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

, a French miscellaneous author, was born at Hermanville, in the neighbourhood of Caen, about 1604. It is said, in the “Segraisiana,” but we know not on what foundation, that he was the natural son of Mr. Fauconnier of Caen, a treasurer of France, by a woman of low rank, whom he afterwards married. Sarasin began his studies at Caen, and afterwards went to Paris, where he became eminent for wit and polite literature, though he was very defective in every thing that could be called learning. He then made the tour of Germany; and, upon his return to France, was appointed a kind of secretary to the prince of Conti. He was a man of a lively imagination and ready wit; and much caressed by those who thought themselves judges of that article. He was, however, so frequently invited on this account that he began to envy matter-of-fact men, from whom nothing of the kind is expected. He was also unfortunate in his marriage, his wife being a woman of a violent ungovernable temper. It is said that he persuaded the prince of Conti to marry the niece of cardinal Mazarin, and for this good office received a great sum; but this being discovered, the prince dismissed him from his service, with every mark of ignominy, as one who had sold himself to the cardinal. This treatment is supposed to have occasioned his death, which happened in 1654. Pelisson, passing through the town where Sarasin died, went to the grave of his old acquaintance, shed some tears, had a mass said over him, and founded an anniversary, though he himself was at that time a protestant.

, a secular priest, who was sometimes called Smith, and sometimes Holland, was born at Barrow in Lincolnshire, about 1621, and admitted of St. John’s college in Cambridge April 12, 1639, by the masters and seniors of which he was recommended to be secretary to Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of Durham. While in this employment he entered on a course of reading, which ended in his embracing the popish religion. He then went over to the English college of secular priests at Lisbon in 1642; and, after studying there some time, he returned to England in 1652, and was elected secretary of the secular clergy, and employed in propagating his religion, and writing books in defence of it, particularly against Dr. Hammond, Dr. Bramhall, Dr. Thomas Pierce, Dr. Tillotson, Casaubon, Taylor, Tenison, Stillingfleet, Whitby, &c. In the course of his controversies he wrote about forty volumes or pamphlets, the titles of which may be seen in Dodd. He had also a controversy with the superiors of his own communion, of which Dodd gives a long, but now very uninteresting account. He died, as his biographer says, with the pen in his hand, in 1707, in the eighty-sixth year of his age.

, usually called in England, Father Paul, in Italian, Fra Paolo, a very illustrious writer, was born at Venice Aug. 14, 1552, and was the son of Francis Sarpi, a merchant, whose ancestors came from Friuli, and of Isabella Morelli, a native of Venice. He was baptized by the name of Peter, which he afterwards, upon entering into his order, changed for Paul. His father followed merchandize, but with so little success, that at his death, he left his family very ill provided for, but under the care of a mother whose wise conduct supplied the want of fortune by advantages of greater value. Happily for young Sarpi, she had a brother, Ambrosio Morelli, priest of the collegiate church of St. Hermagoras, who took him under his care. Ambrosio was well skilled in polite literature, which he taught to several children of the noble Venetians: and he took particular care of the education of his nephew, whose abilities were extraordinary, though his constitution was very delicate. Paul had a great memory, and much strength of judgment; so that he made uncommon advance* in every branch of education. He studied philosophy and divinity under Capella, a father belonging to the monastery of the Servites in Venice; and when only in his tender years, made great progress in the mathematics, and the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Capelia, though a celebrated master, confessed in a little time that he could give his pupil no farther instructions, and with this opinion of his talents, prevailed with him to assume the religious habit of the Servites, notwithstanding his mother and uncle represented to him the hardships and austerities of that kind of life, and advised him with great zeal against it. But he was steady in his resolutions, and on Nov. 24, 1566, took the habit, and two years after made his tacit profession, which he solemnly renewed May 10, 1572.

Father Paul’s great fame would not suffer him any longer to enjoy his retreat: for he was now appointed procuratorgeneral of his order; and during three years at Rome, where he was on that account obliged to reside, he discovered such extraordinary talents, that he was called by the pope’s command to assist in congregations where matters of the highest importance were debated. He was very much esteemed by Sixtus V. by cardinal Beliarmine, and by cardinal Castegna, afterwards Urban VII. Upon his return to Venice, he resumed his studies, beginning them before sun-rise, and continuing them all the morning. The afternoons he spent in philosophical experiments, or in conversation with his learned friends. He was now obliged to remit a little from his usual application: for, by too intense study, he had already contracted infirmities, with which he was troubled till old age. These made it necessary for him to drink a little wine, from which he had abstained till he was thirty years old; and he used to say, that one of the things of which he most repented was, that he had been persuaded to drink wine. He ate scarce any thing but bread and fruits, and used a very small quantity of food, because the least fulness rendered him liable to violent pains of the head.

, a very celebrated preacher, was the son of an eminent protestant lawyer, and was born at Nismes in 1677. His father retired, after the repeal of the edict of Nantz, to Geneva, at which place he died. Saurin made no small progress in his studies, but abandoned them for some time, that he might follow arms. In 1694, he made a campaign as a cadet in lord Galloway’s company, and soon afterwards procured a pair of colours. But as soon as the duke of Savoy had concluded a peace with France, Saurin quitted a profession for which he never was designed; and, on his return to Geneva again, applied himself to philosophy and divinity, under Turretin and other professors. In 1700, he visited both Holland and England. In this last country he remained five years, and preached among the French refugees in London. Here also he married in 1703, and returned to the Hague in 1705. Soon after he became pastor to the church of French refugees, who were permitted to assemble in the chapel belonging to the palace of the princes of Orange at the Hague, in which he officiated during the remainder of his life. When the princess of Wales, afterwards queen Caroline, passed through Holland on her way to England, Saurin had the honour of paying his respects to her, and she, upon her return, desired Dr. Boulter, the preceptor to prince Frederic, the father of the present king, to write to Saurin, to draw up a treatise “on the education of princes.” The work was done, but never printed, and the author received a handsome present from the princess, and afterwards a pension from George II. to whom he dedicated a volume of his sermons. Saurin died Dec. 30, 1730. He possessed great talents, with a fine address, and a strong, clear, and harmonious voice, while his style was pure, unaffected, and eloquent. His principles were what are called moderate Calvinism. Five volumes of his sermons have made their appearance at different times; the first in 1708, the second in 1712, the third some years after, the fourth in 1722, and the fifth in 1725. Since his death, the sermons relating to the passion of Jesus Christ, and other subjects, were published in two volumes. In 1727 he published “The State of Christianity in France.”

the only clergyman belonging to it. In lain, and a well-stored wine-cellar clergyman ever admitted into it, was a member of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, and was D. D. of both universities. He was rector, first of Bygrave, then of Clottiall, Herts, and lecturer of St. George, Hanover-square, London. In his younger days he had travelled with James, fifth earl of Salisbury, who gave him the great living of Clothall, where Dr. Savage rebuilt the rectory-house. In his more advanced years he was so lively, pleasant, and facetious, that he was called the “Aristippus” of the age. One day, at the levee, George I. asked him, “How long he had stayed at Rome with lord Salisbury” Upon his answering how long, “Why,” said the king, “you stayed long enough, why did you not convert the Pope” “Because, sir,” replied he, “I had nothing better to offer him.” Having been bred at Westminster, he had always Jl great fondness for the school, attended at all their plays and elections, assisted in all their public exercises, grew young again, and, among boys, was a great boy himself. He used to attend the schools, to furnish the lads with extempore epigrams at the elections. He died March 24, 1747, by a fall down the stairs belonging to the scaffolding for lord Lovat’s trial; and the king’s scholars had so great a regard for him, that, after his decease, they made a collection among themselves, and, at their own charge, erected a small tablet of white marble to his memory in the East cloister, with a Latin inscription. Besides a visitation and an assize sermon, Mr. Cole attributes the following works to him: 1. “The Turkish History by Mr. Knolles and sir Paul Rycaut abridged,” 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. This was shewn to sir Paul, who approved of it so much, that he designed to have written a preface to it, had not death prevented him. 2. “A Collection of Letters of the Ancients, whereby is discovered the morality, gallantry, wit, humour, manner of arguing, and in a word the genius of the Greeks and Romans,” 1703, 8vo.

, a French traveller, was born at Vitre in Brittany, and pursued his studies at Rennes with considerable distinction. In 1776, he visited Egypt, at which place he remained for the space of three years. Whilst here he paid particular attention to the manners of the inhabitants, a knowledge of the Arabic tongue, and an investigation of antiquities. From Egypt he went to the islands of the Archipelago, over most of which he travelled, and examined them with careful attention. On his return to France, in 1780, he published, “A translation of the Koran, with a sketch of the life of Mahomet.” He also published an extract from the above work, which he called “La Morale de Mahomet.” His principal work was “Letters on Egypt,” which have been well received, and translated into different European languages. Yet it is objected to this work, and with great appearance of reason, that the author has yielded too much to the powers of a lively imagination, and that he has given rather a fascinating than a correct picture. Volney’s Travels may serve to restore the likeness, and correct Savary’s exuberances. Encouraged, however, by the success of this work, Savary published his “Letters on Greece,” which is likewise an agreeable and entertaining performance. Soon after this period he died, at Paris, in 1788. He was a man of considerable talents, an excellent taste, and a lively fancy; and, although many of his positions have been controverted, as well by Volney, as by other writers on the same subjects, his works are written in a style and manner which render them highly interesting to a large class of readers.

, marquis of Halifax, a celebrated statesman, but of equivocal character, was descended from an ancient family in Yorkshire. He was the son of sir William Savile, bart. and Anne, daughter of Thomas lord Coventry, lord keeper of the great seal. He was born, probably about 1630. Upon the death of his father, he succeeded to the title of baronet, and soon distinguished himself by his abilities in public affairs; and being zealous in bringing about the restoration, was created a peer, in consideration of his own and his father’s merits. In 1668 he was appointed of that remarkable committee, which sat at Brook-hall for the examination of the accounts of the money which had been given during the Dutch war, of which no member of the House of Commons was admitted. In April 1672 he was called to a seat in the privy council; and, June following, went over to Holland with the duke of Buckingham and the earl of Arlington, as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, to treat about a peace with France, when he met with great opposition from hi* colleagues.

