficult matter to account for the reasons of the favour shewn by the king, in the highest degree, to these two lords, they being in all respects, not only of different, but of quite opposite characters; secrecy and fidelity being the only qualities in which they did in any sort agree. Lord Albetnarle was very cheerful and gay, had all the arts of a court, was civil to all, and procured favours for many; but was so addicted to his pleasures that he could scarcely submit to attend on business, and had never yet distinguished himself in any thing. On the other hand, lord Portland was of a grave and sedate disposition, and indeed, adds the bishop, was thought rather too cold and dry, and had not the art of creating friends; but was indefatigable in business, and had distinguished himself on many occasions. With another author, Mackey, his lordship has the character of carrying himself with a very lofty mien, yet was not proud, nor much beloved nor hated by the people. But it is no wonder if the earl of Portland was not acceptable to the English nation. His lordship had been for ten years entirely trusted by the king, was his chief favourite and bosom-friend, and the favourites of kings are seldom favourites of the people, and it must be owned king William was immoderately lavish to those he personally loved. But as long as history has not charged his memory with failings that might deservedly render him obnoxious to the public, there can be no partiality in attributing this nobleman’s unpopularity partly to the above reasons, and partly to his being a foreigner, for which he suffered not a little from the envy and malice of his enemies, in their speeches, libels, &c. of which there were some levelled as well against the king as against his lordship. The same avereion, however, to foreign favourites, soon after shewed itself against lord Albemarle, who, as he grew into power and favour, like lord Portland, began to be looked upon with the same jealousy; and when the king gave him the order of the garter, in the year 1700, we are told it was generally disliked, and his majesty, to make it pass the better, at the same time conferred the like honour on Jord Pembroke (an English nobleman of illustrious birth). Yet it was observed, that few of the nobility graced the ceremony of their installation with their presence, and that many severe reflections were then made on his majesty, for giving the garter to his favourite. The king had for a long time given the earl of Portland the entire and absolute government of Scotland; and his lordship was also employed, in the year 1698, in the new negociation set on foot for the succession of the Crown of Spain, called by the name of the partition treaty > the intention of which being frustrated by the treachery of the French king, the treaty itself fell under severe censure, and was looked upon as a fatal slip in the politics of that reign; and lord Portland was impeached by the house of commons, in the year 1700, for advising and transacting it, as were also the other lords concerned with him in it. This same year, lord Portland was a second time attacked, together with lord Albemarle, by the house of commons, when the affair of the disposal of the forfeited estates in Ireland was under their consideration; it appearing upon inquiry, that the king had, among many other grants, made one to lord Woodstock (the earl of Portland’s son) of 135,820 acres of land, and to lord Albemarle two grants, of 108,633 acres in possession and reversion; the parliament came to a resolution to resume these grants; and also resolved, that the advising and passing them was highly reflecting on the king’s honour; and that the officers and instruments concerned in the procuring and passing those grants, had highly failed in the performance of their trust and duty; and also, that the procuring or passing exorbitant grants, by any member now of the privy-council, or by any other that had been a privy -counsellor, in this, or any former reign, to his use or benefit, was a high crime and misdemeanour. To carry their resentment still farther, the commons, immediately impeached the earls of Portland and Albemarle, for procuring for themselves exorbitant grants. This impeachment, however, did not succeed, and then the commons voted an address to his majesty, that no person who was not a native of his dominions, excepting his royal highness prince George of Denmark, should be admitted to his majesty’s councils in England or Ireland, but this was evaded by the king’s going the very next day to the house of lords, passing the bills that were ready, and putting an end to the session. The partition treaty was the last public transaction we find lord Portland engaged in, the next year after his impeachment, 1701, having put a period to the life of his royal and munificent master, king William III.; but not without having shewn, even in his last moments, that his esteem and affection for lord Portland ended but with his life: for when his majesty was just expiring, he asked, though with a faint voice, for the earl of Portland, but before his lordship could come, the king’s voice quite failed him. The earl, however, placing his ear as near his majesty’s mouth as could be, his lips were observed to move, but without strength to express his mind to his lordship; but, as the last testimony of the cordial affection he bore him, he took him by the hand, and carried it to his heart with great tenderness, and expired soon after. His lordship had before been a witness to, and signed his majesty’s last will and testament, made at the Hague in 1695; and it is said, that king William, the winter before he died, told lord Portland, as they were walking together in the garden at Hampton court, that he found his health declining very fast, and that he could not live another summer, but charged his lordship not to mention this till after his majesty’s death. We are told, that at the time of the king’s death, lord Portland was keeper of Windsor great park, and was displaced upon queen Anne’s accession to the throne: we are not, however, made acquainted with the time when his lordship became first possessed of that post. After king William’s death, the earl did not, at least openly, concern himself with public affairs, but betook himself to a retired life, in a most exemplary way, at his seat at Bulstrode in the county of Bucks, where he erected and plentifully endowed a free-school; and did many other charities. His lordship had an admirable taste for gardening, and took great delight in improving and beautifying his own gardens, which he made very elegant and curious. At length, being taken ill of a pleurisy and malignant fever, after about a week’s illness he died, November 23, 1709, in the sixty-first year of his age, leaving behind him a very plentiful fortune, being at that time reputed one of the richest subjects in Europe. His corpse being conveyed to London, was, on the third of December, carried with, great funeral pomp, from his house in St. James’s square to Westminster-abbey, and there interred in the vault under the east window of Henry the Seventh’s chapel.

Henry, his son, second earl, was created duke of Portland, 1716, and having incurred great loss of fortune by the South Sea bubble, went over as governor to Jamaica, 1722, and died there 1726, aged forty-five. William his son, second duke, who died in 1762, married lady Margaret Cavendish Harley, only child of the second earl of Oxford, and heiress to the vast estates of the Cavendishes, formerly dukes of Newcastle. This lady, after the duke’s death, lived with splendid hospitality at Bulstrode, which was the resort not only of persons of the highest rank, but of those most distinguished for talents and eminence in the literary world. To her, posterity will ever be indebted, for securing to the public the inestimable treasures of learning contained in the noble manuscript library of her father and grandfather, earls of Oxford, now deposited in the British museum, by the authority of parliament, under the guardianship of the most distinguished persons of the realm, easy of access, and consequently of real use to the philosopher, the statesman, the historian, and the scholar. She died July 17, 1785, and the following year her own museum, collected at vast expence to herself', and increased by some valuable presents from her friends, was disposed of by auction, by the late Mr. Alderman Skinner. The sale lasted thirty-seven days. Among the books was the fine Missal, known by the name of the Bedford Missal, of which Mr. Gough published an account, as will be noticed in his life. This splendid volume was purchased by, and is now in the very curious and valuable library of James Edwards, esq. of Harrow-on-the-hill.

, third duke of Portland, was born in 1738, and educated at Christchurch, Oxford, where he was created M. A. Feb. 1, 1757. He afterwards travelled for some time on the continent, and on his return was elected M. P. for Weobly, but in 1762 was called up to the house of peers on the death of his father. From that period, we find him generally dividing on important questions with the minority, and having connected himself with the late marquis of Rockingham, during that nobleman’s short-lived administration in 1765, he held the office of lord chamberlain. In 1767-8, his grace was involved in a long dispute with government respecting the grant of the forest of Inglewood to sir James Lowther, which had been part of the estates belonging to the duke’s ancestors, but by a decision of the court of exchequer in 1771, the grant was declared to be illegal. During the progress of the Ameiican war, his grace continued invariably to vote with the party who opposed the measures of administration, and became perhaps more closely united to them by his marriage with lady Dorothy Cavendish, sister to the duke of Devonshire. When the administration of lord North, which had conducted that unfortunate war, was dissolved in 1782, and replaced by the marquis of Rockingham, and his friends, the duke of Portland was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but owing to the death of the marquis, he remained in this office only about three months. In consequence of the same event, some of the party were for earl Fitzwilliam, and some for the duke of Portland, as the ostensible head of the new arrangement, but in the mean time his majesty preferred the earl of Shelburne, Mr. Pitt, &c. The memorable coalition then took place between lord North and Mr. Fox, supported by many of the friends of the latter; but soon was not more unacceptable to his majesty than to the nation, whose confidence in public professions was shaken to a degree of indifference from which perhaps it has never since recovered. The coalition-ministry, however, having the voice of the house of commons in their favour, his majesty determined to appeal to the people by a general election, the issue of which was completely unfavourable to his grace’s friends; and Mr. Pitt, who had been appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, found a decided majority of the parliament and of the country on his side. An attempt was indeed made to engage Mr. Pitt and the duke in the same administration, but as the latter insisted as a preliminary, that Mr. Pitt should resign, the negociation was soon broken off.

From that time his grace continued to act with the opposition until 1792, when he was, although not without opposition, elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, and soon after, being alarmed at the progress of the French revolution in the destruction of every venerable establishment, and particularly at the pains taken to disseminate disorganizing principles in this country, his grace, with the celebrated Mr. Burke, and other friends of the party, agreed to support the measures of administration. Accordingly, in 1794, he was appointed secretary of state for the home department, which he held until Mr. Pitt'a administration resigned in 1801. He was then appointed president of the council, which he held until 1805. On the resignation of lord Grenville, he was appointed, in April 1307, first lord of the treasury, which he resigned soon after, and was succeeded by Mr. Perceval. He had long been afflicted with the stone, for which he underwent the operation, apparently successfully, but the duration of the disease had undermined his constitution, and he died Oct. 30, 1809.

The duke of Portland was not a man of brilliant parts, nor considered of eminence as a speaker; but his rank, vast property, conciliatory manners, and above all, his integrity, gave him considerable weight as-a public character, and rendered his loss to the party which he left, severely felt. He uniformly enjoyed the friendship and attachment of Mr. Burke, and, as chancellor of Oxford, was discriminating, judicious, and liberal in his patronage of men of merit.

, one of the best Italian poets of the sixteenth century, was born at Bologna in 1506, of one of the most illustrious families of that city and of all Italy. His father, Hannibal II. being obliged, by pope Julius II. to leave his country, of which his ancestors had been masters from the commencement of the fifteenth century, and to go to Milan, he took his son with him, then an infant. Seven years after, he settled with his whole family at Ferrara, under the protection of the princes of the house of Este, to whom he was nearly related. His son here made rapid progress in his studies, and became distinguished at the court of duke Alphonso I. He was accomplished in music, singing, and the sports and exercises of manly youth; and to all this he added a solidity of judgment which procured him to be employed by the dukes of Ferrara in state-affairs of importance. He was employed on one of these negociations when he died, Nov. 6, 1573. His works, which were printed at first separately, and inserted in many of the collections, were published together under the title of “Opere poetiche del sig. Ercole Bentivoglio,” Paris, 1719, 12mo. They consist of sonnets, stanzas, eclogues, satires, which for easy elegance of style are inferior only to those of Ariosto; five epistles or capitoli, in the manner of Berni, and two comedies of great merit. Of these last there was a French translation by Fabre, printed at Oxford, 1731, 8vo.

, celebrated in the Romish church as a cardinal, and in literature as a historian, was of the same family with the preceding, and born at Ferrara in 1579. After studying there for some time, he went to Padua, where he soon had occasion to display his prudence and address. When pope Clement VIII. was determined to take possession of Ferrara, under the pretence that Caesar of Este, who succeeded the childless duke Alphonsus, was of an illegitimate branch, the marquis Hippolyto Bentivoglio, brother to Guy, a general officer in the service of Alphonsus, and attached to Caesar, excited the anger of cardinal Aldobrandini, who commanded the expedition, under the title of General of the holy church. Guy, who was now only nineteen years old, went immediately to the cardinal, to negociate for his brother, by the mediation of cardinal Bandini, a friend to his family, and contributed very essentially to make his brother’s peace, after the treaty had been concluded between the pope and the duke in January 1598. The pope having gone in person to take possession of Ferrara, admitted young Bentivoglio into his presence, and gave him the title of his private chamberlain.

After he had passed some years at Rome, where he made many friends, pope Paul V. appointed him his referendary, and sent him, with the title of archbishop of Rhodes, as apostolic nuncio, into Flanders, where he arrived in 1607. After remaining there nine years, he was, in 1617, appointed nuncio in France, and acted with so much dexterity with respect to the affairs of both courts, that when he was made cardinal, Jan. 11, 1621, Louis XIII. chose him to be the agent of France at the court of Rome. Here he soon became the confidential friend of pope Urban VIII. who, in 1641, bestowed on him the bishopric of Palestrina. On the death of this pope in 1644, it was generally thought that cardinal Bentivoglio would be his successor; but he had scarcely entered the conclave when the heat overpowered him, and brought on a fever, of which he died September 7, of that year. He was interred in the church of the Theatins of St. Silvester, in a private manner, agreeably to his own desire, owing to his affairs being deranged. He owed large sums at his death, in order to pay part of which he had been obliged, some time before, to sell his palace at Rome. A magnificent style of living was then one of the means by which the Romish ecclesiastics endeavoured to acquire the humble title of “Servant of servants,” and Bentivoglio had not neglected this or any other expedient. He was in truth a consummate politician, knew how to re^ concile clashing interests, and how to assume every necessary change of character; his historical memoirs partake of this character, being cautious, reserved, yet amusing and illustrative of the characters and events of the times in which he lived. His works are, 1. “Relazioni del card. Bentivoglio in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra e di Francia, date in luce da Ericio Puteano (Henry Dupuy), Antwerp, 1629; Cologne, 1630; Paris, 1631; all in 4to; translated into English by Henry earl of Monmouth, London, 1652, folio. 2.” Delia guerra di Fiandra,“in six books, printed at various times, but all included in the edition of Cologne, 1639, 4to, which is considered as the best. This likewise was translated into English by the earl of Monmouth, 1654, folio. 3.” Kaccolta di lettere scritte in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra et di Francia,“Cologne, 1631, 4to. A fine edition of this was lately published by M. Biagioli, at Didot’s press, Paris, 1807, 12mo, with French notes, grammatical and philosophical, and a literal translation was published at London, 1764, for the use of learners of the Italian tongue, but it was feebly executed. In 1727, an edition of the original was printed at Cambridge. 4.” Memorie^ owero diario del cardinal Bentivoglio,“Amst. 1648, 8vO. He wrote these memoirs in 1642, with a view, as he says in his preface, to please himself, and he relates what he would wish posterity to know of his history and character. The whole of his works, with the exception of his” Memoirs," were published together at Paris, 1645, folio, and apparently reprinted 1648, but this is the same publication with a new title-page. They were also printed, including the Memoirs, at Venice, 1668, 4to.

, of Arragon, of the family of the Bentivoglios of Bologna, but only collaterally related to that of the cardinal, was born at Ferrara, about the middle of the sixteenth century. He bore the titles of a nobleman of Ferrara, Venice, and Bologna, was marquis of Magliano and count of Antignato. He studied first in Italy, and afterwards at Paris, and then embraced a military life, and served in the rank of captain, in Flanders, in 1588. On his return to Italy, he made the tour of the different courts, and being at that of Modena when the duke Francis was about to depart for the siege of Pavia, he went with him as colonel of cavalry, and distinguished himself. To the science of arms he joined those of literature, was well acquainted with Greek, Latin, several modern languages, music, and architecture, both civil and military. He is said likewise to have invented some ingenious machinery for the Italian stage, his turn being particularly to dramatic poetry; and he was also a member of various academies. He died at Ferrara, February 1, 1685. On the Ferrara stage he produced three dramas: “L'Annibale in Capoa,” “La Filli di Tracia,” and “L‘Achille in Sciro’;” the latter was printed at Ferrara, 1663, 12mo. He wrote also “Tiridate,” represented on the Venetian stage, and printed 1668, 12mo; and a comedy in prose, “Impegni per disgracia,” which was published after his death, at Modena, 1687, His lyric poems are in various collections, but principally in “Rime scelte de' poeti Ferraresi.”