In 1675 he opposed with vigour the non-resisting testbill; and was removed from the council-board the year following by the interest of the earl of Dauby, the treasurer. He had provoked this lord by one of those witticisms in which he dealt so largely. In the examination before the council concerning the revenue of Ireland, lord Widrington confessed that he had made an offer of a considerable sum to the lord treasurer, and that his lordship had rejected it very mildly, and in such a mariner as not to discourage a second attempt. Lord Halifax observed upon this, that “it would be somewhat strange if a man should ask the use of another man’s wife, and the other should indeed refuse it, but with great civility.” His removal was very agreeable to the duke of York, who at that time had a more violent aversion to him than even to Shaftesbury himself, because he had spoken with great firmness and spirit in the House of Lords against the declaration for a toleration. However, upon a change of the ministry in 1679, his lordship was made a member of the new council. The same year, during the agitation of the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York, he seemed averse to it; but proposed such limitations of the duke’s authority when the crown should devolve upon him, as should disable him from doing any harm either in church or state; such as the taking out of his hands all power in ecclesiastical matters^ the disposal of the public money, and the power of peace or war, and lodging these in the two Houses of Parliament; and that the parliament in being at the king’s death should continue without a new summons, and assume the administration; but his lordship’s arguing so much against the danger of turning the monarchy, by the bill of exclusion, into an elective government, was thought the more extraordinary, because he made an hereditary king the subject of his mirth, and had often said “Who takes a coachman to drive him, because his father was a good coachman” Yet he was now jealous of a small slip in the succession; though he at the same time studied to infuse into some persons a zeal for a commonwealth; and to these he pretended, that he preferred limitations to an exclusion, because the one kept up the monarchy still, only passing over one person; whereas the other really introduced a commonwealth, as soon as there was a popish king on the throne. And it was said by some of his friends, that the limitations proposed were so advantageous to public liberty, that a man might be tempted to wish for a popish king, in order to obtain them. Upon this great difference of opinion, a faction was quickly formed in the new council; lord Halifax, with the earls of Essex and Sunderland, declaring for limitations, and against the exclusion, while the earl of Shaftesbury was equally zealous for the latter; and when the bill for it was brought into the House of Lords, lord Halifax appeared with great resolution at the head of the debates against it. This so highly exasperated the House of Commons, that they addressed the king to remove him from his councils and presence for ever: but he prevailed with his majesty soon after to dissolve that parliament, and was created an earl. However, upon his majesty’s deferring to call a new parliament, according to his promise to his lordship, his vexation is said to have been so great as to affect his health, and he expostulated severely with those who were sent to him on that affair, refusing the post both of secretary of state and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. A parliament being called in 1680, he still opposed the exclusion-bill, and gained great reputation by his management of the debate, though it occasioned a new address from the House of Commons to remove him. However, after rejecting that bill in the House of Lords, his lordship pressed them, though without*success, to proceed to limitations; and began with moving that the duke might be obliged to live five hundred miles out of England during the king’s life. In August 1682, he was created a marquis, and soon after made privy-seal, and, upon king James’s accession, president of the council. But on refusing his consent to the repeal of the tests, he was told by that monarch, that, though he could never forget his past services, yet, since he would not comply in that point, he was resolved to have unanimity in his councils, and, therefore, dismissed him from all public employments. He was afterwards consulted by Mr. Sidney, whether he would advise the prince of Orange’s coming over; but, this matter being only hinted, he did not encourage a farther explanation, looking upon the attempt as impracticable, since it depended on so many accidents. Upon the arrival of that prince, he was sent by the king, with the earls of Kochester and Godolphin, to treat with him, then at Hungerford.

There was another Henry Savile, related to the above family, and familiarly called Long Harry Savile, who entered a student of Merton college in 1587, during the wardenship of sir Henry, and was soon after made one of the portionists, commonly called postmasters. After taking the degree of B. A. he left Merton college, and removed to St. Alban-hall, where in 1595, he took the degree of M. A. Under the inspection of his learned kinsman, he became an eminent scholar, especially in the mathematics, physic (in which faculty he was admitted by the university to practise), chemistry, painting, heraldry, and antiquities. Afterwards, in order to extend his knowledge, he travelled into Italy, France, and Germany, where he greatly improved, himself He is said to have written several things, but non$ have been published. He gave Camden the ancient copy of ^sser Menevensis, which he published in 1602, and which contains the legendary story of the discord between the new scholars which Grimbald brought with him to Oxford, at the restoration of the university by king Alfred, &c. This Henry Savile lived some years after his return from the continent, in the parish of St. Martin’s in the Fields, London, and dying there April 29, 1617, aged forty-nine, was buried in the chancel belonging to the parish church, where was a monument to his memory. Among the Cotton Mss. is a letter from him to Camden, “concerning antiquities near Otley in Yorkshire.”

There still remains one of this family to be noticed, sir John Savile, elder brother to sir Henry, who was born at Bradley in 1545, and entered a commoner of Brasenose college about 1561, whence, without taking a degree, he went to the Middle Temple for the study of the law. Being called to the bar, he became autumn reader of that house in 1586, steward of the lordship of Waken“eld, serjeant at law in 1594, one of the barons of the exchequer in 1598, and at the same time one of the justices of assize. In July 1603, a little before his coronation, king James conferred the honour of knighthood on him, being one of the judges who were to attend that solemnity. He died at London, Feb. 2, 1606, aged sixty-one, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church, Fleet-street, but his heart was buried in Methley church, Yorkshire, where is a monument to his memory, erected by his son. Camden acknowledges the assistance he received from sir John Savile in his historical labours. He left at his death several pieces fit for publication, but none have appeared, except” Reports of divers cases in the courts of common pleas and exchequer, from 22 to 3 6Elizabeth," a thin folio, printed first in 1675, and again in 1688.

, a celebrated commander, was born October 19, 1696, at Dresden, and was the natural son of Frederick Augustus If. king of Poland, and Aurora, countess of Konigsinarc. He gave evident proofs of his taste for military affairs from his childhood; was taught to read and write with the utmost difficulty; nor could he ever be prevailed upon to study a few ho irs in the morning, otherwise than by a promise that he should ride on horseback in the afternoon. He liked to have Frenchmen about him, for which reason their language was the only foreign one which he willingly learnt grammatically. He attended the elector in all his military expeditions; was at the siege of Lisle in 1708, when only twelve years old, and mounted the trenches several times both at the city and at the fortress, in sight of the king, his father, who admired his intrepidity. Nor did he discover less courage at the siege of Tournay, the year following, where he twice narrowly escaped death; and at the buttle of Malplaquet, far from being shocked by the dreadful carnage which attended the engagement, he declared in the evening, “that he was well pleased with the day.” In 1711, he followed the king of Poland to Stralsund, where he swam over the river, in sight of the enemy, with his pistol in his hand, during which time he saw, /vithout any seeming emotion, three officers and above twenty soldiers fall by his side. When he retired to Dresden, the king, who had been witness to his courage and abilities, raised a company of horse for him. Count Saxe spent the whole winter in teaching his regiment some new evolutions, which he had invented, and marched them against the Swedes the year following. This regiment suffered much st the battle of Gadelbusli, where he made them return three times to the attack. This campaign being ended, mad. de Konigsmarc married him to the young countess de Loben, a rich and amiable lady, whose name Avas Victoria, which name, count Saxe afterwards said, contributed as much to fix his choice on the countess, as her beauty and largtr fortune. This lady brought him a son, who died young, and the count having at length a disagreement with her, procured his marriage to be dissolved in 1721, but promised the countess never to marry again, and kept his word. She married a Saxon officer soon after, by whom she had three children, and they lived in harmony together. It was with, great reluctance that the countess had consented to her Carriage being dissolved, for she loved count Saxe; and the latter frequently repented afterwards of having taken such a step. He continued to signalize himself in the war against Sweden, was at the siege of Stralsund in December 1715, when Charles XII. was blocked up, and had the satisfaction of seeing him in the midst of his grenadiers“. The behaviour of this celebrated warrior inspired count Saxe with a high degree of veneration, which he ever retained for his memory. He served against the Turks in Hungary in 1717, and on his return to Poland in 1718, received the order of the white eagle from the king. In 1720, he visited France, and the duke of Orleans, then regent, gave him a brevet of marechal de camp. Count Saxe afterwards obtained leave from his Polish majesty to serve in France, where he purchased a German regiment in 1722, which afterwards bore his name. He changed the ancient exercise of this regiment for one of his own invention; and the chevalier Folard, on seeing this exercise, foretold immediately, in his Commentary on Polybius, torn. III. b. ii. chap. 14, that count Saxe would be a great general. During his residence in France, he learnt mathematics and the art of fortification with astonishing facility, till 1725, when prince Ferdinand, duke of Courland, falling dangerously ill in the month of December, he turned his thoughts to obtaining the sovereignty of Courland. With this view, he set out for Mittau, and arrived there, May 18, 1726. He was received with open arms by the states, and had several private interviews with the duchess dowager of Courland, who had resided there since her husband’s decease. This lady was Anne Iwanaw, second daughter of the czar I wan Alexiowitz, brother of Peter the Great. Count Saxe, having communicated his design to her, soon engaged her in his interests; and she acted with such indefatigable ardour, and conducted affairs so well, that he was unanimously elected duke of Courland, July 5, 1726. Thia choice being; opposed by Poland and Russia, the duchess supported count Saxe with all her interest, and even went to Riga and Petersburg, where she redoubled her solicitations in favour of the late election. There seems indeed to be no doubt, but that, if the count had returned her passion, he would not only have maintained his ground in Courland, but shared the throne of Russia, which this princess afterwards ascended; but, during his stay at Mittau, an affair of gallantry between him and one of her ladies broke off the marriage, and induced the duchess to abandon him. From that moment the count’s affairs took an unhappy turn, and he was forced to go back to Paris in 1729. The following remarkable circumstance occurred during the course of his enterprise: Having written from Ccmrlandto France for a supply of men and money, mademoiselle le Couvreur, a celebrated actress, who was at that time attached to him, pawned her jewels and plate, and sent him 40,000 livres. When count Saxe returned to Paris, he applied himself to obtain a complete knowledge of the mathematics, and acquired a taste for mechanics. He refused the command of the Polish army offered him by the king, his brother, in 1733, and distinguished himself on the Rhine under marechal Berwick, particularly at the lines of Etlingen, and the siege of Philipsburg, after which he was made lieutenant-general August 1, 1734. Hostilities having recommenced on the death of the emperor Charles VI. count Saxc took Prague by assault, Nov. 26, 1741, then Egra and Ellebogen, raised a regiment of Hullans, and brought back marechal de Broglio’s army upon the Rhine, where, he fixed various posts, and seized the trenches of Lanterburg. He was appointed marechal of France, March 26, 1744, and commanded the main bocly of the army in Flanders, where he so exactly observed the motions of the enemies, who were superior in, number, and made use of such excellent manoeuvres, that he reduced them to remain inactive, for they were afraid to undertake any thing. This campaign in Fianders did count Saxe great honour, and was considered as a chefd'ceuvre of the military art. He won the famous battle of Fonterioi, under the king’s command, May 11, 1745, where, though sick and weak, he gave his orders with such presence of mind, vigilance, courage, and judgment, as made him the admiration of the whole army. This victory was followed by the capture of Tournay, which the French be^ sieged; of Ghent, Bruges, Oudenarde, Ostend, Ath, &c. and at the time that the campaign was supposed to be finished, he took Brussels, February 28, 1746. Nor was the next campaign less honourable to count Saxe. He won the battle of Kauconx, Oct. I 1, the same year, 1746; and his majesty, to reward such a constant series of glorious services, dtrlurod him marechal general of his camps and armies, Jan. 12, 1747. Marechal Saxe carried troops into Zealand, gained the battle of Lanfeldt, July 2 following-, approved the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom, of which M. de Loewen made himself master, and took Maestrecht, May 7, 1748. In consequence of these victories a peace was concluded at Aix-la-Chapelle, Oct. 18, the same year. Marechai Saxe went afterwards to Chambord, which the king had given him, ordered his regiment of Hullans thither, and kept a stud of wild horses, more proper for light cavalry than those used by the French. He visited Berlin some time after, and was magnificently entertained by his Prussian majesty. On his return to Paris, he formed a plan for the establishment of a colony in the island of Tobago; but gave it up, when he found that England and Holland opposed it. Count Saxe died, after a nine days 7 illness, at Chambord, Nov. 30, 1750, in the fifty-fourth year of his age. He wrote a book on the art of war, called” Mes Reveries/ 1 of which a very splendid edition, with his life, was published in 1757, 2 vols. 4to. There is also an English translation of it. His “Life” was printed in 1752 > vols. 12mo, reprinted often.

, a Danish historian, is supposed to have been a native of Denmark, but this has been a disputed point. As to his name Sachse, it is evident from many monuments of Danish antiquity, that it is of no obscure or late origin in the history of Denmark. Saxo himself calls the Danes his countrymen, Denmark his country; and speaking of the kings, he terms them our kings. Some attribute his origin to Ambria, others with more reason to Sialandia, a Danish island. The name Scalandicus is also added to that of Saxo, in some editions of his works. He has been called Longus, which has induced some to attribute his descent to the noble family of the Langii. Others have rather chosen to ascribe this name to the height of his stature. Saxo, in his preface, speaks of his ancestors as having been distinguished in war, which indicates that they were of no ignoble race. His name of Grammaticus was titular, and expressive of his attainments in literature. There are different opinions concerning the year of his birth. It is, however, certain that he flourished in the twelfth century. Carpzovius endeavoured, by some acute and subtile reasonings, to ascertain the date. The education of Saxo is equally involved in uncertainty. Pontoppidan supposes that he studied at Paris,and there acquired the eleg.ance of style for which he afterwards was distinguished. It is certain, that in the 12th century the Cimbri and the Danes frequently went to France for education. It may, however, be doubted, whether in the rage for trifle which then prevailed at Paris, Saxo could have procured a master who was capable of instructing him. We must be rather inclined to suppose that he owed his attainments to his own industry and talents. It appears that he applied to theology, for we find him appointed capitular in the bishopric of Lundens, and afterwards a prefect in the cathedral of Roschiid. While he 'filled this office he was sent, in 1161, by Absalon, the bishop of Roschiid, to Paris, with a view of inviting some monks from St. Genevieve, who might correct^the depraved morals of those which belonged to Eskilsco. William Abbas accepted the invitation of Saxo, and three brothers followed him. These monks introduced into Denmark the monastic discipline which had been prescribed by St. Augustine. Various opinions have been offered about the date of Saxo’s death. Pontanus supposes it to have been in the year 1208. Some conjecture the time to have been 1190, others in 1201. But, when we reflect that in his preface he speaks of Waldemar II. who ascended the throne of Denmark in 1203, and that Andrew Suno, to whom the history is dedicated, succeeded Absalon in the bishopric in 1202, we cannot agree with those who have adopted the earlier dates. Though some others have fixed the date in 1204, and others in 1206, the general opinion is, that he died in 1208, aged upwards of seventy. He was buried in the cathedral of Roschild. Three centuries afterwards, an inscription was’ added to his tomb by Lago Urne, bishop of Scalandre. Though more elegant verses might have been invented, says Klotzius, none could have been more true.

, a dissenting minister of considerable talents, was born in 1675, and was the second son of the Rev. Giles Say, who had been ejected from the vicarage of St. Michael’s in Southampton by the Bartholomew-act in 1662; and, after king James the second’s liberty of conscience, was chosen pastor of a dissenting congregation at Guestwick in Norfolk, where he continued till his death, April 7, 1692. Some years after, the subject of this article being at Southwark, where he had been at school, and conversing with some of the dissenters of that place, met with a woman of great reputation for piety, who told him, with joy, that a sermon on Ps. cxix. 130, preached by his father thirty years before, was the means of her conversion. Being strongly inclined to the ministry, Mr. Say entered as a pupil in the academy of the Rev. Mr. Thomas Rowe at London about 1G92, where he had for his fellow-students Mr (afterwards Dr.) Isaac Watts, Hughes the poet, and Mr. Josiah Hort, afterwards archbishop of Tuam. When he had finished his studies, he became chaplain to Thomas Scott, esq. of Lyrninge in Kent, in whose family he continued three years. Thence he removed to Andover in Hampshire, then to Yarmouth in Norfolk, and soon after to Lowestoffin Suffolk, where he continued labouring in word and doctrine eighteen years. He was afterwards copastor with the Rev. Mr. Samuel Baxter at Ipswich nine years; and lastly was called, in 1734, to succeed Dr. Edmund Caiamy in Westminster, where he died at his house in James-street, April 12, 1743, of a mortification in his bowels, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

, a very learned and eminent critic, was born, according to his son’s account, April 23, 1484, at Ripa, a castle in the territory of Verona, and was the son of Benedict Scaliger, who, for seventeen years, commanded the troops of Matthias, king of Hungary, to whom he was related. His mother was Berenice Lodronia, daughter of count Paris. From the same authority we learn, that Scaliger was a descendant from the ancient princes of Verona; but while other particulars of the birth and family ol Scaliger are called in question, this seems to be refuted by the patent of naturalization which Francis I. granted him in 1528, in which such an honourable descent would unquestionably have been noticed, whereas in this instrument he is called only “Julius Caesar della Scala de Bordons, doctor of physic, a native of Verona.” When therefore, his critical asperities had raised him enemies, they did not fail to strip him of his royal origin, and instead of it, asserted that he was the son of a school-master (some say an illuminator) of Verona, one Benedict Borden, who, removing to Venice, took the name of Scaliger, either because he had a scale for his sign, or lived in a street called from that instrument; and although Thuanus seems inclined to consider this story as the fabrication of Augustine Niphus, out of pique to Scaliger, it is certain that the royal origin of the Scaligers has always appeared doubtful, and we have now no means to remove the uncertainty.

There are two “Scaligerana;” one printed at the Hague in 1666; the other at Groningen 1669, and for some reason or other called “Scaligerana Prima.” Desmaizeaux published a neat edition of them, together with the “Thuana,” “Perronana,” “Pithtcaria,” and “Colomesiana,” at Amsterdam, 1740, in 2 vols. 12mo.

, a very learned chemist, was born in 1742, at Stralsund in the capital of Swedish Pomerania, where his father was a tradesman. Having shown an inclination to learn pharmacy, he was bound apprentice to an apothecary at Gottenburg, with whom he lived eight years, and at his leisure hours contrived to make himself master of the science of chemistry, reading the best authors, and making such experiments as his confined means would permit. From Gottenburg, he went to Malmo, and two years after to Stockholm. In 1773 he went to Upsal, and resided for some time in the house of Mr. Loock. Here Bergman first found him, saw his merit and encouraged it, adopted his opinions, defended him with zeal, and took upon him the charge of publishing his treatises. Under this liberal patronage (for Bergman procured him also a salary from the Swedish academy), Scheele produced a series of discoveries which at once astonished and delighted the world. He ascertained the nature of manganese discovered the existence and singular properties of oxymuriatic acid and gave a theory of the composition of muriatic acid, which promises fair to be the true one. He discovered a new earth which was afterwards called barytes; and he determined the constituents of the volatile alkali. All these discoveries are related in one paper published about 1772. He discovered and ascertained the properties of many acids, the nature of plumbago and molybdena; analyzed fluor spar, which had eluded the searches of all preceding chemists; and determined the constituents of tungstate of lime. His two essays on the prussic acid are particularly interesting, and display the resources of his mind, and his patient industry, in a very remarkable point of view. His different papers on animal substances are particularly interesting, and replete with valuable and accurate information. On one occasion, in his treatise on fire, Scheele attempted the very difficult and general subject of combustion; but his attempt was not crowned with success. The acuteness, however, with which he treated it deserves our admiration; and the vast number of new and important facts, which he brought forward in support of his hypothesis, is truly astonishing, and perhaps could not have been brought together by any other man than Scheele. He discovered oxygen gas, and ascertained the composition of the atmosphere, without any knowledge of what had been previously done by Dr. Priestley. His views respecting the nature of atmospheric air were much more correct than those of Priestley; and his experiments on vegetation and respiration, founded on those views, were possessed of considerable value. These and other discoveries which stamp the character of Scheele as a philosopher, are to be found generally in the transactions of the Royal Society of Stockholm. Dr. Beddoes published an English translation of mo t of his dissertations, with useful and ingenious notes. There is also an English translation of his dissertation on air and fire, with notes by Richard Kirwan, esq.

, a celebrated German physician and philosopher, was born March 3, 1649, at Jena,.;ui was son of Christopher Schelhamm T, a it an- lessor of anatomy and surgery in that city, and fir where he was also physician to the duke of Holstei“uthier died January 11, 1716, in his sixtyseventieth year leaving” Introductio in artem medicam," Hali. 1726, 4to, and a great number of valuable and learned wor > physu;, of which it is to be wished that a complete co: v'Jtion was published. He published also some botanical dissertations, and first described the peculiar change wliici during germination, takes place in the cotyledon of palms. The Schelhammera, in botany, was so called in honour of him. His life, by Scheffelius, in Latin, Visnr*r, 17 % 8vo, is prefixed to the letters written to him by several of the literati.

Dr. Schomberg had a younger brother, Ralph Schomberg, M. D. who first settled at Yarmouth as a physician^ and published some works on professional subjects that indicated ability, and others from which he derived little reputation. Of the former kind are, 1. “Aphorismi practici, sive observationes medicse,” for the use of students, and in alphabetical order, 1750, 8vo. 2. “Prosperi Martiani Annotationes in csecas praenotationes synopsis,” 175 1 * 3. “Van Swieten’s Commentaries” abridged. 4. “A Treatise of the Colica Pictonum, or Dry Belly-ache,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Duport de signis morborum libri quatuor,” 1766. Of the latter, are some dramatic pieces of very little value, and 6. “An Ode on the present rebellion,” 1746. 7. “An Account of the present rebellion,” 1746. 8. “The Life of Maecenas,” 1767, 12mo, taken without acknowledgment from Meibomius. 9. “A critical Dissertation on the characters and Writings of Pindar and Horace, in a letter to the right hon. the earl of B” also a shame* ful instance of plagiarism from Blondell’s “Comparison de Pindare et D' Horace.” It would have been well if his pilferings had only been from books; but after he had removed to Bath, and practised there some years with considerable success, he tried his skill upon the funds of a public charity, and, detection following, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat from Bath, and from public practice. He appears to have hid himself first at Pangbourn in Berkshire, and afterwards at Heading, where he died June 29, 1792. In the obituary he is called “Ralph Schornberg, Esq.”