, of Arragon, a cardinal and poet, one of the sons of the preceding, was born at Ferrara, March 27, 1668, and in the course of his studies, distinguished himself by the progress he made in the belleslettres, philosophy, theology, and law, and was an able and successful supporter of the literary establishments of his country. Having afterwards gone to reside at Rome, he was promoted by Clement XI. to be his domestic prelate, and clerk of the apostolic chamber, and in 1712 was sent as nuncio to France, with the title of archbishop of Carthage. There, having discovered much zeal in the affair of the bull Unigenitus, he acquired high favour at the court of Louis XIV. vvhicii he did not preserve after the death of that monarch. The pope, on that event, recalled him from Paris, and at Ferrara he was made cardinal in November, 1719. He then settled at Rome, where many other dignities were conferred upon him, and where he died, December 30, 1732. Amidst his whole career of ecclesiastical promotions and duties, he found leisure to cultivate his taste for polite literature. There are extant several of his harangues pronounced on various occasions; that which he delivered at Rome, in the academy of design, in which he investigates the uses, to taste and morals, of the arts of painting, sculpture, and architecture, was printed under the title “Utile delle belle arti riconosciuto per l'accademia del disegno, orazione,” &c. liome, 1707, and reprinted in vol. II. of the “Prose degli A-rcadi.” The work, however, which entitles him to a place among the poets of Italy, is his beautiful translation of Statius, “La Tebaidadi Stazio tradotto in verso sciolto da Seivaggio Porpora,” (a fictitious name), Rome, 1729, 4to; Milan, 1731, 2 vols. 4to. There are besides some of his sonnets in the collections. His brother Louis and his sister Cornelia were also cultivators of poetry. The latter, who died in 1711, is highly spoken of by Crescembini in his history of the academy of the Arcadians of Rome.

, regius professor of divinity, and master of Trinity college, Cambridge, a very eminent critic of*he last age, was born January 27, 1661-2, at Oulton, in the parish of Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. His ancestors, who were of some consideration, possessed an estate, and had a seat at Hepenstall, in the parish of Halifax. His grandfather, James Bentley, was a captain in king Charles I.'s army, at the time of the civil wars, and being involved in the fate of his party, had his house plundered, his estate confiscated, and was himself carried prisoner to Pomfret castle, where he died. Thomas Bentley, the son of James, and father of Dr. Bentley, married the daughter of Richard Willis of Oulton, who had been a major in the royal army. This lady, who was a woman of exceeding good understanding, taught her son Richard his accidence. To his grandfather Willis, who was left his guardian, he was, in part, indebted for his education; and having gone through the grammar-school at Wakefield with singular reputation, both for his proficiency and his exact and regular behaviour, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Johnson, on the 24th of May, 1676, being then only four months above fourteen years of age. On the 22d of March, 1681-2, he stood candidate for a fellowship, and would have been unanimously elected, had he not been excluded by the statutes, on account of his being too young for priest’s orders. He was then a junior bachelor, and but little more than nineteen years old. It was soon after this that he became a schoolmaster at Spalding. But that he did not continue Jong in this situation is certain from a letter of his grandfather Willis’s, still preserved in the family, from which it appears that he was with Dr. Stillingfleet, at the deanery of St. Paul’s, on the 25th of April, 1683. He had been recommended by his college to the dean, as preceptor to his son and Dr. Stillingfleet gave Mr. Bentley his choice, whether he would carry his pupil to Cambridge or Oxford. He fixed upon the latter university, on account of the Bodleian library, to the consulting of the manuscripts of which he applied with the closest attention. Being now of age, he made over a small estate, which he derived from his family, to his elder brother, and immediately laid out the money he obtained for it in the purchase of books. It is recorded of him, that having, at a very early age, made surprising progress in the learned languages, his capacity for critical learning soon began to display itself. Before the age of twenty-four, he had written with his own hand a sort of Hexapla, a thick volume in 4to, in the first column of which was every word of the Hebrew bible, alphabetically disposed, and in five other columns all the various interpretations of those words, in the Chalclee, Syriac, Vulgate Latin, Septuagint, and Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodosian, that occur in the whole Bible. This he made for his own private use, to know the Hebrew, not from the late rabbins, but the ancient versions, when, excepting Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, he must then have read over the whole Polyglott. He had also at that time made, for his own private use, another volume in 4 to, of the various lections and emendations of the Hebrew text, drawn out of those ancient versions, which, though done at such an early age, would have made a second part to the famous Capellus’s “Critica Sacra.”

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

The proceedings of the university against Dr. Bentley in 1717 also, which were represented as violent and unjustifiable, as the effects of a power falsely usurped, or scandalously abused, and as arising from the malice of a party disaffected to the government, were the cause of great ferment and uneasiness in the university, and raised the curiosity, and drew the eyes of the whole nation upon them; for which reason we shall be a little particular in our account, that we may give the reader a just idea of the affair. In October 1717, the day after his majesty’s visit to the university, when several doctors in divinity, named by mandate, were attending in the senate-house to receive their degrees, Dr. Bentley, on creation, made a demand of four guineas from each of them, as a fee due to him as professor, over and above a broad -piece, which had by custom been allowed as a present on this occasion; and absolutely refused to create any doctor till this fee was paid him. This occasioned a long and warm dispute, till at last many of the doctors, and Dr. Middleton among the rest, consented to pay the fee in question, upon this condition, that Dr. Bentley should restore the money if it wasjiot afterwards determined to be his right. In the next meeting, those who had paid the fee were created, but he refused, to create such as would not pay it; upon which Dr. Grigg, then vice-chancellor, gave orders that some other doctor should perform the ceremony instead of him; and accordingly Dr. Fisher, the master -of Sydney-college, created several for the usual gratuity of a broad-piece. Upon this, they sent a state of the case to the chancellor, the duke of Somerset. Dr. Bentley still insisted upon his claim; but at last, instead of money, was content with a note from the rest, promising the payment of it, if it should be determined for him by the king, or any authority delegated from him; and at last submitted to create one of the king’s doctors, who came last, and some others who commenced afterwards, without either fee or note. Matters went on thus for near a twelvemonth, the doctor being in quiet possession of the money and notes: but nothing being determined about his right or title to it, Dr. Middleton thought he had reason to expect his money again; and accordingly (as it is said) he made a demand of it, first by letter, which was taken no notice of, and afterwards in person, and then applied to the vice-chancellor for a decree, which, from the tender regard the vice-chancellor had for Dr. Bentley, he was some time before he could obtain. At length, however, the decree was granted, and a known enemy of Dr. Bentley’s employed to serve it, who went to Trinity-lodge on Tuesday the 23d of September; but whether through ignorance in his own business, or that he believed Dr. Bentley, who told him that it signified nothing, not having the consent of nine heads to it, or that he had some other design than that of arresting him, he left the arrest, decree, &c. with theloctor, and came away without executing the vice-chancellor’s orders at all. Dr. Bentley was afterwards arrested by another beadle, on the 1st of October, with a second decree, which doubtless argued the invalidity of the first. The professor supposing the authority of the arrest not sufficient, refused to submit to it; but on farther consideration obeyed the writ, and put in bail. Every one, but such as were let into the secret, expected this four guineas affair would end here. Friday, the 3d of October, being appointed for the trial, the doctor only appeared there by his proctor, which was looked upon as a contempt of the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. Dr. Middleton, therefore, by the leave of the court, appointed Mr. Cook his proctor, who accused Dr. Bentley of contempt for not appearing, and moved for some censure upon it, and called for the beadle to make a return of the first decree. But he being confined in his chamber by a lit of the gout, there made an affidavit, by improving some circumstantial talk he had with the doctor and some other gentlemen, the subject of which was, a complaint of the ill usage he had met with in his attending at Dr. Bentley’s lodgings. Among other things, the beadle deposed, That Dr. Bentley said to him, “I will not be concluded by what the vice-chancellor and two or three of his friends shall determine over a bottle;” (thereby reflecting on the clandestine way in which they had proceeded against him, without the formal consent of such a number of heads as he thought necessary to make a statutable arrest). For this expression, the vice-chancellor suspended the doctor from all his degrees, who had no citation, no hearing, not so much as any notice, from any hand, of what was then doing; and the vice-chancellor declared that he would vacate the doctor’s professorship in two or three days, if he did not make his humble submission. Three court days are allowed for this submission, viz. the 7th, 9th, and 15th of October. On the two former days his name was not mentioned, and on the last, the vice-chancellor would certainly have forgot to summon him, if he had not been reminded by his brother the clean of Chichcster. That same day the vice-chancellor required the professor to submit, and own himself rightly suspended, which he refused, but had recourse to the only remedy that was now left, viz. an appeal to the delegates of the university which was arbitrarily refused him. On this the vice-chancellor, thinking it prudent to have the sanction of the university to back him, called a congregation, and on the third court day after the suspension, informed the university of the steps he had taken, and the message he had sent the professor, which was, that he required him to come and acknowledge his crime, the legality of his suspension, and humbly beg to be restored to his degrees; to which the gentleman (he said) had returned no answer; and then he commanded it to be registered, that he would deliberate farther of what was to be done, towards the maintenance of the university privileges and his own authority. Eight heads were present in the consistory, viz. two visitors of Bene't-college, Dr. Cove! and Dr. Balderston three late chaplains to his majesty, Dr. Laney, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Sherlock; the rival professor, Dr. Fisher; the masters of Clhre-ha!l and St. John’s college, Dr. Grigg and Dr. Jenkin. These gentlemen, at a consultation the same afternoon, in the master of Peterhouse’s lodge, appointed a congregation the next morning to degrade the professor. But,“”when the time came, a friend of the professor’s being that day one of the caput, other business was proposed, but not concluded. On Friday morning, no mention was made, as ought to have been, of the proceedings at the last congregation; but, in the afternoon, Oct. 3, 1718, a vote of the body deprived Dr. Bentley of all the privileges, honours, and degrees, that he had received from it. Upon this, Dr. Bentley drew up a petition, which he presented to his majesty Oct. 30, 1718, complaining of the proceedings of the vice-chancellor and university, and begging his majesty’s relief and protection, as supreme visitor of the university. The king in council taking the said petition into consideration, was pleased to order the same to be sent to the reverend Dr. Gooch, vice-chancellor; who was thereby directed to attend his majesty in council on Thursday the 6th of November 1718, to give an account of the proceedings which occasioned this complaint. On this day the case was heard between the university and the doctor, before the king and council, and afterwards referred to a committee of council; but the ministry being unwilling to interpose their authority with regard to the proceedings, the matter was farther referred, in a judicial way, to the court of king’s bench, where it was kept some time in agitation. At length, however, the proceedings of the university were reversed by that court; and on February the 7th, 1723-4, the court of king’s bench sent down a mandamus to the university of Cambridge, to restore Mr. Bentley, master of Trinity college, to all his degrees, and whatever he had been deprived of, &c. This was agreeable to a prophetic passage at the end of one of the pamphlets, at that time printed in his defence: “When our present heats are over, I question not but our professor’s case will be looked upon with another eye, if it be not already seen, that the honour of the university was made a pretext only to cover the resentments of some particular persons amongst its members. As the determination of it lies at present before a judgment where merit and not malice is likely to be regarded, we shall in a little time, I make no doubt, with a more scholar-like pleasure than can be perceived in this usage of the learned Bentley, congratulate ourselves upon his restoration to his well -merited honours.”

After this victory his time appears to have been chiefly employed on the literary undertakings of which we have given some account, until his death, July 14, 1742. He was buried in Trinity college chapel.

The life of this eminent scholar and critic, as given in the Biographia Britannica, although professedly corrected from the first edition of that work, remains a confused collection of materials, from which we have found it difficult to form anything like a regular sketch. Few names were more familiar to the scholar and the wit in the first three reigns of the eighteenth century, than that of Bentley, but no approach has yet been made to a regular and impartial narrative of his life. This is the more to be regretted, because he occupied a large space of the literary world, and was connected by friendship or controversy with some of the most eminent writers of his age, both at home and abroad. It has been justly observed, that when we consider the great abilities and uncommon eruvlition of Dr. Bentley, it reflects some disgrace on our country, that even his literary reputation should so long be treated with contempt, that he should be represented as a mere verbal critic, and as a pedant without genius. The unjust light in which he was placed, was not entirely owing to the able men who opposed him in the Boylean controversy. It arose, perhaps, principally from the poets engaging on the same side of the question, and making him the object of their satire and ridicule. The “slashing Bentley” of Pope will be remembered and repeated by thousands who know nothing of the doctor’s real merit. Perhaps it may be found that this asperity of Mr. Pope was not entirely owing to the combination of certain wits and poets against Dr. Bentley, but to personal resentment. We are told that bishop Atterbury having Bentley and Pope both at dinner with him, insisted on knowing what opinion the doctor entertained of the English Homer; he for some time eluded the question, but, at last, being urged to speak out, he said: “The verses are good verses; but the work is not Homer, it is Spondanus.”

Amidst all the opposition, however, raised against Dr. Bentley, by the wantonness of wit, or the spleen of controversy, it may not be difficult to form a correct opinion of his general character from his critical and controversial writings. His extensive learning is universally acknowledged, yet the stern and unaccommodating manners of the pedant are not less obvious. His critical powers were perhaps equal, if not superior, to any man of his time, and would have been the object of unmixed admiration, had he exerted them with less rashness, and with less of that conceit which sometimes made him value a happy yet merely probable conjecture, as if it had been a decision founded on incontrovertible proof. Although he possessed what his enemies have not denied him, a peculiarly acute and comprehensive mind, he too often consulted his imagination, and was seduced by that to enlarge the fair boundaries of critical conjecture beyond all reasonable measure. Of his works, now to be found in libraries, one may surely be esteemed a valuable proof of his talents and judgment; his edition of Horace: and the loss of his Greek Testament, by whatever means that work was interrupted, may be considered as depriving the author of what would probably have handed down his name to posterity with the highest honours due to critical acumen and accuracy.

Besides the estimate we form of him as a scholar, Bentley may be viewed in two lights, as a public and a private character. On the former, it must be confessed that his disputes with the university have thrown a dark shade; and in both it may be said, that no man could have created so many enemies, without some just provocation. Whether this consisted only in a certain haughty and repulsive address, or coarseness of manners, and in a want of those amiable qualities which dignify social life and official station; or whether the accusations brought against him were of sufficient importance to justify the treatment he met with, independent of all personal considerations, may perhaps be ascertained by a close examination of the evidence (yet accessible) which was produced on this controversy. The restoration to his honours and privileges by a court of law, was undoubtedly a triumph, as far as those honours and privileges were valuable to him; but we do not find that he was restored to, or indeed ever possessed^ that general esteem which his vast erudition and rank in academic life might have commanded under other circumstances.

Of his private character we have lately had some information from his grandson Richard Cumberland, esq. who in his own Memoirs, published a few years since, has given the following particulars: His " ordinary style of conversation was naturally lofty, and his frequent use of thee and thou with his familiars, carried with it a kind of dictatorial tone that savoured more of the closet than the court. This is readily admitted; and this, on first approaches, might mislead a stranger but the native candour and inherent tenderness of his heart could not long be veiled from observation, for his feelings and affections were at once too impulsive to be long repressed, and he too careless of concealment to attempt at qualifying them. Such was his sensibility towards human sufferings, that it became a duty with his family to divert the conversation from all topics of that sort; and if he touched upon them himself, he was betrayed into agitations, which, if any one ascribes to paralytic weakness, he will greatly mistake a man, who, to the last hour of his life, possessed his faculties firm and in their full vigour. His emotions on these occasions had no other source and origin but in the natural and pure benevolence of his heart.

* f He was communicative to all without distinction that sought information, or that resorted to him for assistance; fond of his college almost to enthusiasm, and ever zealous for the honour of the purple gown of Trinity. When he held examinations for fellowships, and the modest candidate exhibited marks of agitation and alarm, he never failed to interpret cancLdly of such symptoms: and on those occasions he was never known to press the hesitating and embarrassed examinant, but oftentimes, on the contrary, would take all the pains of expounding on himself, and credit the exonerated candidate for answers and interpretations of his own suggesting/'

Before Mr. Cumberland’s death, he disposed of about sixty volumes of Greek and Latin classics belonging to Dr. Bentley, enriched with the doctor’s manuscript notes. These are now in the British museum, and it is no secret that the very learned papers in the “Observer” on the Greek poets, published by Mr. Cumberland as his own, were taken from his grandfather’s Mss. Some original letters by Le Clerc and Dr. Bentley, between whom, was a serious quarrel respecting Le Clerc’s “ Menandri et Philemonis Reliquiae,” were purchased at Dr. Askew' s sale by the university of Cambridge, and printed in the ninth volume of Mr. Maty’s review. In 1807, the rev. Dr. Charles Burney presented to his learned friends a quarto volume, magnificently printed, of inedited letters of Dr. Bentley, &c. under the title “R. Bentleii et doctorum virorum Epistolac, partim mutua?. Accedit Richard! Dawesii ad Joannem Tayloruui epistola singularis.” Grsevius is Dr. Bentley’s principal correspondent in this interesting volume, which does so much honour to the munificent spirit of its editor, himself tali studio facillimc princeps,

We shall now attempt a catalogue of Dr. Bentley’s works, not hitherto noticed, and of the principal of those published respecting his controversies, as far as the latter can be ascertained. His first publication, as already noticed, was his epistle to Dr. Mill, under the title: 1. “Johannis Antiocheni Cognomento Malaise Historia Chronica e Mss. Cod. Bibliothecre Bodleianae, nunc primum edita, cum interp. et notis Edm. Chilmeadi et triplice indice rerum, autorum et vocum barbarum. Prsemittitur dissertatio de autore, per Humfredum Hodium, S. T. B. Coll. Wadhami Socium. Accedit Epistola Richardi Bentleii ad CI. V. Jo. Millium, S. T. P. cum indice scriptorum, qui ibi emendantur,” Oxonii, 1691, 8vo. 2. His “Sermons at Boyle’s Lectures,” 1693-4, 4to. His controversy with Mr. Boyle on the edition of Phalaris, which produced in 1697, 3. His “Dissertation upon the Epistles of Themistocles, Socrates, Euripides, Phalaris, and the Fables of Æsop,” at the end of the second edition of Wotton’s “Reflections on ancient and modern learning.” This occasioned Mr. Boyle’s work, “Dr. Bentley’s Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris and the Fables of Æsop examined, 1698; usually known by the title of” Boyle Against Bentley.“Dr. fientley then published, 4.” Dr. Bentley’s answer to the above,“commonly known by the name of” Bentley against Boyle,“a curious piece, interspersed with a great deal of true wit and humour. This was for some time a scarce book; but it was reprinted in 1777, by Bowyer and Nichols, with the advantage of several valuable notes and observations, either collected from, or communicated by, bishops Warburton and Lowth, Mr. Upton, Mr. W. Clarke, Mr. Markland, Dr. Salter, Dr. Owen, and Mr. Toup. These were the several pieces which appeared in this great dispute, excepting some few that were published against the doctor, hardly any of which are now known, except” A short review of the controversy between Mr. Boyle and Dr. Bentley,“1701, 8vo.; and previous to that,” A short account of Dr. Bentley’s humanity and justice to those authors who have written before him, with an honest vindication of Thomas Stanley, esq. and his notes on Callimachus. To which are added some other observations on that poet, in a letter to the honourable Charles Boyle, esq. with a Postscript, in relation to Dr. Bentley’s late book against him. To which is added an Appendix, by the bookseller, wherein the doctor’s misrepresentations of all the matters of fact, wherein he is concerned, in his late book about Phalaris’s Epistles, are modestly considered, with a letter from the honourable Charles Boyle on that subject,“Lond. 1699, 8vo. 5.” Annotationes, in Callimachum ultra, 1697. Collectio fragmentorum Callimachi et Annotationes ad eadem.“Of this an edition was published in 1741, 8vo. 6.” Remarks upon a late discourse on Free-thinking (by Collins) in two parts, by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,“Lond. 1713, 8vo 1719, 1725. 7.” Q. Horatius Flaccus ex recensione, et cum notis et emendationibus R. Bentleii,“Camb, 1711, 4to; Amst. 1713 and 1728, 8vo Leipsic, 1763, 2 vols. 8.” Proposals for printing a new edition of the Greek Testament,“Lond. 1721, 4to. Of the pamphlets pro and con respecting his disputes with his college and with the university, a very correct catalogue may be seen in Gough’s” British Topography."

, only son of the preceding, was a man of various and considerable accomplishments, with wit, genius, and elegant manners; but was imprudent in his conduct, frequently involved in distresses, and reduced to situations uncongenial with his feelings, and unfavourable to the cultivation and encouragement of his talents. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, lived for some years after his marriage in the South of France, and in the island of Jersey, and afterwards, about 1763, at Teddington, near Twickenham, in consequence of his intimacy with Mr. Horace Walpole. His nephew informs us that “they carried on, for a long time, a sickly kind of friendship, which had its hot fits and cold tits, was suspended and renewed, but never totally broken.” Mr. Bentley was the designer of many of the gothic embellishments of Strawberry-hill, and made also the designs for an edition of Gray’s works, printed there. In one of these he -personifies himself as a monkey, sitting under a withered tree with a pallet in his hand, while Gray reposes under the shade of a flourishing laurel. “Such a design,” says Mr. Cumberland, “with figures so contrasted, might flatter Gray, and gratify the trivial taste of Walpole; but in my poor opinion it is a satire on copper-plate, and my uncle has most completely libelled both his poet and his patron, without intending so to do.” In Walpole, he certainly did not find a very liberal patron, yet it is said that he enjoyed a place of about JiOO a year by that gentleman’s means, and had also the profits of the “Lucan,” printed at Strawberry-hill, amounting to about 40. For the translation of “Hentzner’s Account of England,” on which Mr. Walpole employed him, he was promised clOO; but this, according to Mr. Cole’s account, his patron reserved for his family.

About the conclusion of the last reign, his nephew, Mr. Cumberland, brought him acquainted with the celebrated Bubb Doddington, afterwards lord Melcombe, and by his means he got some situation under administration, which he does not specify. He adds, however, that there was not a man of literary talents in the kingdom, who stood so high in favour with the premier, lord Bute, as Mr. Bentley, and though, when his lordship went out of office, Mr. Bentley lost every place of profit that could be taken from him, he continued to enjoy a pension of 500 per annum, in which his widow had her life, and received it many years after his decease. It was in consequence of this connection that he wrote in 1765, “Patriotism,” a satirical poem, attacking Wilkes and his friends; reprinted in Dilly’s Repository, vol. IV. Before this he had composed his drama of “The Wishes,” which was privately rehearsed at lord Melcombe’s villa, but was unsuccessful on the stage. Mr. Bentley in 1761 wrote his poetical “Epistle to lord Melcolmbe,” and Mr. Cumberland regrets that, if it be in the hands of any of Mr. Bentley' s family, it should be withheld from the public, not knowing that Mr. Bentley published it himself in the St. James’s Chronicle in April 1763, in consequence of Lloyd, the poet, having printed an incorrect copy in his “St. James’s Magazine.” Mr. Bentley’s other dramas were, “Philodamus,” 1767, which was also unsuccessful; and the “Prophet,” a posthumous comedy, 1788, performed for a few nights. He died in Abingdon-street, Westminster, Oct. 2S, 1782.

, an Italian Jesuit, physician, and mathematician of considerable eminence, was born at Leghorn, Feb. 8, 1716. He began his noviciate among the Jesuits at the age of sixteen, but did not take the four vows, according to the statutes of that order, until eighteen years afterwards. He had already published a funeral oration on Louis Ancajani, bishop of Spoleto, 1743, and a species of oratorio, to be set to music, entitled “Cristo presentato al tempio,” but it was neither as an orator or poet that he was destined to shine. He became professor of philosophy at Fermo, and when father Boscovich was obliged to leave Rome to complete the chorographical chart of the papal state, which he published some years afterwards, Benvenuti succeeded him in the mathematical chair of the Roman college, and also resumed his lectures on philosophy in the same college. His first scientific work was an Italian translation of Clairaut’s Geometry, Rome, 1751, 8vo and he afterwards published two works, which gained him much reputation: 1. “Synopsis Physics generalis,” a thesis maintained by one of his disciples, the marquis de Castagnaga, on Benvenuti’s principles, which were those of sir Isaac Newton, Rome, 1754, 4to. 2. “De Lumine dissertatio physica,” another thesis maintained by the marquis, ibid. 1754, 4to. By both these he contributed to establish the Newtonian system in room of those fallacious principles which had so long obtained in that college; but it must not be concealed that a considerable part of this second work on light, belongs to father Boscovich, as Benvenuti was taken ill before he had completed it, and after it was sent to press. After the expulsion of the Jesuits, there appeared at Rome an attack upon them, entitled “Riflessioni sur Gesuitismo,” 1772, to which Benvenuti replied in a pamphlet, entitled “Irrefiessioni sur Gesuitismo” but this answer gave so much offence, that he was obliged to leave Rome and retire into Poland, where he was kindly received by the king, and became a favourite at his court. He died at Warsaw, in September, 1789.

, an Italian surgeon, or rather physician, was born in the territory of Lucca, about the year 1728. He received the degree of doctor, began practice at Sarzano in 1755, as a member of the faculty; in 1756 was chosen member of the German imperial society; and in 1758 of the royal society of Gottingen, while he was practising at the baths of Lucca. In 1753, he happened to be at a place in that republic, called Brandeglio, where an epidemic fever of a particular kind prevailed, which he treated with great success by means of mercury. This formed the subject of his treatise, entitled “Dissertatio historico-epistolaris, &c.” Lucca, 1754, 8vo, ably defending the preference he found it necessary to give to mercury over the bark, and vindicating Dr. Bertini, of whom he learned that method, against certain opponents. Benvenuti’s other works are, 1. “De Lucensium Thermarum sale tractatus,” Lucca, 1758, 8vo. This he also translated into Italian, with a letter on the virtues of these waters. 2. “Riflessioni sopra gli effetti del moto a cavallo,” Lucca, 1760, 4to. 3. “Dissertatio physica de Lumine,” Vienne, 1761, 4to. 4. “De rubiginis frumentum corrumpentis causa et medela,” Lucca, 1762. 5. “Observationum medicarum quse anatomise superstructae sunt, collectio prima,” Lucca, 1764, 12mo. He also promoted the publication of the first volume of the “Dissertationes et Quaestiones medicae magis celebres,” Lucca, 1757, 8vo. Our authority does not give the date of his death.

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

The count having signed this engagement, instead of being set at liberty, was re-conducted to his prison, and there confined till 4th December 1769, when, about two hours after midnight, an officer with seven soldiers came to him and he was thrown upon a sledge to which two horses were harnessed, and immediately driven away with the greatest swiftness. The darkness of the night prevented the count from discerning the objects around him but on the approach of day-light he perceived that major Wynblath, Vassili Panow, Hippolitus Stephanow, Asaph Baturin, Ivan Sopronow, and several other prisoners, were the companions of his misfortunes and after suffering from the brutality of their conductor a series of hardships, in passing through Tobolzk, the capital of Siberia, the city of Tara, the town and river of Tomsky, the villages of Jakutzk and Judorua, they embarked in the harbour of Ochoczk, on the 26th October 1770, and arrived at Kamschatka on the 3d December following. The ensuing day they were conducted before Mr. Nilow, the governor; when it was intimated to them that they should be set at liberty on the following day, and provided with subsistence for three days, after which they must depend upon themselves for their maintenance that each person should receive from the chancery a musket and a lance, with one pound of powder, four pounds of lead, a hatchet, several knives and other instruments, and carpenter’s tools, with which they might build cabins in any situations they chose, at the distance of one league from the town but that they should be bound to pay in furs, during the first year, each one hundred roubles, in return for these advantages; that every one must work at the corvee one day in the week for the service of government, and not absent themselves from their huts for twenty-four hours without the governor’s permission and after some other equally harsh terms, it was added, that their lives being granted to them for no other purpose than to implore the mercy of God, and the remission of their sins, they could be employed only in the meanest works to gain their daily subsistence. Under these regulations the exiles settled the places of their habitations, built miserable huts to shelter, themselves from the inclemency of the weather, formed themselves into a congress, and after choosing the count de Benyowsky their chief or captain, they swore with great solemnity mutual friendship and eternal fidelity. Among the number of unhappy wretches who had long groaned under the miseries of banishment, was a Mr. Crustiew, who had acquired considerable ascendancy over his fellow-sufferers; and to obtain the particular confidence and esteem of this man was the first object of the count’s attention in which he sogn succeeded,. The pains and perils incident to the situation to which these men were reduced, were borne for some time in murmuring sufferance, until the accidental finding an old copy of Anson’s Voyage inspired them with an idea of making an escape from Kamschatka to the Marian islands; and the count, Mr. Panow, Baturin, Stephanow, Solmanow, majors Wynblath, Crustiew, and one Wasili, an old and faithful servant of the count’s, who had followed his master into exile, formed a confederacy for this purpose. While these transactions were secretly passing, the fame of count Benyowsky’s rank and abilities reached the ear of the governor and as he spoke several languages, he was after some time admitted familiarly into the house, and at length appointed to superintend the education of his son. and his three daughters. “One day,” says the count, ft while I was exercising my office of language-master, the youngest of the three daughters, whose name was Aphanasia, who was sixteen years of age, proposed many questions concerning my thoughts in my present situation^ which convinced me that her father had given them some information concerning my birth and misfortunes. I therefore gave them an account of my adventures, at which my scholars appeared to be highly affected, but the youngest wept very much. She was a beautiful girl, and her sensibility created much emotion in my mind but, alas, I was an exile" The merits of the count, however, soon surmounted the disadvantages of his situation, in the generous mind of miss Nilow, and the increasing intimacy and confidence which he daily gained in the family, joined to the advantages of a fine person and most insinuating address, soon converted the feelings of admiration into the flame of love; and on the llth of January 1771, madame Nilow, the mother, consented that her daughter should do the honours of an entertainment then in contemplation, and be publicly declared his future spouse. But the count, though he had cultivated and obtained the affections of his fair pupil, had acted more from policy than passion, and, intending to use her interest rather as a means of effectuating the meditated escape of himself and his companions, than as any serious object of matrimonial union, contrived to suspend the nuptials, by persuading the governor to make an excursion from Kamschatka to the neighbouring islands, with a view or under pretence of establishing a new colony. During these transactions the exiles were secretly at work; and in order to conceal their design from all suspicion, Mr. Crustiew and Mr. Panow were on the 30th of March deputed to wait on the governor with five and twenty of their associates, to request that he would be pleased to receive the title of Protector of the new colony; and the embassy was not only favourably received, but orders were given to prepare every thing that might be necessary for the execution of the project. At this crisis, however, an accident occurred which had nearly overturned the success of the scheme; and as it tends to discover the disposition of the count, we shall relate it in his own words.