, a very learned German, to whom the republic of letters has been considerably indebted, was born at Antwerp, Sept. 12, 1552; and educated at Louvain. Upon the taking and sacking of Antwerp in 1577, he retired to Douay; and, after some stay there, went to Paris, where Busbequius received him into his house, and made him partner of his studies. Two years after, he went into Spain, and was at first at Madrid; then he removed to Alcala, and then in 1580 to Toledo, where his great reputation procured him a Greek professorship. The cardinal Gaspar Quiroga, abp. of Toledo, conceived at the same time such an esteem for him, that he lodged him in his palace, and entertained him as long as he remained in that place. In 1584, he was invited to Saragossa, to teach rhetoric and the Greek language; and, two years after, entered into the society of Jesuits, and was called by the general of the order into Italy to teach rhetoric at Rome, He continued three years there., and then returned to his own country, where he spent the remainder of a long life in study and writing books. He was not only well skilled in Latin and Greek learning, but had also in him a candour and generosity seldom to be found among the men of his order. He had an earnest desire to oblige all mankind, of what religion or country soever and would freely communicate even with heretics, if the cause of letters could her served: hence protestant writers every where mention him with respect. He died at Antwerp Jan. 23, 1629, after having published a great number of books. Besides works more immediately connected with and relating to his own profession, he gave editions of, and wrote notes upon, several of the classics; among which were Aurelius Victor, Pomponius Mela, Seneca Rhetor, Cornelius Nepos, Vale* rius Flaccus, &c. He wrote the life of Francis di Borgia, and “Hispania illustrata,” 4 vols. folio, hut there are reasons for doubting whether the “Bibliotheca Hispana,” $ vols. in one, 4to, was a publication of his own; it seems rather to have been compiled from his Mss. He published, however, an edition of Basil’s works, and is said to have translated Photius; but this has been thought to be so much below the abilities and learning of Schott, that some have questioned his having been the author of it.

Soon alter his arrival in the United Provinces, he was chosen professor of oriental languages in the academical school of Amsterdam, where he resided during five years, and enjoyed the esteem and friendship of a numerous acquaintance. Besides Latin Lectures to the students, he delivered some in Dutch, on the Jewish antiquities and oriental history, which were much frequented and greatly admired. On the death of his father, in 1773, he was called to Leyden as his successor. In Nov. 1792, he was attacked by a malignant catarrhal fever that terminated in a consumption, of which he died in August 1793. Some time before his death, his physician found him reading the latter part of St. John’s gospel, of which he expressed the warmest admiration, and added, “It is no small consolation to me, that, in the vigour of health, I never thought less highly of the character and religion of Christ, than I do now, in the debility of sickness. Of the truth and excellence of Christianity I have always been convinced, and have always, as far as human frailty would allow, endeavoured so to express this conviction that, in these my last hours, I might with confidence look forwards to a blessed immortality.” Schultens, in his private character, was in every respect an amiable and worthy man.

, an eminent naturalist, was born in 1725, at Cavalese, in the bishopric of Trent. He studied at Inspruck, and at twenty years old obtained the degree of licentiate in medicine, and afterwards was intrusted with the care of the hospitals of Trent, and of hi* native town Cavalese; but as this stage was too small for his ambition, he requested that his parents would permit him to go to Venice. In that city, under the auspices of Lo taria Lotti, he extended his knowledge of medicine, and added to it a more intimate acquaintance with pharmacy, botany, and natural history. On his return he traversed the mountains of Tirol and Carniola, where he laid the foundation of his “Flora” and “Entomologia Carniolica.” In 1754- he accompanied count de Firmian, prince bishop, and afterwards cardinal, to Gratz, from whence he went to Vienna to obtain a diploma to practice in the Austrian dominions. His examination is said to have been rigorous, and his thesis on a new method of classing plants to have been received with great regard. The friendship of Van Swieten, if in this instance it can be called friendship, procured him the office of first physician to the Austrian miners of Tirol. In this banishment he continued more than ten years; for it was only in 1766, after repeated solicitations, that he obtained the post of counsellor in the mining department, and professor of mineralogy at Schemnitz; but in this interval he produced his “Anni tres Historico-naturales,” 1769 to 1771, 8vo. In this new office he was indefatigable in teaching, exploring new mines, composing different works on fossils, and improving the method of treating minerals; but after ten years’ labour, he was not able to obtain the newly-established chair of natural history at Vienna; yet soon after his attempt, about the end of 1776, he was appointed professor of chemistry and botany at Pavia. In this situation he published some pharmaceutical essays, translated and greatly augmented Macquer’s Dictionary, and explained the contents of the cabinet of natural history belonging to the university, under the title of " Deliciae Florae et Faunae Insubricee,' 7 the last part of which he did not live to complete. The president of the Linnsean society, who dedicated the Scopolia to his memory, informs us that, after some domestic chagrin, and much public persecution, he died at Pavia, May 8, 1788. He had been concerned with all the most eminent men of that university, Volta, Fontana, and others, in detecting the misconduct of their colleague, the celebrated Spallanzani, who had robbed the public museum. But the emperor, loth to dismiss so able a professor, contented himself with a personal rebuke at Vienna to the culprit, and his accusers were silenced, in a manner which was supposed to have caused the death of Scopoli. The survivors told their story, as explicitly as they durst, in a circular letter to the learned of Europe.

This divine wrote an excellent work, called “The Christian Life,” which has been often printed, and much read. The first part was published 1681, in 8vo, wiih this title, “The Christian Life, from its beginning to its consummation in glory, together with the several means and instruments of Christianity conducing thereunto, with directions for private devotion and forms of prayer, fitted to the several states of Christians;” in 1685, another part, “wherein, the fundamental principles of Christian duty are assigned, explained, and proved;” in 1686, another part, “wherein the doctrine of our Saviour’s mediation is explained and proved.” To these volumes of the “Christian Life” the pious author intended a continuation, had not long infirmity, and afterwards death, prevented him. This work is not now much read, although the ninth edition was published in 1729. Mr. Orton, in his “Letters to young Ministers,” seems to recommend the first volume only. Dr. Scott published two pieces against the papists: I. “Examination of Bellarmine’s eighth note concerning sanctity of doctrine.” 2. “The texts examined, which papists cite out of the Bible concerning prayer in an unknown tongue.” Both these pieces were printed together, Oct. 1688, while king James was upon the throne. He wrote also “Certain Cases of Conscience resolved, concerning the lawfulness of joining with forms of prayer in public worship,” 1683, in two parts; which were both reprinted, and inserted in the second volume of a work entitled “A collection of Cases and other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England,” 1685, 4to. His whole works, including sermons, &c. were published in 2 vols. fol. 1704.

, a poet of considerable genius, and a very amiable man, was the youngest son of Samuel and Martha Scott, and was born January 9, 1730, in the GrangeWalk, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey. His father was a draper and citizen of London, a man of plain and irreproachable manners, and one of the society of the people called quakers, in which persuasion our poet was educated, and continued during the whole of his life, although not with the strictest attention to all the peculiarities of that sect. In the seventh year of his age he was put under the tuition of one John Clarke, a native of Scotland, who kept a school in Bermondsey-street, attended young Scott at his father’s house, and instructed him in the rudiments of the Latin tongue. In his tenth year his father retired with his family, consisting of Mrs. Scott and two sons, to the village of Amwell in Hertfordshire, where, for some time, he carried on the malting trade. Here our poet was sent to a private day-school, in which he is said to have had few opportunities of polite literature, and those few were declined by his father from a dread of the smallpox, which neither he nor his son had yet caught* This terror, perpetually recurring as the disorder made its appearance in one quarter or another, occasioned such frequent removals as prevented his son from the advantages of regular education. The youth, however, did not neglect to cultivate his mind by such means as were in his power. About the age of seventeen he discovered an inclination to the study of poetry, with which he combined a delight in viewing the appearances of rural nature. At this time he derived much assistance from the conversation and opinions of one Charles Frogley, a person in the humble station of a bricklayer, but who had improved a natural taste for poetry, and arrived at a considerable degree of critical discernment. This Mr. Scott thankfully acknowledged when he had himself attained a rank among the writers of his age, and could return with interest the praise by which Frogley had cheered his youthful attempts. The only other adviser of his studies, in this sequestered spot, was a Mr. John Turner, afterwards a dissenting preacher. To him he was introduced in 1753 or 1754, and, on the removal of Mr. Turner to London, and afterwards to Colleton in Devonshire, they carried on a friendly correspondence on matters of general taste.

Although we have hitherto contemplated our author as a student and occasional poet, he rendered himself more conspicuous as one of those reflectors on public affairs who employ much of their time in endeavouring to be useful. Among other subjects, his attention had often been called to that glaring defect in human polity, the state of the poor; and having revolved the subject in his mind, with the assistance of many personal inquiries, he published in 1773 “Observations on the present state of the parochial and vagrant Poor.” It is needless to add, that his advice in this matter was rather approved than followed. Some of his propositions, indeed, were incorporated in Mr. Gilbert’s Bill, in 1782; but the whole was lost for want of parliamentary support.

His public and private character appears to have been in every respect worthy of imitation, but what his religious opinions were, except that he cherished a general reverence for piety, is somewhat doubtful. Professedly, he was one of the society called Quakers, but the paper which that society, or some of his relations, thought it necessary to publish after his death, seems to intimate that in their opinion, and finally in his own, his practice had riot in all respects been consistent.

, of Balwirie, a learned Scotch author of the fifteenth century, made the tour of France and Germany, and was received with some distinction at the court of the emperor Frederick II. Having travelled enough to gratify his curiosity, he returned to Scotland, and gave himself up to study and contemplation. He was skilled in languages; and, considering the age in which he lived, was no mean proficient in philosophy, mathematics, and medicine. He translated into Latin from the Arabic, the history of animals by the celebrated physician Avicenna. He published the whole works of Aristotle, with notes, and affected much to reason on the principles of that great philosopher. He wrote a book concerning “The Secrets of Nature,” and a tract on “The nature of the Sun and Moon,” in which he shews his belief in the philosopher’s stone. He likewise published what he called “Mensa Philosophica,” a treatise replete with astrology and chiromancy. He was much admired in his day, and was even suspected of magic, and had Roger Bacon and Cornelius Agrippa for his panegyrists.

, a distinguished surgeon, was born in 1595, at Ulm, and studied medicine at Padua, where he took his degrees in that faculty in 1621. On his return to his native city, he practised with great reputation for twenty years, until being called to Stutgard to a patient, he was there attacked with a fit of apoplexy, which terminated his life December 1, 1645. He appears to have practised surgery extensively, and with great boldness in the operations of bronchotomy, of the trephine, and forempyema. His principal work is entitled “Armamentarium Chirurgicum, 43 tabulis acre incisis ornatum;” and was published after his death, at Ulm, in 1653. It subsequently passed through many editions, and was translated into most of the European languages.

, called also Cu­Ropalates, from an office he held in the household of the emperor of that name, was a Greek historian, known for his abridgment of history from the death of Nicephorus Logothetes, in 811, to the deposition of Nicephorus Botoniates, in 1081. This history, from 1067, is the same as that of Cedrenus, which has raised a doubt whether Cedre-. nus or Scylitza was the original author. Scylitza is thought to have been a native of Lesser Asia, and a prefect of the guards before he attained the dignity of curopalates. A Latin translation of his history entire, was published at Venice in 1570; and the part concerning which there is no dispute was printed in Greek and Latin conjointly with that author, at Paris, in 1647.