"About flen o'clock this day (1st of April, 1771), I received a message from miss Nilow, that she would call on me in the afternoon, requesting at the same time that I would be alone, because she had affairs of importance to communicate. As I supposed the latter part of this message to be mere pleasantry, I was far from expecting any extraordinary information; and my surprise at the event was much greater, as I had not the least reason to suppose she had made any discovery of my intentions. Miss Nilow arrived at three in the afternoon: her agitation on her first appearance convinced me that she was exceedingly afflicted. At sight of me she paused a moment, and soon after burst into tears, and threw herself into my arms, crying out, that she was unfortunate and forsaken. Her sighs and tears were so extreme, that it was more than a quarter of an hour before I could obtain a connected sentence. I was extremely affected at her situation, and used every expedient to calm her mind, but this was extremely difficult, because I was entirely ignorant of the reason of her affliction. As soon as she became a little composed, she begged me to shut the dcor, that no one might interrupt us. I came back, and on my knees intreated her to explain the cause of her present situation, which she did to the following effect:

"She informed me that her maid had discovered to her, that a certain person named Ivan Kuclrin, one of my associates, had proposed to her to share his fortune, and that this indiscreet person had assured the girl, that he was about to quit Kamschatka with me, to make a voyage to Europe, where he hoped to place her in an agreeable situation. The maid had first related the circumstance to her. mistress; but as she could never believe me capable of such base and treacherous behaviour to her, she was desirous of hearing the account herself, and had, for that purpose, persuaded the maid to appoint a meeting with Kudrin, in order to question him more amply, while she herself might hear the whole, by being concealed behind a curtain. In this manner, she said, she became convinced of her unhappiness and my treachery, and that she would have spared me the confusion of hearing this, if, from a conviction that she could not live after such an affront, she had not been desirous of bidding me a last farewell.

"On finishing these words she fainted, and though I was exceedingly alarmed and distressed on the occasion, yet I did not fail to arrange a plan in my mind, during the interval of her insensibility. When this amiable young lady recovered, she asked if she might give credit to what she had heard. I then threw myself at her feet, and entreated her to hear me calmly, and judge whether 1 was to blame or not. She promised she would, and I addressed her in the following terms:

“You may recollect, my dear friend, the account I gave you of tny birth, and the rank I held in Europe I remember the tears you shed on that occasion. The misfortune of being exiled to Kamschatka would long since have compelled me to deliver myself from tyranny by death, if your acquaintance and attachment had not preserved me: I have lived for you, and if you could read my heart, I am sure I should have your pity; for the possession of your person is become as necessary to my existence as liberty itself. The liberty I speak of is not that which your worthy father has given me, but implies the possession of my estate and rank. J have hoped for the possession of your person, with a view of rendering you happy in the participation of my fortune and dignity. These views cannot be accomplished at Kamschatka. What rank can I bestow on rny lore but that of an exile The favours of your worthy father may be of the shortest duration. His successor may soon recal his ordinances, and plunge me again into that state of suffering and contempt, from which I was delivered for a short moment. Represent to yourself, my dearest friend, the affliction and despair that would overwhelm my soul, when I beheld you a sharer in my pain and disgrace; for you well know that all the Russians esteem the exiles as dishonoured persons. You have forced me to this declaration of my intentions, in which I have been guided by the attachment and sincerity of my heart. I deferred the communication to you, but I swear that such was my resolution.” “Why then,” interrupted she, “did you conceal your intention from me, who am ready to follow you to the farthest limits of the universe?” This assurance encouraged me to proceed, and engage this charming young lady in my interests. I told her, therefore, that I was prevented only by the fear lest she should refuse my proposals on account of her attachment to her parents; but that, as I now had nothing to fear in that respect, I could inform her, that my intention being to leave Kamschatka, I had determined to carry her off; and in order to convince her, I was ready to call Mr. Crustiew, who would confirm the truth. On this assurance she embraced me, and entreated me to forgive her want of confidence, at the same time that she declared her readiness to accompany me.

“This degree of confidential intercourse being established, I persuaded her to dismiss every fear from her mind. Many were the trials I made of her resolution, and the event convinced me that she was perfectly determined to follow my fortunes. The secret being thus secure, by her promise to keep it inviolably, I had no other uneasiness remaining but what arose from the communication having been made to her servant. I mentioned my fears to miss Nilow, who removed them, by assuring me that her servant was too much attached to her to betray her secret, and had, besides, an affection for Kudrin, so that she could answer for her discretion. Thus agreeably ended our conversation, though the commencement was rather tragical, and I received the vows of attachment and fidelity from an artless and innocent mind.”

On the 23d of April 1771 however, “Miss Aphanasia,” says the count, “came to me incognito. She informed me that her mother was in tears, and her father talked with her in a manner which gave reason to fear that he suspected our plot. She conjured me to be careful, and not to come to the fort if sent for. She expressed her fears that it would not be in her power to come to me again, but promised she would in that case send her servant and she entreated me at all events, if I should be compelled to use force against the government, I would be careful of the life of her father, and not endanger my own. I tenderly embraced this charming young lady, and thanked her T^ the interest she took in my preservation and as it appeared important that her absence should not be discovered, I begged her to return and recommend the issue of our intentions to good fortune. Before her departure I reminded her to look minutely after her father, and to send me a red ribband in case government should determine to arrest or attack me and, in the second place, that at the moment of an alarm, she would open the shutter of her window which looked to the garden, and cause a sledge to be laid over the ditch on that side. She promised to comply with my instructions, and confirmed her promises with vows and tears.”

The apprehensions of this faithful girl for the safety of the man she loved, were far from being without foundation; and on the 26th of April she sent the count two red ribbands, to signify the double danger to which she perceived he was exposed. The count, however, coolly prepared to brave the impending storm, and gave orders to the leaders of his associates, amounting in all to fifty-nine persons, to place themselves at the head of their divisions, and station themselves round his house, in readiness to act in the night, in case an attack should be made by the cossacks of the town, and soldiers of the garrison, who, it was rumoured, were busied in preparing their arms. At five o'clock in the evening, a corporal, with four grenadiers, stopped at the count’s door, demanding admittance in the name of the empress, and ordered him to follow the guard to the fort. The count, however, proposed, from a window, to the corporal, that he should enter alone and drink a glass of wine; but, on his being admitted, the door was instantly shut upon him, and four pistols clapped to his breast, by the terror of which he was made to disclose every thing that was transacting at the fort, and at length obliged to call the four grenadiers separately into the house, under pretence of drinking, when they were all five bound together, and deposited safely in the cellar.

This measure was, of course, the signal of resistance, and the count marshalling his associates, who had secretly furnished themselves with arms and ammunition by the treachery of the store-keepers, issued forth from the house to oppose, with greater advantage, another detachment who had been sent to arrest him. After levelling several soldiers to the ground, the count, by the mismanagement of their commander, seized their cannon, turned them with success against the fort itself, and, entering by means of the drawbridge, dispatched the twelve remaining guards who were then within it. “Madame Nilow and her children,” says the count, “at sight of me implored my protection to save their father and husband. I immediately hastened to his apartment, and begged him to go to his children’s room to preserve his life, but he answered that he would first take mine, and instantly fired a pistol, which wounded me. I was desirous nevertheless of preserving him, and continued to represent that all resistance would be useless, for which reason I entreated him to retire. His wife and children threw themselves on their knees, but nothing would avail he flew upon me, seized me by the throat, and left me no other alternative than either to give lip my own life, or run my sword through his body. At this period the petard, by which my associates attempted to make a breach, exploded, and burst the outer gate. The second was open, and I saw Mr. Panow enter at the head of a party. He entreated the governor to let me go, but not being able to prevail on him, he set me at liberty by splitting his skull.” The count by this event became complete master of the fort, and by the cannon and ammunition which he found on the rampart, was enabled, with the ready and active assistance of his now increased associates, to repel the attack which was made upon him by the cossacks; but flight, not resistance, was the ultimate object of this bold commander; and in order to obtain this opportunity, he dispatched a drum and a woman as a sign of parley to the cossacks, who had quitted the town and retired to the heights, with a resolution to invest the fort and starve the insurgents, informing them of his resolution to send a detachment of associates into the town to drive all the women and children into the church, and there to burn them all to death, unless they laid down their arms. While this embassy was sent, preparation was made for carrying the threat it contained into immediate execution; but by submitting to the proposal, the execution of this horrid measure was rendered unnecessary, and the count not only received into the fort fifty-two of the principal inhabitants of the town, as hostages for the fidelity of the rest, but procured the archbishop to preach a sermon in the church in favour of the revolution. The count was now complete governor of Kamschatka; and having time, without danger, to prepare every thing necessary for the intended departure, he amused himself with ransacking the archives of the town, where he found several manuscripts of voyages made to the eastward of Kamschatka. The count also formedt chart, with details, respecting Siberia and the sea-coast of Kamschatka, and a description of the Kurelles and Aleuthes islands. This chart has not survived the fate of its composer.

The conspirators, previous to their hostilities against the governor, had prudently secured a corvette of the name of St. Peter and St. Paul, which then rode at anchor in the port of Bolsha, and their subsequent success afforded them the means of providing her with such stores as were necessary for the intended voyage. On the llth of May 1771, the count, as commander in chief, attended by Mr. Crustiew as second, by sixteen of his fellow-captives as quarterguards, and by fifty-seven foremast men, together with twelve passengers and nine women, among whom was the lovely Aphanusia, disguised in sailor’s apparel, went on board this vessel; and on the next day weighed anchor, and sailed out of the harbour on a southern course, intending to continue their voyage to China. On the 20th of May, they anchored their vessel in a bay on the coast of Beering’s island, where they found the celebrated captain Ochotyn and his followers, who had also escaped from exile in Siberia, and were wandering in search of that settlement which, from their restless dispositions, they were doomed never to find.

The count, however, was not to be detained by the blandishments of friendship he departed from this island, and arrived, after experiencing many hardships and dangers at sea, at the harbour of Usilpatchar in Japan on the 2d of August from whence, not meeting with a very friendly reception, he again immediately set sail, and arrived oirSunday the 28th of August at the island of Formosa. The inhabitants of Formosa at first appeared inclined to treat him with respect and civility, particularly don Hieronymo Pacheco, formerly captain at the port of Cavith at Manilla, who had fled from that employment to the island of Formosa, in consequence of his having in a moment of rage massacred his wife and a Dominican whom he had found in her company but these professions were soon found to be deceitful; for on sending his men on shore to fetch water, they were attacked by a party of twenty Indians, many of them dangerously wounded, and Mr. Panow, the count’s most faithful friend, killed. Don Hieronymo, however, contrived to exculpate himself from any concern in this treachery, and to advise the count to seek revenge by a> conquest of the island but he contented himself with provoking the natives to a second attack, and repulsing them with considerable slaughter. His men, however, insisted on going in quest of the Indians, in order to make them feel their further vengeance. The remonstrances of the count were to no effect; and at length, complying with their desires, he requested don Hieronymo to guide them towards the principal residence of the nation who had given him so bad a reception, where, after a short and unequal conflict, he killed eleven hundred and fifty-six, took six hundred and forty-three prisoners, who had prostrated themselves on the ground to beg for mercy from their assailants, and set fire to their town. The prince of the country, notwithstanding this massacre of his subjects, was introduced to the count by his Spanish friend, and a cordiality at length took place between them to such a degree, that the count entered into a formal treaty for returning and settling at Formosa; but his secret motives for making this engagement appear to have been, the execution of a project he had silently conceived of establishing a colony on the island.

On Monday the 12th of September, the count and his associates sailed from Formosa on the Thursday following the coast of China appeared in sight; and two days afterwards his vessel was piloted into the port of Macao. At this place he was treated with great respect by the governor and the principal men of the town and on the 3d of October 1771, captain Gore, then in the service of the English East-India company, made an offer of services to him on the part of the directors, and a free passage to Europe, provided he would bind himself to entrust his manuscripts to the company, engage to enter into their service, and make no communication'of the discoveries he had made. But having accepted proposals from the French directors, the offers of captain Gore were rejected, and the count soon afterwards returned from. Macao to Europe on board a French ship.

He arrived on the 8th of August 1772, in Champagne, where the duke d'Aiguillon, the minister of France, then was “and he- received me,” says the count, “with cordiality and distinction, and proposed to me to enter the service of his master, with the offer of a regiment of infantry which I accepted, on condition that his majesty would be phased to employ me in forming establishments beyond the Cape.” In consequence of this condition, the duke his patron proposed to him from his majesty to form an establishment on the island of Madagascar, upon the same footing as he had proposed upon the island of Formosa, the whole scheme of which is published in his memoirs of his own life, and discovers vast knowledge of the interests of commerce, and a deep insight into the characters of men.

To a romantic mind and adventurous spirit such as the count possessed, a proposal like the present was irresistible and after receiving the most positive assurances from the French ministry, that he should constantly receive from them the regular supplies necessary to promote the success of his undertaking, he set sail on the 22d of March, 1773, from Port L‘Orient for Madagascar, under the treacherous auspices of recommendatory letters to Mr. De Ternay, governor of the isle of France, where he landed with a company of between four and five hundred men on the 22d of September following. Instead, however, of receiving the promised assistance at this place, the governor endeavoured by every means in his power to thwart the success of his enterprise and no other step remained for him, to take, than that of hastening for Madagascar. He accordingly set sail in the Des Torges, a vessel badly provided with those stores that were most likely to be of use, and came to an anchor at Madagascar on the 14th of February 1774. The opposition which he met from the several nations placed him in a dangerous situation but he at length, with great difficulty, formed an establishment on Foul Point, entered into a commercial intercourse, and formed treaties of friendship and alliance with the greater part of the inhabitants of this extensive island. But whether the count, whose commission only extended to open a friendly intercourse with the natives, was abandoned by the minister from the cruelty of neglect, whilst he was in the regular execution of the ’commands of his sovereign, or because his exorbitant spirit and ambition began to soar to more than an ordinary pitch of power and greatness, the following curious and extraordinary narrative of his subsequent conduct will manifestly shew.

The island of Madagascar, as is well known, is of vast extent, and is inhabited by a great variety of different nations. Among these is the nation of Sambarines, formerly governed by a chief of the name and titles of Rohandrian Ampansacab6 Ramini Larizon whose only child, a lovely daughter, had, it seems, been taken prisoner, and sold as a captive and from this circumstance, upon the death of Ramini, his family was supposed to be extinct. “On the 2d of February,” says the count, “M. Corbi, one of my most confidential officers, with the interpreter, informed me, that the old negress Susanna, whom I had brought from the isle of France, and who in her early youth had been sold to the French, and had lived upwards of fifty years at the isle of France, had reported, that her companion, the daughter of Ramini, having likewise been made a prisoner, was sold to foreigners, and that she had certain marks that I was her son. This officer likewise represented to me, that in consequence of her report the Sambarine nation had held several cabars to declare me the heir of Ramini, and consequently proprietor of the province of Manahar, and successor to the title of Ampansacabe, or supreme chief of the nation. This information appeared to me of the greatest consequence, and I determined to take the advantage of it, to conduct that brave and generous nation to a civilized state. But as I had no person to whom I could entruLo the secret of my mind, I lamented how blind the minister of Versailles was to the true interests of France. On the same day I interrogated Susanna on the report she had spread concerning my birth. The good old woman threw herself at my knees, and excused herself by confessing that she had acted entirely upon a conviction of the truth. For she said that she had known my mother, whose physiognomy resembled mine, and that she had herself been inspired in a dream by the Zahanhar to publish the secret. Her manner of speaking convinced me that she really believed what she said. J therefore embraced her, and told her that I had reasons for keeping the secret respecting my birth; but that nevertheless if she had any confidential friends she might acquaint them with it. At these words she arose, kissed my hands, and declared that the Sambarine nation was informed of the circumstances, and that the Rohandrian Raffangour waited only for a favourable moment to acknowledge the blood of Ramini.”

The fallacy to which the old woman thus gave evidence, feeble as the texture of it may appear to penetrating minds, was managed by the count with such profound dexterity and address, that he was declared the heir of Ramini, invested with the sovereignty of the nation, received ambassadors and formed alliances in the capacity of a king with other tribes, made war and peace, led his armies in person into the field, and received submission from his vanquished enemies. In this situation it is not wonderful that he should forget the allegiance he was under to the king of France; and, representing to his subjects the difficulties he had experienced from the neglect of the minister, and the probable advantages that might result by forming a new and national compact either with that or some other powerful kingdom in Europe, he persuaded them to permit him to return to Europe for that purpose and “on the llth of October, 1776,” says the count, “I took my leave to go on board and at this single mofnent of my life I experienced what a heart is capable of suffering, when torn from a beloved and affectionate society to which it is devoted.”

This account concludes his narrative; but among the memoirs and papers which fill the remaining part of the volume, it appears, that on his arrival in Europe his proposals to the court of France were rejected that he made subsequent offers of his service to the emperor of Germany, which met with no better success; and that on the 25th of December, 1783, he offered, in the character of sovereign of the island of Madagascar, terms for an offensive and defensive alliance with the king of Great Britain but this proposal was also declined. The ardour of the count, however, was not abated by these disappointments he pretended to look with contempt on kings who could be so blind to^the interests and advantages oftheir people and, sending for his family from Hungary, he sailed from London with some of his associates for Maryland, on the 14th of April, 1784, with a cargo of the value of near 4,00p/. sterling, consisting, it seems, of articles intended for the Madagascar trade. A respectable commercial house in Baltimore was induced to join in his scheme, and supplied him with a ship of 450 tons, whose lading was estimated at more than 1,000l. in which he sailed from that place on the 2.5th of Oct. 1784, and landed at Antangara on the island of Madagascar, on the 7th of July 1785, from whence he departed to Angouci, and commenced hostilities against the French by seizing their storehouse. Here he busied himself in erecting a town after the manner of the country, and from hence he sent a detachment of one hundred men to take possession of the French factory at Foul Point but they were prevented from carrying their purpose into execution by the sight of a frigate which was at anchor off the Point. In consequence of these movements, the governor of the isle of France sent a ship with sixty regulars 'on board, who landed and attacked the count on the morning of the 23d of May 1786. He had constructed a small redoubt defended by two cannon, in which himself, with two Europeans and thirty natives, waited the approach of the enemy. The blacks fled at the first fire, and Benyowsky, having received a ball in his right breast, fell behind the parapet whence he was dragged by the hair, and expired a few minutes afterwards.

, a privy counsellor of the electorate of Meritz, was born Aug. 28, 1738, and arrived at the dignity of counsellor when only nineteen years of age. The emperor invited him to Vienna, but he refused this honourable offer, and remained at Mentz, where having attained the rank of chancellor of state, he applied his attention to the reformation of the schools, and the regulation and diminution of the convents. He was one of the chief promoters of the union of the German bishops against the court of Rome. The death of the elector Emmerick Joseph, in 1774, interrupted his pursuits but he was soon recalled, and in 1782, appointed to the guardianship of the universities of the electorate, and distinguished himself by many humane and enlightened regulations. He died May 7, 1784. We have only from his pen, the plan of a “New organization of the University of Mentz,” 1734, 8vo.

, archbishop of Upsal, was born in Sweden in 1642, at a village called Benzeby, whence he took his name. His parents were of mean condition, but an uncle enabled him to pursue his studies at Upsal, where he was appointed tutor to the children of the count de la Gardie, grand chancellor of the kingdom, He afterwards travelled in Germany, France, and England, and on his return to his country, was appointed professor of history and morals. Having also made great progress in theological studies, he was created doctor of that faculty and appointed professor. In 1677 he was promoted to the bishopric of Strengnes, and in 1700, to the archbishopric of Upsal, which he held until his death, Feb. 17, 1709. He was twice married, and by his first wife had thirteen children, of whom three of the sons became archbishops of Upsal. Benzelius instructed Charles XII. in theological studies, and that prince preserved always a high esteem for him. The archbishop wrote an “Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,” several dissertations on subjects of theology and ecclesiastical history, and a Latin translation, with notes, of many of the homilies of St. Chrysostom, which he made from manuscripts in the Bodleian library. He had also the superintendance of the edition of the Bible, in the Swedish language, which Charles XII. ordered to be published in 1703, with engravings, and which still bears the name of that monarch. Very few alterations, however, were introduced in this edition, as the divines of the time could not agree on certain disputed passages, and an entire new translation was reserved for the reign of Gustavus III.

, archbishop of Upsal, and one of the sons of the preceding, was born at Upsal in 1675. When he had finished his studies, his father sent him on his travels to the principal countries of Europe, and on his return, he was made librarian to the university of Upsal. He was afterwards for many years, and with great reputation, professor of divinity, and became successively bishop “of Gotcenburgh and Linkseping, and archbishop of Upsal, where he died in 1743. He was not only an able theologian, but versed in languages, history, and antiquities, and in all his wn< ings displays erudition and critical acumen. He published, 1.” vicnun*snta historica vetera Ecclesiae Sueco-Gothicit,“Upsal, 1704, 4to. 2.” Johannis Vastovii Vitis Aquilonia. sive Yitae Sanctorum regni SueeoGothici,“ibid. 1708, 4to. 3.” Dissertatio de Alexandria Ægypti,“ibid. 1711, 8vo. 4.” Laudatio funebris Michael. Enemanni,“Upsal, 1715, 4to. 5.” Dissertatio de re litteraria Judaeorum,“ibid. 1716, 4to. 6.” Acta Litteraria Suecia-, ab 1720 usque ad 1753,“ibid. 3 vols. 4to. 7.” Periculum Runicum, sive de origine et antiquitate Runarum,“ibid. 1724, 8vo. 8.” Oratio funebris in memoriam Laurcntii Molini, theologi Upsaliensis," ibid. 4to. Thesfe learned and ingenious works procured him very great reputation, and the correspondence of the most eminent men of learning in every part of Europe. In 1720, when librarian to the university, he associated with some of the professors in founding the academy of sciences of Upsal, which was soon after established by government, and is the oldest institution of that kind in the north; and when the academy of Stockholm was founded in 1739, Benzelius was admitted one of its first members.

, archbishop of Upsal, and brother tc the preceding, was born at Strengnes in 1689, and studied at Upsal. During his subsequent travels he happened to arrive at Bender, where Charles XII. was. This prince, who had more taste for the pursuit of scientific knowledge than is generally supposed, was desirous at this tim to send some men of learning to the East, and Benzehus was one whom he applied to, and who accordingly began his travels in 1714, visiting Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and returning to Sweden through Italy, Germany, and Holland. The journal of this tour is preserved in manuscript at Upsal but a considerable part of Benzelius’s observations were printed in a Latin collection, under the title of “Syntagma dissertationum in Academia Lundensi habitarum,” Leipsic, 1745, 4to. Benzelius, after his return to Sweden, was made professor of theology, bishop of Lunden, and archbishop of Upsal, where he died in 1758. He was succeeded in the archbishopric by his brother Jacob, who wrote in Latin, an abridgment of theology, and a description of Palestine, and some other works. H. Jasper Benzelius, of the same learned family, who died about the end of the last century, bishop of Strengnes, had studied under Mosheim, and published in 1744 at Helmstadt, a Latin life or dissertation on John Dury, who in the seventeenth century, travelled over a considerable part of Europe, in hopes of reconciling the Lutherans and Calvinists.

, a Milanese, was born about 1519. His father, who was not rich, having suffered by the war, sent him on his travels, to seek his fortune in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. He did not find what he sought, but became so captivated with the accounts recently received from the new world, that he determined to go there. Accordingly in 1541, he went to Spain, and embarked for America, where he remained fourteen years. In 1556, he returned to his country, rich only in the observations he had made, and which he communicated to the public, in a “History of the New World,” in Italian, Venice, 1565, 4to, reprinted 1572, 8vo, and afterwards translated into Latin, French, German, and Flemish.

, surnamed Ruzzante, was born at Padua, about 1502, and died in 1542. He applied himself early in life to study the manners, gesture, and language of villagers, and copied every particular that savoured of simplicity, drollery, and the grotesque. He was the Vade of the Italians. His rustic farces, though written in a low and vulgar style, are yet pleasing to people of education, by the correctness with which the countrymen are represented, and by the witticisms with which they are seasoned. He preferred being the first in this species of composition, to being the second in a more elevated line. His principal pieces are, la Vaccaria, PAnconitana, la Moschetta, la Fiorina, la Piovana, &c. These were printed with other poems of the same kind in 1584 in 12mo, under this title, “Tutte le opere del famosissimo lluzzante,” and have often been republished.

, a doctor of the Sorbonne, formerly professor of eloquence, and afterwards grand master of the college of Louis-le-Grand, was born at Paris in 1720. He was deputy from the clergy of Paris, in the constituent assembly, and died at Paris in 1794. He had acquired great reputation in the university, and was not less respected in the above assembly, where he signed the famous protest of Sept. 12, 1791. CamilleDesmoulins, who had been his pupil, celebrated him in his verses entitled “Mes adieux an college” and from a singular caprice, this revolutionist chose to receive the nuptial benediction from Berardier, although one of the nonjuring priests, and of totally opposite principles. St. Just and Robespierre were the witnesses on this occasion and such was the regard Camille-Desmoulins had for him, that he protected him from the massacres of the 2d of September 1792. Berardier wrote, 1. “Precis de l'Histoire universelle,” a very excellent introduction to the study of history, which has gone through several editions. 2. “Essai sur le recit,” 1776, 12mo, also very successful, but not written with so much perspicuity. 3. “Anti-Lucrece en vers Francais,” 1786, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Principes de la foi sur le gouvernment de l‘Eglise, en opposition a la constitution civile du clerge, ou refutation de l’opinion de M. Camus,” 8vo. Of this fourteen editions were printed within six months, and it has likewise been published under the title of “Vrais Principes de la Constitution du Clerge.”

, a French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Lyons, March 5, 1703, entered among the Jesuits, and became professor of humanity at Vienne and at Avignon, and of mathematics and philosophy at Aix. In 1740 he was invited to Lyons and appointed professor of mathematics, director of the observatory, and keeper of the medals and the same year he became astronomer to the academy, the memoirs of which are enriched by a great many of his observations, particularly that on the passage of Mercury on the Sun, May 6, 1753, during which he saw and demonstrated the luminous ring round that planet, which had escaped the notice of all the astronomers for ten years before. In all his results, he entirely agreed with Lalande, who had made the same observations at Paris, and with the celebrated Cassini. All his observations, indeed, are creditable to his talents, and accord with those of the most eminent astronomers. Among his other papers, inserted in the memoirs of the academy, we find several on vegetation, on the evaporation of liquids, and the ascent of vapours, on light, a physical theory on the rotation of the earth and the inclination of its axis, &c. In meteorology, he published observations on the tubes of thermometers, with an improvement in the construction of them, which was the subject of three memoirs read in the academy of Lyons in 1747. He has also endeavoured to account for metals reduced to calcination weighing heavier than in their former state, and maintains, against Boyle, that fire is incapable of giving this additional weight, and likewise refutes the opinion of those who attribute it to air, or to substances in the air which the action of fire unites to the metal in fusion. This memoir was honoured with the prize by the academy of Bourdeaux in 1747, and contained many opinions which it would have been difficult to contradict before the experiments of Priestley, Lavoisier, and Morveau. In 1748, he received the same honour, from that academy, for a paper in which he maintained the connexion between magnetism and electricity, assigning the same cause to both. In 1760, he received a third prize from the same academy, for a dissertation on the influences of the moon on vegetation and animal oeconomy. Beraud was also a corresponding member of the academy of sciences in Paris, and several of his papers are contained in their memoirs, and in those of the academy of Lyons. He wrote several learned dissertations on subjects of antiquity. On the dissolution of the society of Jesuits, he left his country for some time, as he could not conscientiously take the oaths prescribed, and on his return, notwithstanding many pressing offers to be restored to the academy, he preferred a private life, never having recovered the shock which the abolition of his order had occasioned. In this retirement he died June 26, 1777. His learning and virtues were universally admired he was of a communicative disposition, and equal and candid temper, both in his writings and private life. Montucla, Lalande, and Bossu, were his pupils and father Lefevre of the Oratory, his successor in the observatory of Lyons, pronounced his eloge in that academy, which was printed at Lyons, 1780, 12mo. The Dict. Hist, ascribed to Beraud, a small volume, “La Physique des corps animus,” 12mo.

, was born at Orleans in 1475, and died in 1550. According to the custom of that age, he Latinized his name into Beraldus Aurelius, and it is under that name that his friend Nicolas Bourbon celebrates him in one of his Latin poems. Berauld, according to Moreri, was preceptor to cardinal Coligni, his brother the admiral, and to Chatillon. Erasmus, in many parts of his works, acknowledges the kind hospitality of Berauld, when, in 1500, he was travelling by the way of Orleans into Italy, and highly praises the elegance of his style. In 1522, Erasmus dedicated to him his work “De conscribendis epistolis.” Berauld published various works in Latin, of which the principal are, 1. “Oratio de pace restituta et de fcedere sancito apud Cameracum,” Paris, 1528, 8vo. 2. “Metaphrasis in oeconomicon Aristotelis,” Paris, 4to, without date. In 1516, he edited the works of William bishop of Paris, in folio, and the same year an edition of Pliny’s natural history, with numerous corrections, yet Hardouin has not mentioned Berauld among the editors of Pliny. He also supplied notes to the Rusticus of Politian, and published a “Greek and Latin Dictionary,” that of Crafton, with additions, a preface, and notes. 3. “Syderalis /ibyssus,” Paris, 1514. 4. “Dialogus quo rationes explicantur quibus dicendi ex tempore facultas parari potest, &c.” Lyons, 1534. 5. “De jurisprudentia vetere ac novitia oratio,” Lyons, 1533. 6. “Enarratio in psalmos LXXI. et CXXX.” Paris, 1529, 4to. Berauld was greatly respected by Stephen Poucher, bishop of Paris, and afterwards archbishop of Sens, a celebrated patron of learning and learned men. Berauld’s son, Francis, born at Orleans, embraced the principles of Calvin he was esteemed a very learned man and a good Greek and Latin poet. He was particularly eminent for his knowledge of Greek, which he taught at Montbelliard, Lausanne, Geneva, Montargis, of which last college he was principal in 1571, and at Rochelle. Henry Stephens employed him to translate part of Appian, and preferred his translation to that of Coslius Secundus Curio.

, born about the commencement of the last century, in the country of Messiii in France, was first a Jesuit, then curate of Ormeville in the diocese of Rouen, and lastly canon of Noyou. He died during the revolution. He commenced his literary career in 1754, with a small poem on the Canary-bird, “Le Serin des Canaries,” which was followed by the translation of Quivedo, and a collection of Idyls. He published afterwards in 2 vols. 12mo, a poem on the Promised Land, which had little success, and was justly censured for containing an absurd mixture of sacred and profane history. He then attempted a work more suitable to his profession, had he executed it well, an “Ecclesiastical History,” 24 vols. 12mo, 1778 and following years. This had some success, and a second edition was very recently (1811) published at Toulouse, but it is so far inferior to Fleuri, that it is somewhat surprising the French public should have endured it. He left an abridgment of it in manuscript, in 5 vols. 8vo. He was also employed on the “Journal Etranger.”

, pastor and professor of theology at Montauban, about the beginning of the seventeenth century, was chosen to enter into conference with cardinal du Perron at Mantes, in 1593; and in 1598, wrote against him “Brieve et claire defense de la vocation des ministres de l'Evangile,” 8vo. The lively interest he took in the affairs of the duke of Rohan, during the civil wars of France, induced him to publish several writings, particularly one, in which he maintained that the clergy were bound to take up arms and shed blood, for which he was censured by the synod. Another Berault (Claude) succeeded D'Herbelot, as professor of the Syriac in the royal college of Paris, but is best known by his edition of “Statius,” 1685, 2 vols. 4to, which, owing to most of the copies having been burnt by a fire in the printing-office, is the most scarce and dear of all the Delphin quartos. This author died in 1705. Berault (Josias), an advocate of the parliament of Rouen under Henry III. was born in 1563, and died about 1640. He published a “Commentaire sur la Coutume de Normandie,” 1650 and 1660, fol. The booksellers of Rouen, in 1626, republished this with the commentaries of Godefroi and Aviron, 2 vols. fol. which were again reprinted in 1684 and" 1776.