, an apothecary of Amsterdam, who died in 1736, prepared a splendid description, with plates, of his own museum, in four large folio volumes, which came out between 1-734 and 1765. His three lattervolumes were posthumous publications. Many Cape plants are here engraved, and amongst them one of the genus Sebea, so called, in honour of him. Yet Seba does not deserve to rank as a scientific botanist; nor did Linna3us, who knew him, an4 by whose recommendation he employed Artedi to arrange his fishes, ever think him worthy to be commemorated in a genus. If, however, we compare him with numbers who have been so commemorated, he will not appear to so much disadvantage; for as a collector he stands rather high.

, an eminent English prelate, was born in 1693, at asmail village called Sibthorpe, in the vale of Belvoir, Nottinghamshire. His father was a Protestant dissenter, a pious, virtuous, and sensible man, who, having a small paternal fortune, followed no profession. His mother was the daughter of Mr. George Brough, of Shelton, in the county of Nottingham, a substantial gentleman farmer He received his education at several private schools in the country, being obliged by various accidents to change his masters frequently; yet at the age of nineteen he had not only made a considerable progress in Greek and Latin, and read the best and most difficult writers in both languages, but had acquired a knowledge of French, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Syriac, had learned geography, logic, algebra, geometry, conic sections, and gone through a course of lectures on Jewish antiquities, and other points preparatory to the study of the Bible. At the same time, in one or other of theseacademies, he had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with several persons of great abilities. Among the rest, in the academy of Mr. Jones at Tewkesbury, he laid the foundation of a strict friendship with Mr. Joseph Butler, afterwards bishop of Durham.

In little more than two years after his grace’s promotion to the see of Canterbury, died the late George II. Of what passed on that occasion, and of the form observed in proclaiming our present sovereign (in which the archbishop of course took the lead), his grace has left an account in writing. He did the same with regard to the subsequent ceremonials of marrying and crowning their present majesties, which in consequence of his station he had the honour to solemnize, and in which he found a great want of proper precedents and directions. He had before, when rector of St. James’s, baptized the new king (who was born in Norfolk-house, in that parish) and he was afterwards called upon to perform the same office for the greatest part of his majesty’s children a remarkable, and perhaps unexampled concurrence of such incidents in the life of one man.

All designs and institutions that tended to advance good morals and true religion he patronized with zeal and generosity. He contributed largely to the maintenance of schools for the poor, to rebuilding or repairing parsonagehouses and places of worship, and gave at one time no less than 500l. towards erecting a chapel in the parish of Lambeth, to which he afterwards added near 100l. more. To the society for promoting Christian knowledge he was a liberal benefactor; and to that for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, of which he was the president, he paid much attention, was constant at the meetings of its members, and superintended their deliberations with consummate prudence and temper. He was sincerely desirous to improve to the utmost that excellent institution, and to diffuse the knowledge and belief of Christianity as wide as the revenues of the society, and the extreme difficulty of establishing schools and missions amongst the Indians, and of making any effectual and durable impressions of religion on their uncivilized minds, would admit. But Dr. Mayhew, of Boston in New England, having in an angry pamphlet accused the society of not sufficiently answering these good purposes, and of departing widely from the spirit of their charter, with many injurious reflections interspersed on the church of England, and the design of appointing bishops in America, his grace on all these accounts thought himself called upon to confute his invectives, which he did in a short anonymous piece, entitled “An Answer to Dr. Mayhew’s Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society for propagating the Gospel,” London, 1764, reprinted in America. The strength of argument, as well as fairness and good temper, with which this answer was written, had a considerable effect on all impartial men; and even on the doctor himself, who plainly perceived that he had no common adversary to deal with; and could not help acknowledging him to be “a person of excellent sense, and of a happy talent at writing; apparently free from the sordid illiberal spirit of bigotry; one of a cool temper, who often shewed much candour, was well acquainted with the affairs of the society, and in general a fair reasoner.” He was therefore so far wrought upon by his “worthy answerer,” as to abate much in his reply of his former warmth and acrimony. But as he still would not allow himself to be “wrong in any material point,” nor forbear giving way too much to reproachful language and ludicrous misrepresentations, he was again animadverted upon by the late Mr. Apthorpe, in a sensible tract, entitled, “A Review of Dr. Mayhew’s Remarks,” &c. 1765. This put an end to the dispute. The doctor, on reading it, declared he should not answer it, and the following year he died.

, a nonconformist divine, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, in 1600, and educated first at Queen’s college, and then at Magdalen-hall, Oxford. After taking his degrees in arts, he was ordained, and became chaplain to lord Horatio Vere, whom he accompanied into the Netherlands. After his return, he went again to Oxford, and was admitted to the reading of the sentences in 1629. Going then to London he preached at St. Mildred’s, Bread-street, until interrupted by the bishop, and in 1639 became vicar of Coggeshall in Essex, where he continued three or four years. The commencement of the rebellion allowing men of his sentiments unconstrained liberty, he returned to London, and preached frequently before the parliament, inveighing with extreme violence against the church and state: to the overthrow of both, his biographers cannot deny that he contributed his full share, in the various characters of one of the assembly of divines, a chaplain in the army, one of the triers, and pne of the ejectors of those who were called “ignorant and scandalous ministers.” In 1646 he became preacher at St. Paul’s, Covent-garden, where he appears to have continued until the decay of his health, when he retired to Marl borough, and died there in January 1658. As a divine, he was much admired in his day, and his printed works had considerable popularity. The principal of them are, “The Fountain opened,” 1657; “An exposition of Psalm xxiii.” 1658, 4to; “The Anatomy of Secret Sins,” 1660; “The Parable of the Prodigal,” 1660; “Synopsis of Christianity,” &c. &c. He had a brother, John, an ad*, herent to the "parliamentary cause, and a preacher, but of less note; and another brother Joseph, who became batler in Magdalen college in 1634, and B.A. in 1637, and then went to Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree, and, was elected fellow of Christ’s college. After the restora-^ tion he conformed, and was beneficed in the church; in 1675 he was made prebendary of Lincoln, and was also rector of Fisherton, where he died Sept. 22, 1702, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, leaving a son John Sedgwick, who succeeded him in the prebend, and was vicar of Burton Pedvvardine in Lincolnshire, where he died in 1717.

, a priest and poet, either Irish or Scotch, of the fifth century, is recorded as the writer of an heroic poem, called “Carmen Paschale,” divided into five books. The first begins with the creation of the world, and comprehends the more remarkable passages of the Old Testament. The next three describe the life of Jesus Christ. This performance has been highly commended by Cassiodorus, Gregorius Turrinensis, and others. Sedulius afterwards wrote a piece on the same subjects in prose. The poem was printed by Aldus in the collection of sacred poets, in 1502. It is also in Maittaire’s “Corp. Poet.” and has since been published by itself, with learned notes, by Arntzenius, 1761, 8vo, and by Arevale at Rome, 1794, 4-to.

, one of the most learned men of the seventeenth century, wasthe son of John Selden, a yeoman, by Margaret his wife, only daughter of Mr. Thomas Baker of Rushington, descended from the family of th Bakers in Kent. He was born Dec, 16, 1584, at a house called the Lacies at Salvinton, near Terring in Sussex, and educated at the free-school at Chichester, where he made a very early progress in learning. In 159$, at fourteen years of age, as some say, but according to Wood, in 1600, he was entered of Hart-hall, Oxford, where under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Barker (brother to his schoolmaster at Chichester) and Mr. John Young, both of that hall, he studied about three years, and then removed to Clifford’s Inn, London, for the study of the law, and about two years afterwards exchanged that situation for the Inner Temple. Here he soon attained a great reputation for learning, and acquired the friendship of sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, Camden, and Usher. In 1606, when only twentytwo years of age, he wrote a treatise on the civil government of Britain, before the coming in of the Normans, which was esteemed a very extraordinary performance for his years. It was not printed, however, until 1615, and then very incorrectly, at Francfort, under the title “Analects Anglo-Britannicwv Hbri duo, de civile administratione Britanniae Magnae usque ad Normanni adventum,” 4to. Nicolson is of opinion that these “Analecta” do not so clearly account for the religion, government, and revolutions of state among our Saxon ancestors, as they are reported to do. It was an excellent specimen, however, of what might be expected from a youth of such talents and application.

In his next, and one of his most memorable performances, he did not earn th*e fame of it without some danger. This was his “Treatise of Tythes,” the object of which was to prove that tithes were not due by divine right under Christianity, although the clergy are entitled to them by the laws of the land. This book was attacked by sir James Sempill in the Appendix to his treatise entitled “Sacrilege sacredly handled,” London, 1619, and by Dr. Richard Tillesley, archdeacon of Rochester, in his “Animadversions upon Mr. Selden’s History of Tithes,” London, 1621, 4to. Selden wrote an answer to Dr. Tillesley, which being dispersed in manuscript, the doctor published it with remarks in the second edition of his “Animadversions,” London, 1621, 4to, under this title, “Animadversions upon Mr. Selden’s History of Tithes, and his Review thereof. Before which (in lieu of the two first chapters purposely praetermitted) is premised a catalogue of 72 authors before the yeare 1215, maintaining the Jus divinum of Tythes, or more, to be paid to the Priesthood under the Gospell.” Selden’s book was likewise answered by Dr. Richard Montague in his “Diatribe,” London, 1621, 4to; by Stephen Nettles, B. D. in his “Answer to the Jewish Part of Mr. Selden’s History of Tythes,” Oxford, 1625; and by William Sclater in his “Arguments about Tithes,” London, 1623, in 4to. Selden’s work having been reprinted in 1680, 4to, with the old date put to it, Dr. Thomas Comber answered it in a treatise entitled, “An Historical Vindication of the Divine Right of Tithes, &c.” London, 1G&1, in 4to. This work also excited the displeasure of the court, and the author was called before some of the lords of the high commission, Jan. 28, 1618, and obliged to make a publicsubmission, which he did in these words: “My good Lords, I most humbly acknowledge my errour, which 1 have committed in publishing the ‘ History of Tithes,’ and especially in that I have at all, by shewing any interpretation of Holy Scriptures, by meddling with Councils, Fathers, or Canons, or by what else soever occures in it, offered any occasion of argument against any right of maintenance ' Juredivino* of the Ministers of the Gospell; beseeching your Lordships to receive this ingenuous and humble acknowledgment, together with the unfeined protestation of my griefe, for that through it I have so incurred both his Majestie’s and your Lordships’ displeasure conceix-ed against mee in behalfe of the Church of England.” We give this literally, because some of Mr. Selden’s admirers have asserted that he never recanted any thing in his book. The above is at least the language of recantation; yet he says himself in his answer to Dr. Tillesley, “I confesse, that I did most willingly acknowledge, not only before some Lords of the High Commission (not in the High Commission Court) but also to the Lords of his Majesty’s Privy Council, that I was most sorry for the publishing of that History, because it had offended. And his Majesty’s most gracious favour towards me received that satisfaction of the fault in so untimely printing it; and I profess still to all the world, that I am sorry for it. And so should I have been, if I had published a most orthodox Catechism, that had offended. But what is that to the doctrinal consequences of it, which the Doctor talks of? Is there a syllable of it of less truth, because I was sorry for the publishing of it Indeed, perhaps by the Doctor’s logic there is; and just so might he prove, that there is the more truth in his animadversions, because he was so glad of the printing them. And because he hopes, as he says, that my submission hath cleared my judgment touching the right of tithes: what dream made him hope so? There is not a word of tithes in that submission more than in mentioning the title; neither was my judgment at all in question, but my publishing it; and this the Doctor knows too, as I am assured.” Selden, therefore, if this means any thing, was not sorry for what he had written, but because he had published it, and he was sorry he had published it, because it gave offence to the court and to the clergy. In 1621, king James having, in his speech to the parliament, asserted that their privileges were originally grants from the crown^ Selden was consulted by the House of Lords on that question, and gave his opinion in favour of parliament; which being dissolved soon after, he was committed to the custody of the sheriff of London, as a principal promoter of the famous protest of the House of Commons, previous to its dissolution. From this confinement, which lasted only five weeks, he was released by the interest of Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, and returned to his studies, the first fruits of which were> a learned epistle prefixed to Vincent’s “Discovery of errors in two editions of the Catalogue of Nobility by Ralph Brooke,” Lond. 1622, and the year following his “Spicilegium in Eadmeri sex libros Historiarum,” fol.

Although he had already been consulted by parliament on account of his knowledge of constitutional antiquities, he had not yet obtained a seat in that assembly; but in 1623 he was chosen a member for Lancaster, and in the parliament called in 1625, on the accession of Charles L he was chosen for Great Bed win in Wiltshire) and novr took an active p>rt in opposition to the measures of the court*. In 1626 he was chosen of the committee for

* In Trinity term, 1624, he was concerning him were respited until this chosen reader of Lyon’s-lnn, but re- term. Now this day being called agairt fused to perform that office. In the to the table, he doth absolutely refuse register of the Inner Temple is the fol- to read. The masters of the bench, lowing passage “Whereas an order taking into consideration his contempt was made at the Bench-Table this term, add offence, and for that it is without ince the last parliament, and entered precedent, that any man elect-d to into the buttery-book in these words; read in chancery has been discharged Jovtslldie Octobrls 1624. Memoran- in like case, much less has with such dum, that whereas John Selden, esq. wilfulness refused the same, have orone of the utter barristers of this house, dered, that he shall presently pay to *ras in Trinity term last, chosen reader the use of this house the sum of 20J. of Lyon’s-lnn by the gentlemen of the for his fine, and that he stand and be same house, according to the order of disabled ever to be called to the bench, their house, which he then refused to or to be a reader of this house. Now take upon him, and perform the same, at this parliament the said order is coriwithout some sufficient cause or good firmed; and it is further ordered, that reason, notwithstanding many ccwirte- if any of this house, which hereafter ous and fair persuasions and admoni- shall be chosen to read in chancery, tions by the masters of the bench made shall refuse to read, every such offender to him; forwhich cause he having been shall be fined, and be disabled to be twice convented before the masters of called to the bench, or to be a reader the bench, it was then ordered, that of this house.” However, in Michaelthere should be a nt reclpiatur entered mas term 1632, it was ordered, that upon his name, which was done accord- Mr. Seldea “shall stand enabled and ingly and in respect the beneh was be capable of any preferment in the not then full, the farther proceedings House, in such a manner as other drawing up articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham, and was afterwards appointed one of the managers for the House of Commons on his trial. In 1627 he opposed the loan which the king endeavoured to raise, and although he seldom made his appearance at the har, pleaded in the court of King’s Bench for Hampden, who had been imprisoned for refusing to pay his quota of that loan. After the third parliament of Charles I. in which he sat for Lancaster, had been prorogued, he retired to Wrest in Bedfordshire, a seat belonging to the earl of Kent, where he finished his edition of the” Marmora Arundelliana," Loud. 1621), 4to, reprinted by Prideaux, with additions at Oxford, in 1676, folio, and by Maittaire, at London, 1732, in folio.

utter barristers of this House are to all standing-; and accordingly he was called intents and purposes, any former act to the beach Michaelmas following.“of parliament to the contrary notwithand his” lixor Hebraica,“on the marriages, divorces, &c. of the ancient Hebrews. In 1633 he was one of the committee appointed for preparing the mask exhibited by the gentlemen of the Inns of Court, before the king and queen on Candlemas night, in order to show their disapprobation, of Prynne’s book against stage-plays, called” Histriomastix:" so various were Selden’s pursuits, that he could even, superintend mummery of this kind, while apparently under the displeasure of the court. His next publication, however, effectually reconciled the court and ministers.

In 1643, he afforded every proof of his adherence to the republican party, by taking the covenant; and the same year, was by the parliament appointed keeper of the records in the Tower. In 1644, he was elected one of the twelve commissioners of the admiralty and nominated to the mastership of Trinity- college, in Cambridge, which he did not think proper to accept. In this year, he published his treatise “De Anno civili et Calendario Judaico,” 4to. In 1646, the parliament was so sensible of his services that they voted him the sum of 5000l. in consideration of his sufferings. What these were we have already related. In 1647, he published his learned “Dissertation annexed to (a book called) Fleta,” which he discovered in the Cottonian library. A second edition was published in 1685, but in both are said to be many typographical errors. In 1771, R. Kelham Esq. published a translation with notes. This work contains many curious particulars relating to those ancient authors on the laws of England, Bracton, Britton, Fleta, and Thornton, and shews what use was made of the imperial law in England, whilst the Romans governed here, at what time it was introduced into this nation, what use our ancestors made of it, how long it continued, and when the use of it totally ceased in the king’s courts at Westminster.

, whose adventures have given rise to the popular romance of Robinson Crusoe, was born at Largo, in Fifeshire, in Scotland, about 1676, and was bred a seaman. He left England in 1703, in the capacity of sailing-master of a small vessel, called the Cinque- PortsGalley, Charles Pickering captain and in the month of September, the same year, he sailed from Cork, in company with another ship of 26 guns and 120 men, called the St. George, commanded by captain William Dampier, intended to cruise against the Spaniards in the South sea. On the coast of Brasil, Pickering died, and was succeeded in the command by lieutenant Stradling. They proceeded round Cape Horn to the island of Juan Fernandez, whence they were driven by the appearance of two French ships of 36 guns each, and left five of Stradling’s men on shore, who were taken off by the French. Hence they sailed to the coast of America, where Dampier and Stradling quar^ relied, and separated by agreement. This was in the month of May 1704; and in the following September, Stradling came to the island of Juan Fernandez, where Selkirk and his captain having a quarrel, he determined to remain there alone. But when the ship was ready to sail, his resolution was shaken, and he desired to be taken on board; but now the captain refused his request, and he was left with hm clothes, bedding, a gun, and a small quantity of powder and ball, some trifling implements, and a few books, with certain mathematical and nautical instruments. Thus left sole monarch of the island, with plenty of the necessaries, of life, he found himself at first in a situation scarcely supportable; and such was his melancholy, that he frequently determined to put an end to his existence. It was full eighteen months, according to his own account, before he could reconcile himself to his lot. At length his mind became calm, and fully reconciled to his situation: he grew happy, employed his time in building and decorating his huts, chasing the goats, whom he soon equalled in speed, and scarcely ever failed of catching them. He also tamed young kids, and other animals, to be his companions. When his garments were worn out, he made others from the skins of the goats, whose flesh served him as food. His only liquor was water. He computed that he had caught, during his abode in the island, about 1000 goats, half of which he had suffered to go at large, having first marked them with a slit in the ear. Commodore Anson, who went there 30 years after, found the first goat which they shot, had been thus marked; and hence they concluded that it had been under the power of Selkirk. Though he constantly performed his devotions at stated hours, and read aloud, yet when he was taken from the island, his language, from disuse of conversation, had become scarcely intelligible. In this solitude he remained four years and four months, during which only two incidents occurred which he thought worthy of record. The first was, that pursuing a goat eagerly, he caught at the edge of a precipice, of which he was not aware, and he fell over to the bottom, where he lay some time senseless; but of the exact space of time in which he was bereaved of his active powers he could not ferm an accurate estimate. When, however, he came to himself, he found the goat lying under him dead. It was with difficulty that he could crawl to his habitation, and it was not till after a considerable time that he entirely recovered from his bruises. The other event was the arrival of a ship, which he at first supposed to be French, but, upon the crew’s landing, he found them to be Spaniards, of whom he had too great a dread to trust himself in their hands. They, however, had seen him, and he found it extremely difficult to make his escape. In this solitude Selkirk remained until the 2d of February, 1709, when he saw two ships come to the bay, and knew them to be English. He immediately lighted a fire as a signal, and he found, upon the landing of the men, that they were two privateers from Bristol, commanded by captains Rogers and Courtney. These, after a fortnight’s stay at Juan Fernandez, embarked, taking Selkirk with them, and returned byway of the East Indies to England, where they arrived on the 1st of October, 1711; Selkirk having been absent eight years. The public curiosity being much excited, he, after his return, drew up some account of what had occurred during his solitary exile, which he put into the hands of Defoe, vvho made it the foundation of his well-known work, entitled “Robinson Crusoe.” The time and place of Selkirk’s death are not on record. It is said, that so late as 1798, the chest and musket, which Selkirk had with him on the island, were in possession of a grand nephew, John Selkirk, a weaver in Largo, North Britain. Such are the particulars of this man’s history as recorded in “The Englishman,” No. 26, and elsewhere, but what credit is due to it, we do not pretend to say.

, an eminent Stoic philosopher, was born at Corduba in Spain, the year before the beginning of the Christian sera, of an equestrian family, which had probably been transplanted thither in a colony from Rome. He was the second son of Marcus Annseus Seneca, commonly called the rhetorician, whose remains are printed under the title of “Stiasorise & Controversise, cum Declainationum Excerptis;” and his youngest brother Annæus Mela (for there were three of them) was memorable for being the father of the poet Lucan. He was re* jnoved to Rome, while he was yet in his infancy, by his aunt, who accompanied him on account of the delicacy of his health. There he was educated in the most liberal manner, and under the best masters. He learned his eloquence from his father; but preferring philosophy to the declamations of the rhetoricians, he put himself under the stoics Attalus, Sotion, and Papirius Fabianus, of whom he has made honourable mention in his writings. It is probable too, that he travelled when he was young, since we find in several parts of his works, particularly in hij “Quæstiones Naturales,” some correct and curious observations on Egypt and the Nile. But these pursuits did not at all correspond with that scheme of life which his father designed; and to please him, Seneca engaged in the business of the courts, with considerable success, although he was rather an argumentative than an eloquent pleader. As soon as he arrived at manhood, he aspired to the honours of the state, and became questor, praetor, and, as Lipsius will have it, even consul, but the particulars of his public life are not preserved.