, an eminent artist, was born at Haerlem, in 1624, and was taught the first principles of painting by his father, Peter Van Haerlem, an artist of very mean abilities, whose subjects were fish, confectionary, vases of silver, and other objects of still life; but he afterwards had the good fortune to have some of the best masters of that time for his instructors, and successively was the disciple of Grebber, Vangoyen, Mojaart, Jan Wils, and Weeninx. He had an easy expeditious manner of painting, and an inexpressible variety and beauty in the choice of sites for his landscapes, executing them with a surprising degree of neatness and truth. He possessed a clearness and strength of judgment, and a wonderful power and ease in expressing his ideas; and although his subjects were of the lower kind, yet his choice of nature was judicious, and he gave to every subject as much of beauty and elegance as it would admit. The leafing of his trees is exquisitely and freely touched; his skies are clear; and his clouds float lightly, as if supported by air. The distinguishing characters of the pictures of Berchem, are the breadth and just distribution of the lights the grandeur of his masses of light and shadow; the natural ease and simplicity in the attitudes of his figures, expressing their several characters; the just degradation of his distances; the brilliancy and harmony, as well as the transparency, of his colouring; the correctness and true perspective of his design; and the elegance of his composition: and, where any of those marks are wanting, no authority ought to be sufficient to ascribe any picture to him. He painted every part of his subjects so extremely well, as to render it difficult to determine in which he excelled most; his trees, buildings, waters, rocks, hills, cattle, and figures, being all equally admirable.

One of the most capital pictures of this master was painted for the principal magistrate of Dort, in whose family it is still preserved being a prospect of a mountainous country, enriched with a great variety of sheep, oxen, goats, and figures, excellently penciled, and most beautifully coloured. While he was employed in painting that picture, the same burgomaster bespoke also a landscape from John Both, and agreed to pay eight hundred guilders for each picture; but to excite an emulation, he promised a considerable premium for the performance which should be adjudged the best. When the pictures were finished, and placed near each other for a critical examination, there appeared such an equality of merit in each, that he generously presented both artists with an equal sum above the price which he had stipulated. Berchem was singularly curious, in purchasing the finest prints and designs of the Italian masters, as a means of improving his own taste and after his death, that collection of drawings and prints sold for a very large sum. There was such a demand for his works, that he was generally paid beforehand; and although he was so indefatigable, that very often he would not move from his easel, in the summer months, from four in the morning till day-light failed, (by which close application, he finished a great number of pictures,) yet, at this day, they are rarely to be purchased, and always are sold at an extraordinary high price.

It is recorded of him, that his wife, the daughter of Jan "Wils, one of his masters, through her avarice, allowed him no rest, and industrious as he was, she usually placed herself under his painting-room, and when she heard him. neither sing nor stir, she struck upon the ceiling to rouse him. She insisted upon having all the money he earned by his labour, so that he was obliged to borrow from his scholars when he wanted money to buy prints, of which, as already noticed, he contrived to form an excellent collection. He passed part of his life in the castle of Bentheim, the situation of which furnished him with the views and animals which compose his pictures, but he died at Harlaem, in 1683. There are many prints engraven by, and after him the former amounting to forty-eight, and the latter to one hundred and thirty three.

, a French artist, who practised in England, was born in France, in 1659, and at the age of fifteen was placed under the care of La Fosse, with whom his improvement was so considerable, that in three years he was qualified to be employed in one of the royal palaces. In 1681 he went to England, where he worked under Rambour, a French painter of architecture; and afterwards he was engaged in different works for several of the English nobility. The ceiling in the chapel of Trinity college, in Oxford, was painted by this master; he also painted the staircase at the duke of Schomberg’s in London, and the summer-house at Ranelagh. His drawings in the academy were much approved but towards the latter part of his life, he only painted small pieces in the historical style, for which the subjects were taken from fabulous history; -ind his last performance was a Bacchanalian, to which he affixed his name the very day before he died, in 1720.

, whose name we find disguised under Bercheure, Berchoire, Bercorius, Bercherius, &c. was born in the beginning of the fourteenth century, at St. Pierre-du-Chemin, near Mailiezais, in Poitou. He entered the order of the Beredictines, and became celebrated for his learning, and attached hi n self to cardinal Duprat, archbishop of Aix, whose advice was very useful to him in his writings. Among his other accomplishments, he is said to have been so well acquainted with his Bible, as to be able to quote texts and authorities on all subjects without any assistance but from memory. He died at Paris in 1362, prior of the monastery of St. Eloy, since occupied by the Barnabites, which has induced some biographers to think him a member of that order, but the Barnabites were not an order until a century after this period. Berchorius wrote several works which are lost those which remain are in 3 vols. fol. under the title of “Reductorium, Repertorium, et Dictionarium morale utriusque Testamenti, Strasburgh,” 1474; Nuremberg, 1499; and Cologne, 1631—1692. “Whoever,” says Warton, in his “History of Poetry,” “shall have the patience to turn over a few pages of this immense treasure of multifarious erudition, will be convinced beyond a doubt, from a general coincidence of the plan, manner, method, and execution, that the author of these volumes, and of the” Gesta Romanorum,“must be one and the same. The” Reductorium“contains all the stories and incidents in the Bible, reduced into allegories. The” Repertorium“is a dictionary of things, persons, and places all which are supposed to be mystical, and which are therefore explained in their moral or practical sense. The” Dictionarium Morale“is in two parts, and seems principally designed to be a moral repertory for students in theology.” Mr. Warton successfully pursues this argument in his” Dissertation on the Gesta Romanorum,“to which we refer the reader. He mentions also that Berchorius was author of a comment on a prosody called” Doctrinale metricum,“which was used as a schoolbook in France, till Despauter’s manual on that subject appeared. Some biographers mention his” Tropologia,“his” Cosmographia,“and his” Breviarium“but the” Tropologia“is nothing more than his” Reductorium“on the Bible, and probably the” Breviarium“is the same. The” Cosmographia“seems to be the fourteenth book -of his” Repefforiom Moraie.“He is said by his biographers to have written other smaller pieces, which they have not named nor described. Among these, Mr. Warton thinks his” Gesta" is comprehended which we may conceive to have been thus undistinguished, either as having been neglected or proscribed by graver writers, or rather as having been probably disclaimed by its author, who saw it at length in the light of a juvenile performance, abounding in fantastic and unedifying narrations, which he judged unsuitable to his character, studies, and station. Besides the works above-mentioned, Berchorius translated Livy, by order of king John, of which there was a beautiful ms. in the library of the oratory of Troyes, and other copies, not less beautiful, are in the imperial library at Paris. This translation was published in 1514 1515, at Paris, 3 vols. fol.

, who was born, according to Vossius, in the Palatinate, studied at Groningen. He became tutor to the children of the king of Bohemia, and was by the queen’s interest appointed professor of philosophy at Utrecht, 1640, and eight years afterwards professor of eloquence. He succeeded also in poetry, but his style has been objected to as containing many new-coined words and affected phrases. He died July 24, 1667, leaving several works, of which the principal were, l.“Exercitationes ethicae, ceconomicge, politicae,” Utrecht, 1664. 2. “Dissertatio de Cometis, utrum sint signa, an causae, an utrumque, an neutrum,” Utrecht, 1365, 12mo. He wrote also against Hobbes, “Examen elementorurn philosophicorum de bono cive,” which remains in manuscript.

, an Italian author of the seventeenth century, was born at Vincenza, Feb. 21 1627. When only nineteen years old, he was honoured by the king of France, Louis III. with the ribbon of St. Michael and the title of chevalier. In 1649, his family were promoted to the rank of nobility at Venice. In that republic he distinguished himself at the bar, especially when he returned to Venice, which he had been obliged to leave for a time in consequence of some indiscretion. At his leisure hours he cultivated polite literature, and particularly poetry and history. His poems are not without ease and elegance, although in other respects they partake largely of the vicious and affected style of his age. He died at Venice, Dec. 17, 1713, and preserved to the last his love of study. Besides five dramatic pieces, all set to music, he wrote 1. “Istoria delle guerre d‘Europa delle comparsa delle armi Ottomane nell’ Ungheria l'anno 1683,” Venice, 2 vols. 4to. These two parts were to have been followed by four others, two of which were put to press in 1700, but it does not appear that they were ever published. 2. “Composizioni poeticheconsistenti inrimesacre,eroiche, morali ed amorose,” Venice, 1702, 12mo. 3. “Opere de Claudio Claudiano tradotte ed arrichite di erudite annotazioni,” Venice, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo. This translation is in high esteem, and the notes, although not so erudite as the title expresses, are yet useful.

, a physician and anatomist of the sixteenth century, was a native of Carpi in Modena, whence some biographers have called him by the name of Carpius, or Carpensis. He took his doctor’s degree at Bologna, and first taught anatomy and surgery at Pavia. He afterwards returned to Bologna in 1520, and taught the same studies. He was there, however, accused of having intended to dissect two Spaniards who had the venereal disorder, and had applied to him for advice, which, it was said, he meant to perform while they were alive, partly out of his hatred to that nation, and partly for his own instruction. Whatever may be in this report, it is certain that he was obliged to leave Bologna, and retire to Ferrara, where he died in 1550. By his indefatigable attention to the appearances of disease, and especially by his frequent dissections, which in his time, were quite sufficient, without any other demerit, to raise popular prejudices against him, he was enabled to advance the knowledge of anatomy by many important discoveries. His works were, 1. “Commentaria, cum amplissimis additionibus, super anatomia Mundini,” Bologna, 1521, 1552, 4to, and translated into English by Jackson, London, 1664. 2. “Isagogtc breves in anatomiam corporis humani, cum aliquot figuris anatomicis,” Bologna, 1522, 4to, and often reprinted. 3. “De Cranii fractura, tractatus,” Bologna, 1518, 4to, also often reprinted. He was one of the first who employed mercury in the cure of the venereal disease.

, or Berenger, the celebrated archdeacon of Angers, was born at Tours in the beginning of the eleventh century, of an opulent family, and became the disciple of the famous Fulbert of Chartres, under whom he made rapid progress in grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, and what were then called the liberal arts. On his return to his country in 1030, he was appointed scholastic, or master of the school of St. Martin. His reputation soon reaching foreign parts, the number of his scholars greatly increased, and many of them were afterwards advanced to high rank in the church; nor did he quit his school when made archdeacon of Angers in 1039. The opinions, which have given him a name in ecclesiastical history, were said to have been first occasioned by a pique. In a dispute with Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, on a very trivial question, he happened to be defeated, and what was worse, his scholars began to go over to that rival. Berengarius, on this, took Erigena for his model, and attacked the mystery of the eucharist, as the popish writers term it, but in plain language, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Bruno, bishop of Angers, Hugh, of Langres, and Adelman, of Brescia, in vain endeavoured to cure him of his heresy, and his writings, which were taken to Rome, were condemned in two councils held by pope Leo IX. in 1050, and himself excommunicated. He then went to the abbey of Preaux in Normandy, hoping to be protected by duke William, surnamed the Bastard, but that young prince summonsed a meeting of the ablest bishops and divines, who again condemned Berengarius, and the council of Paris, in Oct. 1050, deprived him of all his benefices. This loss he is said to have felt more severely than their spiritual inflictions, and it disposed him to retract his sentiments in the council of Tours, in 1055, in consequence of which he was received into church-communion. In 1059 he was cited to the council at Rome, by pope Nicholas II. and having been confuted by Abbo and Laniranc, he abjured his errors, burnt his books, yet had no sooner reached France, than he protested against his recantation, as extorted by fear, and returned to his studies with the same spirit of inquiry. At length, however, Gregory VII having called a new council at Rome in 1078, Berengei more seriously abjured his opinions, returned to France, and passed the remaining years of his life in privacy and penance. He died Jan. 6, 1088, aged ninety. There have been many disputes betwixt protestant and popish authors, as to the reality or sincerity of his final recantation. His sentiments, however, did not perish on his recantation, or his death, and he may be considered as having contributed to that great reformation in the church which afterwards was carried into lasting effect by his successors. The greater part of his works are lost, but some are preserved among the works of Lanfranc, in the collections of d'Acheri and Martenne; and, in 1770, Lessing discovered and published his answer to Lanfranc, “De corpore et sanguine Jesu Christi.”

, a French poet of the sixteenth century, was born at Albenas or Aubenas in the Vivarais. From the preface to one of his works it appears that he studied law, and that his family had intended him for some post in the magistracy, but that he had found leisure to cultivate his poetical talents, in which he was not unsuccessful. His verses are easy and natural. The greater part were addressed to the poets of his time, many of whose names are not much known now, or to persons of distinction. We learn from one of his pieces that he lived under Francis I. from another, under Henry II. and it is supposed that he died about 1559. His published works are, 1. “Le Siecle d'or,” and other poems, Lyons, 1551, 8vo. 2. “Choreide,” or, “Louange du Bal aux Dames,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. 3. “L'Amie des Amies,” an imitation of Ariosto, in four books, ibid. 1558, 8vo. 4. “L'Amie rustique,” and other poems, ibid. 1558, 8vo. This last, a work of great rarity, is printed with a species of contractions and abbreviations which render the perusal of it very difficult.

, a French miscellaneous writer, was born at Geneva in 1740, and in early life quitted the mechanical employment to which he had been deslined by his parents, for those studies to which he was invited by the political troubles of his country. As by birth he was classed among those who are at Geneva called natives, but who do not acquire the rank of citizens, because born of foreign parents, his first effort was to establish, in some of his writings, the necessity of equal political rights. This dispute being referred to arms, Berenger, after his party was defeated, was banished, along with many others, by a decree of the sovereign power, February 10, 1770. On this he retired to Lausanne, and employed his time in various literary undertakings, until his return to Geneva, where he died in June, 1807. He published, 1. An edition of the works of Abauzit. 2. “Histoire de Geneve, depuis son origine jusqu'a nos jours,” 1772 75, 6 vols. 12 mo. In this, the more distant ages are given in a summary manner, having been sufficiently detailed by Spon, but much light is thrown upon the political history of the last century, which he brings down to 1761, and to which sir F. D'Yvernois’ work, “Tableau historiquede revolutions de Geneve,” may be considered as a sequel. 3. “Geographic de Busching abregee, &c.” Busching’s work is here abridged in some parts and enlarged in others, Lausanne, 1776 79, 12 vols. 8vo. 4. “Collection de tous les voyages faits autour de monde,” 1788 90, 9 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1795. 5. “Amants Republicains, ou Lettrea de Nicias et Cynire,” 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, a political romance relating to the troubles of Geneva. 6. “Cours de geographic historique, ancienne et moderne de feu Ostervald,” 1803 and 1805, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. An edition of the “Dictionnaire geographique” of Vosgien (Ladvocat), 1805, 8vo. 8. Translations from the English of “Laura and Augustus,” and of“Cook’s Voyages.” 9. “J. J. Rousseau justifie envers sa patrie” and some lesser pieces mentioned in Ersch’s “France Litteraire.” M. Bourrit attributes to him a translation of Howard’s history of Prisons, but this, it is thought, was executed by mademoiselle Keralio.

, a man utterly unknown, who appeared in Holland in 1670, was thought to be a Jesuit, or a renegade from some other religious fraternity. He got his bread by sweeping chimnies and grinding knives, and died at length in a bog, suffocated in a fit of drunkenness. His talents, if the historians that mention him are to be credited, were extraordinary. He versified with so much ease, that he could recite extempore, and in tolerably good poetry, whatever was said to him in prose. He has been known to translate the Flemish gazettes from that language into Greek or Latin verse with the utmost facility. The dead languages, the living languages, Greek, Latin, French, and Italian, were us familiar to him as his mother tongue. He could repeat by heart Horace, Virgil, Homer, Aristophanes, and several pieces of Cicero and of the Plinies; and, after reciting long passages from them, point out the book and the chapter from whence they were taken. It is supposed that the “Georgarchontomachia sive expugnatae Messopolis” is by him.