, or John de Serres, a learned Frenchman, was born in the sixteenth century, and was of the reformed religion. His parents sent him to Lausanne, where he was taught Latin and Greek, and attached himself much to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle; but, on his return to France, he studied divinity, in order to qualify himself for the ministry. He began to distinguish himself by his writings in 1570; and, in 1573, was obliged to take refuge in Lausanne, after the dreadful massacre on St. Bartholomew’s day. Returning soon to France, he published a piece in French, called “A Remonstrance to the king upon some pernicious principles in Bodin’s book de Republica:” in which he was thought to treat Bodin so injuriously, that Henry III. ordered him to prison. Obtaining his liberty, he became a minister of Nismes in 1582, but never was looked upon as a very zealous protestant; and some have gone so far as to say, but without sufficient foundation, that he actually abjured it. He is, however, supposed to have been one of those four ministers, who declared to Henry IV. that a man might be saved in the popish as well as the protestant religion; a concession which certainly did not please his brethren. He published, in 1597, with a view to reconcile the two religions, “De Fide Catholica, sive de principiis religionis Christiana?, communi omnium consensu semper et ubique ratis;” a work as little relished by the catholics, as by the protestants. He died suddenly in 1598, when he was not more than fifty, and the popish party circulated a report that his brethren of Geneva had poisoned him.

, an ingenious architect and machinist, was born at Florence in 1695. He rendered himself famous by his exquisite taste in architecture, and by his genius for decorations, fetes, and buildings. He was employed and rewarded by most of the princes of Europe. He was honoured in Portugal with the order of Christ. In France he was architect and painter to the King, and member of the different academies established for the advancement of these arts. He received the same titles from the kings of Britain, Spain, Poland, and from the duke of Wirtemberg; but notwithstanding these advantages, his want of economy was so great, that he left nothing behind him. He died at Paris in 1766. Paris is indebted to him for many of its ornaments. He made decorations also for the theatres of London and Dresden. The French king’s theatre, called la salle des machines, was under his management for some time. He was permitted to exhibit shows consisting of single decorations, some of which are said to have been astonishingly sublime, as his representations of St. Peter’s of Rome; the descent of JEneas into hell; the enchanted forest; and the triumph of conjugal love; the travels of Ulysses; Hero and Leander; and the conquest of the Mogul by Thamas Koulikan. He built and embellished a theatre at Chambon for Mareschal Saxe, and had the management of a great number of fetes in Paris, Vienna, London, and Lisbon. Frederick prince of Wales, too, engaged him in his service: but the death of his royal highness prevented the execution of the designs which had been projected. Among his most admired architectural performances, are the portal, and many of the interior decorations of the church of St. Sulpice, at Paris the great parish church of Coulanges in Burgundy the great altar of the metropolitan church of Sens and of the Chartreux at Lyons, &c. &c.

, a celebrated grammarian and critic of antiquity, flourished in the fifth century. He is known now chiefly by his commentaries upon Virgil, which Barthius and others have supposed to be nothing more than a collection of ancient criticisms and remarks upon that poet, made by Servius. They were first published by Valdarfer in 1471, and reprinted several times in that century, afterwards in an edition of Virgil, at Paris, by Robert Stephens, 1532, in folio, and by Fulvius Ursinus, in 1569, 8vo. A better edition was given by Peter Daniel at Paris, in 1600; but the best is that printed with the edition of Virgil, by Masvicius, in 1717, 4to. Burman, in his edition of 1746, has so blended these notes with those of Heinsius, as to render it difficult to determine how he reconciles their opposite authorities. There is also extant, and printed in several editions of the ancient grammarians, a piece of Servius upon the feet of verses and the quantity of syllables, called “Centiaietrum.” This was first printed in 1476. Macrobius has spoken highly of Servius, and makes him one of the speakers in his “Saturnalia.”

, a poetaster, much noticed in poetical history, and of whom, therefore, some account may be expected, was the son of Joseph Settle, of Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, and was born in 1648. In 1666 he was entered a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, but quitted the university and came to London probably in the following year, when he commenced author and politician. At his outset he joined the whigs, who were then, though the minor, yet a powerful party, and employed his talents in their support. Afterwards, he went over to the other side, and wrote for the tories with as much spirit, and doubtless as much principle, as he had employed for the whigs. Among other effusions, he published a heroic poem on the coronation of James II.; and wrote paragraphs and essays in the newspapers in support of the administration. In this change of party he had woefully miscalculated; the revolution took place, and from that period having lost the little credit he had, he lived poor and despised, subject to all the miseries of the most abject state of indigence, and destitute of any advantageous and reputable connection. In 1680 he was so violent a whig, that the famous ceremony of pope-burning on the 17th of November was entrusted to his management, and he seems to have been at that time much in the confidence of those who opposed government. After his change he became equally violent against those with whom he had before associated, and actually entered himself a trooper in king James’s army at Hounslow Heath. In the latter part of his life he was so reduced as to attend a booth in Bartholomew-fair, the keepers of which gave him a salary for writing drolls. He also was obliged to appear in his old age as a performer in these wretched theatrical exhibitions, and, in a farce called “St. George for England,” acted a dragon inclosed in a case of green leather of his own invention. To this circumstance, Dr. Young refers in the following lines of his epistle to Mr. Pope:

In the end, he obtained admission into the Charter-house, and died there Feb. 12, 1723-4. The writer of a periodical paper, called The Briton,“Feb. 19, 1724, speaks of him as then just dead, and adds,” he was a man of tall stature, red face, short black hair, lived in the city, and had a numerous poetical issue, but shared the misfortune of several other gentlemen, to survive them all."

Settle had a pension from the city, for an annual panegyric to celebrate the festival of the lord-mayor, in consequence of which he wrote various poems, called “Triumphs for the Inauguration of the Lord-mayor,” the last of which was in 1708. His dramatic pieces, all now forgot^ amount to nineteen. His poems it would be difficult to enumerate, and not worth the labour.

Mr. Seward was himself a poet, and a contributor to Dodsley’s collection; he was also an admirer of our ancient drama, and in 1750 published an edition of Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays. Thus accomplished himself, the talents of his daughter did not long escape his observation, and tinder his instructions she laid the foundation of a taste for poetry. The authors he recommended to her were those of queen Anne’s reign. She wasea.ly familiar with Pope, Young, Prior, and their predecessor Dry den, and in later life, used to make little allowance for poetry of an uider date, excepting only that of Sbakspeare and Milton. The desire of imitating the compositions which gave her pleasure, very early displayed itself. She attempted metrical versions of the Psalms, and even exercised herself in original composition, before she was ten years old. An “Address to the first fine day of a backward spring,” which has been preserved, intimates considerable command of numbers and language, though the ideas cannot be called original.

, a biographical writer, was the son of Mr. Seward, partner in the brewhouse under the firm of Calvert and Seward, and was born in January 1747. He first went to a small seminary in the neighbourhood of Cripplegate, and afterwards to the Charter-house school, where he acquired a competent knowledge of Greek and Latin, which he improved at Oxford. Having no inclination to engage in business, he relinquished his concern in the brewhouse at his father’s death; and being possessed of an easy fortune, did not apply to any profession, but devoted his time to learned leisure, and, among other pursuits, amus,ed himself with collecting the materials for what he called “Drossiana,” in the European Magazine, which he began in October 17 89, and continued without intermission to the end of his life* After he had published in this manner for some time, he was advised to make a selection, which, in 1794, he began with two volumes, and these were followed in the three succeeding years by three more, under the title of “Anecdotes of some distinguished Persons, chiefly of the present and two preceding Centuries;” a work which met with, general approbation, and has been since reprinted. In 1799 he published two volumes more on the plan of the former work, which he entitled “Biographiana.” These were finished a very short time before his death.

, an English poet and physician, was born at Windsor, where his father was treasurer and chapter-clerk of the college; received his education at Eton-school, and Peter-house, Cambridge; where having taken the degree of B. M. he went to Leyden, to study under Boerhaave, and on his return practised physic in the metropolis with reputation. In the latter part of his life he retired to Hampstead, where he pursued his profession with some degree of success, till three other physicians came to settle at the same place, when his practice so far declined as to yield him very little advantage. He kept no house, but was a boarder. He was much esteemed, and so frequently invited to the tables of gentlemen in the neighbourhood., that he had seldom occasion to dine at home. He died Feb. 8, 1726; and was supposed to be very indigent at the time of his death, as he was interred on the 12th of the same month in the meanest manner, his coffin being little better than those allotted by the parish to the poor who are buried from the workhouse; neither did a single friend or relation attend him to the grave. No memorial was placed over his remains; but they lie just under a hollow tree which formed a part of a hedge-row that was once the boundary of the church-yard. He was greatly esteemed for his amiable disposition; and is represented by some writers as a Tory in his political principles, but of this there is no other proof given than his writing some pamphlets against bishop Burnet. It is certain, that a true spirit of liberty breathes in many of his works; and he expresses, on many occasions, a warm attachment to the Hanover succession. Besides seven controversial pamphlets, he wrote, 1. “The Life of John Philips.” 2, “A vindication of the English Stage, exemplified in the Cato of Mr. Addison, 1716;” 3. “Sir Walter Raleigh, a tragedy, acted at Lincoln’s-inn-fields, 1719;” and part of another play, intended to be called “Richard the First,” the fragments of which were published in 1718, with “Two moral Essays on the Government of the Thoughts, and on Death,” and a collection of “Several poems published in his life-time^” Dr. Sewell was an occasional assistant to Harrison in the fifth volume of “The Tatler; was a, principal writer in the ninth volume of” The Spectator; and published a translation of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses, in opposition to the edition of Garth and an edition of Shakspeare’s Poems. Jacob and Gibber have enumerated a considerable number of his single poems; and in Mr. Nichols’s” Collection" are some valuable ones, unnoticed by these writers.

, the historian of the Quakers, was the son of Jacob Williamson Sewell, a citizen of Amsterdam, and a surgeon, and appears to have been born therein 1650. His grandfather, William Sewell, was an Englishman, and had resided at Kidderminster; but being one of the sect of the Brownists, left his native country for the more free enjoyment of his principles in Holland, married a Dutch woman of Utrecht, and settled there. The parents of the subject of this article both died when he was young, but had instructed him in the principles of the Quakers, to which he steadily adhered during life. His education in other respects appears to have been the fruit of his own application; and the time he could spare from the business to which he was apprenticed (that of a weaver) he employed with good success in attaining a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, English, French, and High Dutch, languages. His natural abilities being good, his application unwearied, and his habits strictly temperate, he soon became noticed by some of the most respectable booksellers in Holland; and the translation of works of credit, chiefly from the Latin and English tongues, into Low Dutch, seems to have been one of the principal sources from which his moderate income was derived, in addition to the part he took, at different times, in several approved periodical publications. His modest, unassuming manners gained him the esteem of several literary men, whose productions, there is reason to believe, were not unfrequently revised and prepared for the press by him. His knowledge of his native tongue was profound: his “Dictionary,” “Grammar,” and other treatises on it, having left very little room for succeeding improvement: and he assisted materially in the compilation of Halma’s French and Dutch Dictionary. His “History of the people called Quakers,” written first in Low Dutch, and afterwards, by himself, in English (dedicated to George I.) was a very laborious undertaking, as he was scrupulously nice in the selection of his materials, which he had been during many years engaged in collecting. Of the English edition, for it cannot properly be called a translation, it may be truly said, that as the production of a foreigner, who had spent only about ten months in England, and that above forty years before, the style is far superior to what could have been reasonably expected. One principal object with the author was, a desire to correct what he conceived to be gross misrepresentations in Gerard Croese’s “History of Quakerism.” The exact time of SewelPs death does not appear; but in, a note of the editor’s to the third edition of his “Dictionary,” in 1726, he is mentioned as being lately deceased. His “History of the Quakers” appears to have been first published in 1722, folio, and reprinted in 1725.