, a learned divine, was born at Bremen, September 3, 1737, and died atDuisbourg, March 3, 1800. He was distinguished as a theologian and philosopher, and a man of very extensive learning. He was eminently skilled in the Oriental languages, particularly the Arabic, and for many years acquired much fame by his lectures on the holy scriptures, in the university of Duisbourg. He published, 1. “Specimen animadversionum philologkarum ad selecta Veteris Testamenti loca,” Leyden, 1761, 8vo. 2. “Symbolse litterariae Duisburgenses ad incrementum scientiarum a. variis amicis amice collatae, ex Haganis factre Duisburgenses,” vol. I. 1783; vol. II. 1784 6. If this be the same work with his “Museum Duisburgense,” it is a sequel to the “Musaeum Haganum,” by the learned professor Barkey, minister of the German church at the Hague.

, an Italian monk of the order of the minorite conventuals, was born at Palermo, and in 1650, when he officiated during Lent at Bologna, acquired high reputation as a preacher. He was professor of philosophy and divinity in the convents of his order, provincial in Sicily, and superintendant of the great convent of Palermo, where he died, November 17, 1679. He published a philosophical work, or at least a work on philosophy, entitled “De objecto philosophise,” Perug. 1649, 4to; and it is said that he wrote an Italian epic poem called “Davidiade,” a collection entitled “Poesis miscellanea,” and an elementary work on medicine, “Tyrocinium medicoe facultatis” but these have not been printed.

, an Italian poetess, was born April 15, 1703, and appeared from her infancy capable of making a figure in the literary world. Her father, although of a genteel family of Piedmont, was ruined by various misfortunes, and at length setup a shoemaker’s shop in Venice, where he acquired some property. His daughter Louisa, one of a numerous family, discovered first a taste for embroidery, then for drawing and painting, in which she was instructed by the celebrated female artist Rosalba Camera; nor did she make less progress in literature, philosophy, and languages. She learned French of her father, and Latin under an excellent master, and in the course of this study she translated some of the comedies of Terence. Having conceived a particular taste for dramatic poetry, she received some instructions from Apostolo Zeno. As soon as her talents were known, places both lucrative and honourable were offei'ed to her at Rome, Poland, Spain, and Milan, but she would not quit Venice, her native country, and continued her studies until the age of thirty-five, when she married count Gaspard Gozzi, a noble Venetian, known in the literary world for his Italian dramas and other works. She lived with him very happily, and bore five children, whom she educated with great care. The time of her death is not mentioned. Her principal works are, 1. “Agide re di Sparta,” a musical drama, Venice, 1725, 12mo. 2. “LaTeba,” a tragedy, ibid. 1728, 8vo. 3. “L'Elenia,” musical drama, ibid. 1730, 12mo. 4. “Le Avventure del poeta,” comedy, ibid. 1730, 8vo. 5. “Elettra,” tragedy, ibid. 1743, 12mo. 6. “La Bradamante,” musical drama, ibid. 1747, 12mo. 7. “Le Commedie di Terenzio tradotto in versi sciolti,” ibid. 1733, 8vo. 8. Translations from Racine and other dramatic poets of France. 9. “Componimenti poetici dc-lle piu illustri rimatrici d'ogni secolo,” ibid. 1726, 12mo. Many of her sonnets and lesser pieces appeared from time to time in various collections.

, an Italian author of the last century, was born at Venice, October 4, 1685. He sludied for eight years in the Jesuits’ college of Bologna, and on his return to his own country, after a course of civil and canon law, was created doctor in 1706. He began then to practise at the bar, where he had considerable success, until he arrived at the twenty-fourth year of his age, when he suddenly changed his profession, and entered the order of the Theatins, January 12, 1711. He was some years after catled to Rome, by the general of the order, and appointed their secretary; and such was his reputation among them, that he obtained a dispensation, never before granted by that society, to confess women, six years before the time prescribed by their laws. He afterwards devoted much of his time to preaching, through the principal cities of Italy. On his return to Venice in 1726, he determined to settle there, dividing his time between the duties of his profession, and the study of the best ancient authors, and those of his own country. His first publications were harangues, panegyrics, and funeral orations, few of which survived him, but the following works were thought entitled to more durable fame: 1. A translation of Thuanus “De re Accipitraria,” and of Bargee’s “Ixeuticon,” under the title of “II Falconiere di Jacopo Aug. Thuano, &c. with the Latin text and learned notes, Venice, 1735, 4to. 2. A translation of Vaniere’s” Pryedium rusticum,“entitled” Delia Possessione di Campagna,“Venice, 1748, 8vo, unluckily taken from the edition of 1706, the translator not being acquainted with that of 1730. He translated also cardinal de Polignac’s” Anti-Lucretius,“Verona, 1752, 8vo, and published an improvement of the de la Crusca dictionary, under the title” Delia volgare elocuzione, illustrata, ampliata e facilitata, vol. I. contenente A. B." Venice, 1740, folio. The bookseller being unsuccessful in the sale, this volume only appeared, but the author, in 1753, published a prospectus in which he professed to have re-modelled the work, and reduced it from twelve volumes to six. This, however, still remains in manuscript, with many other works from his pen. Our authority does not mention his death.

, the author of a poem, in praise of printing, written in Latin hexameters and pentameters, has escaped tlfe researches of biographers as to much personal history. It is, however, conjectured, that his proper name was Arnold or Arnold i, and that he was called Bergellauus from his country. It is supposed also that he came to Mentz, and was employed there, either? as a workman, or as a corrector of the press. John Conrad Zeltner, who is of this last opinion, has accordingly asigned him a short article in his Latin history of the correctors of the press, p. 79, 80, where he calls him John Anthony, instead of John Arnold. Struvius (Introd. in not. rei litterariae, p. 892) considers Bergellanus as the first historian of printing, but in this he is mistaken. Mentel, in his “Paraenesis de vera origine Typographic, p. 52, says that Bergellanus’s poem was printed in 1510, which could not be the case, as mention is made in it of Charles V, who was not emperor until 1519. Walkius, who wrote in 1608, asserts that Bergellanus wrote or published his poem eighty years before, which brings us to 1528, but in tact it was not written or published until 1540 and 1541, as appears clearly by the author’s dedication to cardinal Albert, archbishop of Mentz and marquis of Brandebourg. There have been six editions of it, separate or joined to other works on the subject. The two last are by Prosper Marchand in his History of Printing, Hague, 1740, 4to, and by Woltius in his” Monumenta typographica."

, a German anatomist and botanist, was born August 11, 1704, at Francfort on the Oder. His father, John George Bergen, was professor of anatomy and botany in that university. After his early studies, his father gave him some instructions in the principles of medicine, and then sent him to Leyden, where he studied under Boerhaave and Albinus. He also went to Paris for farther improvement in anatomy. The reputation of Saltzman and Nicolai next induced him to pass some time at Strasburgh, and after visiting other celebrated universities in Germany, he returned to Francfort, and took his doctor’s degree in 1731. The following year he was appointed professor-extraordinary, and, in 1738, succeeded, on the death of his father, to the chair of anatomy and botany. In 1744 he became professor of therapeutics and pathology, in room of Goelicke, which he retained with high credit until his death, October 7, 1760, on which occasion his life, in the form of an eloge, was published in the Leipsic Medical Commentaries, vol. IX.

Bergen is the author of a great many works on botany, and various branches of natural history. In 1742 he published a dissertation to prove the superiority of the system of Linnæus to that of Tournefort, but afterwards he changed his opinion, and his “Francfort Flora,” published in 1750, is arranged on the Tournefortian system, although with improvements. This Flora was originally only a new edition of the “Vade Mecum” of Johrenius, one of his predecessors in the botanical chair, but unquestionably his additions were then new and important. He also proposed a new classification of shells, published observations on the anatomy of frogs, and several dissertations or memoirs on various plants and animals. His academical dissertations on anatomy were published by Haller, who particularly praises those on the intercostal nerve and on the cellular membrane. His works not included in that collection are, 1. “Icon nova ventriculorum cerebri,” Francfort, 1734. 2. “Programma de pia matre,” Nuremberg, 1736, 4to. 3. “Programma de nervis quibusdam cranii ad novem paria hactenus non relatis,” Francfort, 1738. 4. “Methodus cranii ossa dissuendi, et machinse hunc in finem constructs, delineatio,” 1741, 4to. 5. “Pentas obervationum anatomico-physiologicarum,” 1743, 4to. 6. “Elementa physiologias,” Geneva, 1749, 8vo, after the manner of Boerhaave’s Institutes. 7. “Anatomes experimentalis, pars prima et s’ecunda,” Francfort, 1755, 17.58, 8vo. 8. Several dissertations and theses, in the medical journals. 9. “Programma,” already mentioned, on the comparative merits of the Linnsean and Tournefortian systems, Francfort, 1742, 4to Leipsic, 1742, 4to. 10. “Dissertatio de Aloide,” Francfort, 1753, 4to, with a supplement in the Nova Act. Acad. Nat. Curiosor. vol. II. 11. “Catalogus stirpium quas hortus academiie Viadrinae (Francfort) cotnplectitur,” 1744, 8vo. 12. “Flora Francofurtanaj” ibid. 1750, 8vo. 13. “Classes conchy liorum,” Nuremberg, 1760, 4to. Adanson consecrated a genus to the memory of Bergen under the name of Bergena, but it was not adopted by Linnæus.

, a learned lawyer, was born at Gera, Jan. 27, 1657, and studied at Halle, Leipsic, and Jena. He afterwards was appointed professor of law at Wittemberg, and counsellor at Dresden. In 1713, Charles VI. invited him to Vienna in quality of aulic counsellor of the empire, and he died there November 25, 1732. Of his numerous works, which have been often reprinted, the following are the principal: 1. “Electa processus executivi, processorii, provocatorii et matrimonialis,” Leipsic, 1705, 4to. 2. “Electa disceptationum forensium,” the best edition of which is that of Th. Hayme, 1738, 3 vols. 4to. 3. “Electa jurisprudentise criminalis,” Leipsic, 1706, 4to. 4. “Responsa ex omni jure,” 1708, folio. 5. CEconomia juris," 1731, folio'. Berger left three sons, Christopher Henry, Frederic Louis, and John Augustus, who all followed the profession of the law with distinguished merit.

, brother to the preceding, was professor of eloquence at Wittemberg, aulic counsellor to the elector of Saxony, Augustus It. king of Poland, and died in 1751. He wrote several interesting dissertations, mostly on points of ancient history and literature, among which are, 1. “Dissert. Sex de Libanio,” Wittemberg, 1696, 1698, 4to. 2. “De antiqua poetarum sapientia” 1699, 4to. 3. “De Virgilio oratore,” 1705, 4to. 4. “Dissert, tres de Lino,” 1707, 4to. 5. “Disciplina Longini selecta,” 1712, 4to. 6. “De Mysteriis Cereris et Bacchi,” 1723, 4to. 7. “De Trajano non Optimo,” 1725, 4to. 8. “De Stephanophoris veterum,” 1725, 4to, &c. Saxius, who has given a much fuller list of his dissertations, praises him as a man of most extensive learning, and who had scarcely his equal in Germany. Yet from one of his works we should be inclined to doubt his taste. Among those enumerated by Saxius is one, “De naturali pulchritudine orationis,” 1719, in which he attempts to prove that Cæsar’s Commentaries (the pure, simple, and elegant style of which is more remote from the sublime than that of any of the classical authors) contain the most complete exemplification of all Longinus’s rules relating to sublime writing. After his death was published “Conspectus Bibliothecae Bergerianae;” also “Libri Manuscript! et irnpressi, collati curn Manuscriptis ex Bibliotheca Jo. Gul. de Berger,” 1752, 8vo. Another brother, John Godfrey de Berger, was an eminent physician, and published, 1. “Physiologica medica,” Wittemberg, 1701, and often reprinted. 2. “De Thennis Carolmis commentatio,” ibid. 1709, 4to. He died October 3, 1736.

, professor of law and history at Cobourg, was born at Unterlautern in 1683, studied at Halle, and accompanied several young gentlemen on their travels. He died November 20, 1773. His “Universal History,” published, in German, at Cobourg, folio, is highly esteemed by his countrymen, and passed through five editions. It has since been continued by professor Wolfgang Jaeger, 1781, folio.

, was born about 1620, in the castle of Bergerac in Perigord, and was at first very indifferently educated by a poor country priest. He afterwards came to Paris, and gave himself up to every kind of dissipation. He then entered as a cadet in the regiment of guards, and endeavoured to acquire reputation on the score of bravery, by acting as second in many duels, besides those in which he was a principal, scarce a day passing in which he had not some affair of this kind on his hands. Whoever observed his nose with any attention, which was a very remarkable one, was sure to be involved in a quarrel with him. The courage he shewed upon these occasions, and some desperate actions in which he distinguished himself when in the army, procured him the name of the Intrepid, which he retained to the end of his life. He was shot through the body at the siege of Mouzon, and run through the neck at the siege of Arras, in 1640; and the hardships he suffered at these two sieges, the little hopes he had of preferment, and perhaps his attachment to letters, made him renounce war, and apply himself altogether to certain literary pursuits. Amidst all his follies he had never neglected literature, but often withdrew himself, during the bustle and dissipation of a soldier’s life, to read and to write. He composed many works, in which he shewed some genius and extravagance of imagination, Marshal. Gassion, who loved men of wit and courage, because he had both himself, would have Bergerac with him but he, being passionately fond of liberty, looked upon this advantage as a constraint that would never agree with him, and therefore refused it. At length, however, in compliance with his friends, who pressed him to procure a patron at court, he overcame his scruples, and placed himself with the duke of Arpajon in 1653. To this nobleman he dedicated his works the same year, fur he had published none before, consisting of some letters written in his youtH, with a tragedy on the death of Agrippina, widow of Germanicus. He afterwards printed a comedy called “The Pedant,” but his other works were not printed till after his death. His “Comic history of the states and empires of the Moon” was printed in 1656. His “Comic history of the states and empires of the Sun,” several letters and dialogues, and a fragment of physics, were all collected and published afterwards in a volume. These comic histories and fragments shew that he was well acquainted with the Cartesian philosophy. He died in 1655, aged only thirtyfive years, his death being occasioned by a blow upon his head which he unluckily received from the fall of a. piece of wood a few months before.

The earl of.Orrery, in his “Remarks on the life and writings of Swift,” has taken occasion to speak of him in the following manner “Cyrano de Bergerac is a French author of a singular character, who had a very peculiar turn of wit and humour, in many respects resembling that of Swift. He wanted the advantages of learning and a regular education; his imagination was less guarded and correct, but more agreeably extravagant. He has introduced into his philosophical romance the system of des Cartes, which was then much admired, intermixed with several fine strokes of just satire on the wild and immechanical inquiries of the philosophers and astronomers of that age; and in many parts he has evidently directed the plan which the dean of St. Patrick’s has pursued.” This opinion was first quoted in the Monthly Review (vol. X), when Derrick translated a. id published Bergerac’s “Voyage to tha Moon,” 1753, 12mo. But Swift is not the only person indebted to Bergerac. His countrymen allow that Moliere, in several of his characters, Fontenelie, in his “Plurality of Worlds,” and Voltaire, in his “Micromegas,” have taken many hints and sketches from this eccentric writer. There have been various editions of his works at Paris, Amsterdam, Trevoux, &c. the last was printed at Paris, 1741, 3 vols. 12 mo.

, an eminent French antiquary, was born at Rheims, March 1, 1567, and not 1557, as asserted by Bayle, Moreri, and Niceron. After finishing his studies at the university of that city, he became preceptor to the children of count de St. Souplet, who always testified his respect for him on account of the pains he bestowed on their education. He then was admitted an advocate, and appointed law-professor and syndic of the city, a place which he filled during many of the elections. His talents and virtues were so highly estimated by his fellow-citizens, that as a mark of their confidence they employed him on their affairs at Paris. During his visits to that metropolis, he commenced a friendship with Dupuy and Peiresc, and formed an acquaintance with the president de Bellievre, who obtained for him the place of historiographer by brevet, with a pension of two hundred crowns. He was on a visit at the country-house of this celebrated magistrate, when he was attacked by a fever, which terminated fatally, August 18, 1623, in his fifty -seventh year. The president honoured him with an affectionate epitaph, which is printed in his two principal works. He is particularly known in the literary world by his “Histoire des grands chemins de l'empire Remain,” a work in which he was assisted by his friend Peiresc, who furnished him with many necessary documents. It was first printed in 4to, 1622, and in the course of a century became very scarce. In 1712 the first book of it was translated into English, and published at London, in 8vo, entitled “The general history of the Highways in all parts of the world, particularly in Great Britain.” In 1728, John Leonard, bookseller and printer at Brussels, published a new edition of the original, 2 vols. 4to, from a copy corrected by the author; and one yet more improved was printed at the same place, in 1736, 2 vols. 4to. They are both scarce, but the first is reckoned the best printed. It has also been translated into Latin by Henninius, professor in the university of Duisbourg, with learned notes, and the remarks of the abbé Du Bos, for Graevius’s antiquities, vol. X. but Bayle is mistaken in supposing that this work was translated into Latin and Italian by Benedict Baccliini, who, however, made some progress himself in a work “De viis antiquorum Romanorum in Italia,” and doubtless would have availed himself of Bergier’s labours. Besides this history of the Roman roads, Bergier had begun a history of Rheims, the manuscript of which the president de Bellievre wished Andre Duschesne to complete, but some obstruction arising on the part of the chapter of Rheims, who refused Duschesne access to their archives, he declined proceeding with the undertaking. The son of the author, however, John Bergier, unwilling that the whole should be lost, published the two books left complete by his father, with a sketch of the other fourteen of which it^as to consist. This wasentitled “Dessein de I'Histoire de Reims,” ibid. 1635, 4fo. Bergier was also author of 1. “Le point du Jour, ou Traite du Commencement des Jours et de l'endroit ou il est etabli sur la terre,” Rheims, 1629, 12 mo. The first, a Paris edition, 1617, wasentitled “Archemeron.” His object is to attain some general rule for avoiding the disputes respecting the celebration of the Catholic festivals. 2. “Le Bouquet royal,” Paris, 1610, 8vo; Rheims, 16:57, 4to, enlarged, an account of the devises and inscriptions which graced the entrance of Louis XIII. into Rheims. 3. “Police generale de la France,” 1617. 4. Various Latin and French poems inserted in the collections, but we cannot pronounce him very successful as a poet.

, a French writer of considerable note, was born at Darnay in Lorraine, December 31, 1718. In the career of promotion he was first curate of Flangebouche, a small village in Frunche-Comte, then professor of theology, principal of the college of Besai^on, a canon of the church of Paris, and confessor to the king’s aunts. Throughout life he was one of the most strenuous opponents of the modern philosophers of France. He acquired an early name by some essays on various literary subjects, to which the prizes were adjudged at Besanon and his reputation was considerably heightened by his very ingenious and plausible work, entitled “Elements primitifs des Langues, &c.” Paris, 1764, 12mo. Soon after he published another, which was favourably received by the learned world, “Origine des Dieux du Pagunisme et les sens des Fables decouvert, par une explication suivie des Poesies d'Hesiode,” Paris, 1767, 2 vols. 12mo. When about the same time he found religion attacked in every quarter by a combination of men of talents in France, he determined to endeavour to counteract their schemes. With this view he wrote “La Certitude des Preuves du Christianisme,” 1768, 12mo, particularly directed against the “Examen critique des Apologistes de la religion Chretienne,” improperly attributed to Freret; and it was allowed to have been written with much sense, precision, and moderation. This work, which occasioned more friends and more enemies to Bergier than any other, passed through three editions in the same year, besides being translated into Italian and Spanish. Voltaire, to whom the popularity of any writings of this tendency must have been peculiarly unpleasant, affected to answer it in his “Conseils raisonables,” written with his usual art, but more remarkable for wit than argument. Bergier answered the “Conseils,” the only instance in which he noticed any of his adversaries in public. He had another more contemptible antagonist, the noted Anacharsis Cloots, who published what he, and perhaps no man else, would have called “Certitude des Preuves du Mahometisme.” About this time the clergy of France, sensible of Bergier’s services, gave him a pension of two thousand livres, and offered him some valuable benefices, but he would only accept of a canonry in Notre Dame, and it was even against his inclination that he was afterwards appointed confessor to the mesdames, the last king’s aunts. Free from ambition, modest and simple in dress and manners, he was desirous only of a retired life, and at Paris he lived as he had done in the country, in the midst of his books. This study produced, successively, 1. “Le Deisme refute par lui-meme,” Paris, 1765, 1766, 1768, 2 vols. 12mo, an examination of the religious principle of Rousseau. 2. “Apologie de la Religion Chretienne contre l'auteur du Christianisme devoid,” (the baron Holbach) Paris, 1769, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “Examen du Materialisme, ou refutation du systeme de la Nature,” Paris, 1771, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Traite historique et dogmatique de la vraie Religion, &c.” Paris, 1780, 12 vols. 12mo. This is, in some respect, a collection of the sentiments of the ablest writers against infidelity. 5. “Discours sur le Manage des Protestants,” 1787, 8vo. 6. “Observations surle Divorce,” ibid. 1790, 8vo. He also compiled a thelogical dictionary, which makes a part of the “Encyclopedic methodique,” 3 vols. 4to. The abbé“Barruel says, that when this work was first undertaken, some deference was still paid to religion, and Bergier thought it incumbent on him to yield to the pressing solicitations of his friends, lest the part treating of religion should fall into the hands of its enemies, but in this they were deceived. Bergier, indeed, performed his task as might have been expected but in other parts of the work the compilers exceeded their predecessors in licentious sentiments, and at the same time availed themselves of the name of Bergier as a cloak. M. Barbier attributes to our author the sketch of Metaphysics inserted in the” Cours d‘etude de l’usage de l'Ecole militaire." In all his works there is a logical arrangement and precision, and the only objection the French critics have is to his style, which is sometimes rather diffuse. He died at Paris, April 9, 1790. He was a member of the academy of Besangon, and an associate of that of inscriptions and belleslettres.

, a German writer, was born at Laaspa in 1718, and died in 1781. He published, 1. “Cameralisten Bibliothek,” a complete catalogue of all books, pamphlets, &c. on the subjects of political economy, police, finances, &c. Nuremberg, 1765, 8vo. 2. “A Magazine of Police and Administration, in alphabetical order,” Francfort, 1767, 1773, 8 vols. 4to. 3. I“New Magazine of Police, &c.” Leipsic, 1775 80, 6 vols. 4to. 4. “A collection of the principal German laws, relative to police and administration,” Francfort, 4 vols. 1780 81. This last was continued by professor Beckmann of Gottingen.

, a physician and professor of natural history at Stockholm, and a member of the academy of sciences of that city, died in 1791. He wrote many works of considerable reputation. Having received from Grubb, the director of the Swedish India company, an herbal of plants collected at the Cape of Good Hope, he drew up a description of them, under the title of “Descriptiones plantarum ex Capite Boinc Spei,” Stockholm, 1767, 8vo, but generally quoted by the shorter title of “Flora Capensis.” Bergius discovered several plants in that colony, which had escaped the knowledge of preceding botanists, and established several genera, one of which he dedicated to Grubb, but this title was not generally adopted. He also published various memoirs on plants in the 'transactions of the societies of which he was a member, and, without ever travelling out of Sweden, found means to acquire a very accurate knowledge of the most rare exotics, and in compliment to his skill Linnæus consecrated to him a new genus by the name of Bergia. He wrote a vegetable “Materia medica,” under the title of “Materia medica e regno vegetabili, sistens simplicia officinalia pariter atque culinaria,” Stockholm, 1778, 8vo; 1782, 2 vols. 8vo and in the Swedish, a treatise on fruit trees, 1780, and a historical work on the city of Stockholm in the fifteenth and sixteenth century.

, brother of the preceding, a commissary of the bank of Stockholm, and a member of the academy, was born in 1725, and died in 1784. Being equally attached to the study of natural history, the brothers kept between them a very large garden, in which they cultivated rare plants, and which they bequeathed to the academy of Stockholm, with funds for a professorship of agriculture and gardening. The present professor is the celebrated Olaus Swartz. Benedict Bergius wrote various papers inserted among those of the academy, on the colour and change of colour of animals, on certain plants, the history of fishes, &c. and after his death appeared an ingenious treatise of his, in Swedish, on “Nicety in diet among all people,” which was translated into German, and published by Reinold Forster and Sprengelat Halle, 1192.

, was born at Hermanstadt, the capital cf Transylvania, about 16SO, and leaving his country in pursuit of employment, engaged with Fritsch, the opulent and spirited bookseller of Leipsic, as corrector of the press, but his turbulent and unsocial character having occasioned a dispute between him and Fritsch, he went to Amsterdam, where his intimate knowledge of Greek recom-r mended him to the superintendance of Wetstein’s edition of Homer, 1702, 2 vols. 12mo, and the magnificent edition of the Onomasticon of Pollux, 2 vols. fol. 1706. Bergler afterwards went to Hamburgh, where he assisted Fabric! us in his Bibl. Grceca, and his edition of Sextus Ernpiricus, Leipsic, 1718, folio. Returning then to Leipsic, he transcribed an ancient scholiast on Homer, published a new edition of Alciphron, with excellent notes, 1715, 8vo, dnd made some progress in an edition of Herodotus, in a new translation of Herodian, more literal than that of Politian, and in an edition of Aristophanes, which was published by the younger Burmann in 1760, 2 vols. 4to. Amidst all these employments, he contributed several excellent papers to the Leipsic “Acta Eruditorum.” It is to him likewise that we owe the Latin translation of the four books of Genesius on the Byzantine history, which is inserted in vol. XXIII. of that collection, published at Venice in 1733, but is not in the fine Louvre edition. For Fritsch, to whom he seems to have been reconciled, he translated a Greek work of Alexander Maurocordato, hospodar of Walachia, which was published, with the original text, under the title “Liber de officiis,” Leipsic, 1722, 4to, and London, 1724, 12mo. For this he was so liberally rewarded by John Nicolas, prince of Walachia, and son to the author, that he determined to ^uit Leipsic, and attach himself to his patron. He went accordingly to Walachia, where the prince had a capital library of manuscripts, collected at a vast expence. Bergler found there the introduction and first three chapters of Eusebius’s “Evangelical Demonstration,” hitherto undiscovered, and sent a copy of them to Fabricius, by whom they were printed in his “Delectus argumentorum,” Hamburgh, 1725, 4to. On the death of the prince, however, Bergler being without support, went to Constantinople, where he died in 1746, after having, it is said, embraced Mahometanism. He was a most accomplished scholar in Greek and Latin, and an accurate editor; but his unsteady turn and unsocial disposition procured him many enemies, aud even among his friends he was rather tolerated than admired.

, a celebrated chemist and natural philosopher, was born March 20, 1735, at Catharineberg in Westgothland. His father was receiver-gene^ ral of the finances, and had destined him to the same employment but nature had designed him for the sciences, to which he had an irresistible inclination from his earliest years. His first studies were confined to mathematics and physics, and all efforts that were made to divert him from science having proved ineffectual, he was sent to Upsal with permission to follow the bet of his inclination. Linnaeus at that time filled the whole kingdom with his fame. Instigated by his example, the Swedish youth flocked around him; and accomplished disciples leaving his school, carried the name and the system of their master to the most distant parts of the globe. Bergman, struck with the splendour of this renown, attached himself to the man whose merit had procured it, and by whom he was very soon distinguished. He applied himself at first to the study of insects, and made several ingenious researches into their history; among others into that of the genus of tenthredo, so often and so cruelly preyed on by the larvae of the ichneumons, that nestle in their bowels and devour them. He discovered that the leech is oviparous, and that the coccus aquaticus is the egg of this animal, from whence issue ten or twelve young. Linnæus, who had at first denied this fact, was struck with astonishment when he saw it proved. “Vidi et obstupui” were the words he pronounced, and which he wrote at the foot of the memoir when he gave it his sanction. Mr. Bergman soon distinguished himself as an astronomer, naturalist, and geometrician; but these are not the titles by which he acquired his fame. The chair of chemistry and mineralogy, which had been filled by the celebrated Wallerius, becoming vacant by his resignation, Mr. Bergman was among the number of the competitors and without having before this period discovered any particular attention to chemistry, he published a memoir on the preparation of alum, that astonished his friends as well av his adversaries but it was warmly attacked in the periodi­^cal publications, and Wallerius himself criticised it without reserve. The dispute, we may suppose, was deemed of high importance, since the prince Gustavus, afterwards king of Sweden, and then chancellor of the university, took cognizance of the affair, and after having consulted two persons, the most able to give him advice, and whose testimony went in favour of Bergman, he addressed a memorial, written with his own hand, in answer to all the objections urged against the candidate, to the consistory of the university and to the senate, who elected him agreeably to his highness’s wishes.

Bergman had now to satisfy the hopes that were conceived of him to justify the opinion of those who recommended him to fill the place of Wallerius uud to put ecivy to silence; nor was he unsuccessful in any of these attempts. He did not follow the common track in the study of chemistry. As he had received the lessons of no master, he was tainted with the prejudices of no school. Accustomed to precision, and having no time to lose, he applied himself to experiments without paying any attention to theories; he repeated those often which he considered as the most important and instructive, and reduced them to method, an improvement till then unknown. He first introduced into chemistry the process by analysis, which ought to be applied to every science for there should be but one method of teaching and learning, as there is but one of judging well. These views have been laid down by Mr. Bergman in an excellent discourse, which contains, if we may use the phrase, his profession of faith in what relates to the science. It is here that he displays himself without disguise to his reader, and here it is of importance to study him with attention. The productions of volcanoes had never been analysed when Messrs. Ferber and Troil brought a rich collection of them into Sweden, at the sight of which Mr. Bergman conceived the design of investigating their nature. He examined first of all the matters least altered by the fire, and the forms of which were still to be discerned he followed them in their changes progressively; he determined, he imitated their more complicated appearances he knew the effects which would result from the mixture and decomposition of the saline substances whick are found abundantly in these productions. He discovered such as were formed in the humid way and then in his laboratory he observed the process of nature that combat of flames and explosions that chaos in which the Clements seem to clash and to confound one another, unveiled themselves to his eyes. He saw the fire of volcanoes kindled in the midst of pyritical combinations, and sea-salt decomposed by clays he saw fixed air disengaged from calcined calcareous stones, spreading upon the snrface of the earth, and filling caverns in which flame and animal life are equally extinguished he saw the sulphureous acid thrown out in waves, convert itself into the vitriolic by mere contact with the air and distillinothrough the rocks, from the alum veins of the solfatara. He saw the bitumens as they melted the inflammable and sulphureous airs exhaling and the waters become mineral and impregnated with the fire and vapours of those stu2 pendous furnaces, preparing for the beings that move and dispute on the crust of the abyss, a remedy for pain and a balsam for disease.

The continual application bestowed by Mr. Bergman on his studies having affected his health, he was advised to interrupt them if he wished to prolong his life: but he found happiness only in study, and would not forfeit his title to reputation by a few years more of inactivity and languor. By this enthusiasm, however, he exhausted his strength, and died July 8, 1784. The university of Upsal paid the most distinguished honours to his memory; and the academy of Stockholm consecrated to him a medal to perpetuate the regret of all the learned in Europe for his loss. His principal publications were: 1. “A physical description of the Earth,” 1770—74, 2 vols. 8vo, a much admired work, and translated into the Danish, German, and Italian languages. 2. Various “Eloges” of the members of the academy of Stockholm. 3. An edition of Scheffer’s “Physics.” 4. Many papers in the Transactions of the Academies of Stockholm, Berlin, Montpellier, and the Royal Society, London. These smaller pieces form 6 vols. 8vo, under the title “Opuscula physica et chemica,” 1779 90, a part of which was translated under the title of “Physical and Chemical essays,” and published by Dr. Edmund Cullen, London, 1786, 2 vols.