He appears to have been an author. While he was lord protector, there went under his name, “Epistola exhortatoria missa ad Nobilitatem ac Plebem universumque populum regni Scotiae, Lond.” 1548, 4to, which lord Orford thinks might possibly be composed by some dependent. His other works were penned during his troubles, when he does not appear to have had many flatterers. During his first imprisonment he caused to be printed a translation by Miles Covevdale, from the German of Wormulus, of a treatise called “A spirituall and most precious pearl, teaching all men to love and embrace the cross, as a most sweet and necessary thing,” &c. Lond. 1550, 16mo. To thia the duke wrote a recommendatory preface. About thattime he had great respect paid to him by the celebrated reformers, Calvin, and Peter Martyr. The former wrote to him an epistle of “godly consolation,” composed before the time and knowledge of his disgrace; but being delivered to him in the Tower, his grace translated it from French into English, and it was printed in 1550, under the title of “An Epistle of Godly Consolacion,” &c. Peter Martyr also wrote an epistle to him in Latin, about the same time, which pleased the duke so much, that at his desire it was translated into English by Thomas Norton, and printed in 1550, 8vo. In Strype is a prayer of the duke “For God’s assistance in the high office of protector and governor, now committed to him;” and some of his letters are preserved in the library of Jesus colkge, Cambridge, and among the Harleian Mss.

, was a considerable dealer in wool, and had been an officer and bailiff (probably high-bailiff or mayor) of the body corporate of Stratford. He held also the office of justice of the peace, and at one time, it is said, possessed lands and tenements to the amount of 500l. the reward of his grandfather’s faithful and approved services to king Henry VII. This, however, has been asserted upon very doubtful authority. Mr. Malone thinks ft it is highly probable that he distinguished himself in Bosworth field on the side of king Henry, and that he was rewarded for his military services by the bounty of that parsimonious prince, though not with a grant of lands. No such grant appears in the chapel of the Rolls, from the beginning to the end of Henry’s reign.“But whatever may have been his former wealth, it appears to have been” greatly reduced in the latter part of his life, as we find, from the books of the corporation, that in 1579 he was excused the trifling weekly tax of four-pence levied on all the aldermen; and that in 1586 another alderman was appointed in his room, in consequence of his declining to attend on the business of that office. It is even said by Aubrey, a man sufficiently accurate in facts, although credulous in superstitious narratives and traditions, that he followed for some time the occupation of a butcher, which Mr. Malone thinks not inconsistent with probability. It must have been, however, at this time, no inconsiderable addition to his difficulties that he had a family of ten children. His wife was the daughter and heiress of Robert Arden, of Wellingcote, in the county of Warwick, who is styled “a gentleman of worship.” The family of Arden is very ancient, Robert Arden of Bromich, esq. being in the list of the gentry of this county returned by the commissioners in the twelfth year of king Henry VI. A. D. 1433. Edward Arden was sheriff of the county in 1568. The woodland part of this county was anciently called Ardern, afterwards softened to Arden; and hence the name. Our illustrious poet was the eldest son, and received his early education, whether narrow or liberal, at a free school, probably that founded at Stratford; but from this he appears to have been soon removed, and placed, according to Mr. Malone’s opinion, in the office of some country attorney, or the seneschal of some manor court, where it is highly probable he picked up those technical law phrases that so frequently occur in his plays, and could not have been in common use unless among professional men. Mr. Capell conjectures that his early marriage prevented his being sent to some university. It appears, however, as Dr. Farmer observes, that his early life was incompatible with a course of education, and it is certain that “his contemporaries, friends and foes, nay, and himself likewise, agree in his want of what is usually termed literature.” It is, indeed, a strong argument in favour of Shakspeare’s illiterature, that it was maintained by all his contemporaries, many of whom have left upon record every merit they could bestow on him and by his successors, who lived nearest to his time, when “his memory was green” and that it has been denied only by Gildon, Sewell, and others down to Upton, who could have no means of ascertaining the truth.

Shakspeare died in 1616, and seven years afterwards appeared the first edition of his plays, published at the charges of four booksellers, a circumstance from which Mr. Malone infers, “that no single publisher was at that time willing to risk his money on a complete collection of our author’s plays.” This edition was printed from the copies in the hands of his fellow-managers, Heminge and Condell, which had been in a series of years frequently altered through convenience, caprice, or ignorance. Heminge and Condell had now retired from the stage, and, we may suppose, were guilty of no injury to their successors, in printing what their own interest only had formerly withheld. Of this, although we have no documents amounting t^ demonstration, we may be convinced, by adverting to a circumstance which will, in our days, appear very extraordinary, namely, the declension of Shakspeare’s popularity. We have seen that the publication of his works was accounted a doubtful speculation, and it is yet more certain that so much had the public taste turned from him in quest of variety, that for several years after his death the plays of Fletcher were more frequently acted than his, and during the whole of the seventeenth century, they were made to give place to performances, the greater part of which cannot now be endured. During the same period only four editions of his works were published, all in folio; and perhaps this unwieldy size of volume may be an additional proof that they were not popular; nor is it thought that the impressions were numerous. These circumstances which attach to our author and to his works, must be allowed a plausible weight in accounting for onr deficiencies in his biography and literary career; but there were circumstances enough in the history of the times to suspend the progress of that more regular drama, of which he had set the example, and may be considered as the founder. If we wonder why we know so much less of Shakspeare than of his contemporaries, let us recollect that his genius, however highly and justly we now rate it, took a direction which was not calculated for permanent admiration, either in the age in which he lived, or in that which followed. Shakspeare was a writer of plays, a promoter of an amusement just emerging from barbarism; and an amusement which, although it has been classed among the schools of morality, has ever had such a strong tendency to deviate from moral purposes, that the force of law has in all ages been called in to preserve it within the bounds of common decency. The church has ever been unfriendly to the stage. A part of the injunctions of queen Elizabeth is particularly directed against the printing of plays; and, according to an entry in the books of the Stationers’ Company, in the 4 1 st year of her reign, it is ordered that no plays be printed, except allowed by persons in authority. Dr. Farmer also remarks, that in that age, poetry and novels were destroyed publicly by the bishops, and privately by the puritans. The main transactions, indeed, of that period could not admit of much attention to matters of amusement. The reformation required all the circumspection and policy of a long reign to render it so firmly established in popular favour as to brave the caprice of any succeeding sovereign. This was effected in a great measure by the diffusion of religious controversy, which was encouraged by the church, and especially by the puritans, who were the immediate teachers of the lower classes, were listened to with veneration, and usually inveighed against all public amusements, as inconsistent with the Christian profession. These controversies continued during the reign of James I. and were in a considerable degree promoted by him, although he, like Elizabeth, was a favourer of the stage as an appemiage to the grandeur and pleasures of the court. But the commotions which followed in the unhappy reign of Charles I. when the stage was totally abolished, are sufficient to account for the oblivion thrown on the history and works of our great bard. From this time no inquiry was made, until it was too late to obtain any information more satisfactory than the few hearsay scraps and contested traditions above detailed. “How little,” says Mr. Steevens, “Shakspeare was once read, may be understood from Tate, who, in his dedication to the altered play of king Lear, speaks of the original as an obscure piece, recommended to his notice by a friend; and the author of the Tatler having occasion to quote a few lines out of Macbeth, was con^ tent to receive them from D'Avenant’s alteration of that celebrated drama, in which almost every original beauty is either aukwardly disguised, or arbitrarily omitted.”

When public opinion had begun to assign to Shakspeare the very high rank he was destined to hold, he became the promising object of fraud and imposture. This, we have already observed, he did not wholly escape in his own time, and he had the spirit or policy to despise it. It was reserved for modern impostors, however, to avail themselves of the obscurity in which his history is involved. In 1751 a book was published, entitled “A Compendious or briefe examination of certayne ordinary Complaints of diuers of our Countrymen in those our days; which, although they are in some parte unjust and frivolous, yet are they all by way of dialogue, throughly debated and discussed by William Shakspeare, gentleman.” This had been originally published in 1581, but Dr. Farmer has clearly proved that W. S. gent, the only authority for attributing it to Shakspeare in the reprinted edition, meant William Stafford, gent. Theobald, the same accurate critic informs us, was desirous of palming upon the world a play called “Double Falsehood,” for a posthumous one of Shakspeare. In 1770 was reprinted at Feversham, an old play, called “The Tragedy of Arden of Feversham and Black Will,” with a preface attributing it to Shakspeare, without the smallest foundation. But these were trifles compared to the -atrocious attempt made in 1795-6, when, besides a vast mass of prose and verse, letters, &c. pretendedly in the hand-writing of Shakspeare and his correspondents, an entire play, entitled “Vortigern,” was not only brought forward for the astonishment of the admirers of Shakspeare, but actually performed on Drurylane stage. It would be unnecessary to expatiate on the merits of this play, which Mr. Steevens has very happily characterized as “the performance of a madman without a lucid interval,” or to enter more at large into the nature of a fraud so recent, and so soon acknowledged by the authors of it. It produced, however, an interesting controversy between Mr. Malone and Mr. George Chalmers, which, although mixed with some unpleasant asperities, was extended to inquiries into the history and antiquities of the stage, from which future critics and historians may derive considerable information.

, an eminent mathematician, mechanist, and astronomer, was descended from an ancient family at Little-Horton, near Bradford, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he was born about 1651. He was at first apprenticed to a merchant at Manchester, but his inclination and genius being decidedly for mathematics, he obtained a release from his master, and removed to Liverpool, where be gave himself up wholly to the study of mathematics, astronomy, &c. and for a subsistence, opened a school, and taught writing and accounts, &c. Before he had been long at Liverpool, he accidentally met with a merchant or tradesman visiting that town from London, in whose house the astronomer Mr. Flamsteed then lodged; and such was Sharp’s enthusiasm for his favourite studies, that with the view of becoming acquainted with this emiment man, he engaged himself to the merchant as a bookkeeper. Having been thus introduced, he acquired the friendship of Mr. Flamsteed, who obtained for him a profitable employment in the dock-yard at Chatham. In this he continued till his friend and patron, knowing his great merit in astronomy and mechanics, called him to his assistance, in completing the astronomical apparatus in the royal observatory at Greenwich, which had been built about the year 1676.

About this time the covenanting presbyterians in Scotland split into two parties. The spirit raged with great violence; and the privy-council established in that country could not restrain it, and therefore referred them to Cromwell himself, then protector. These parties were called public resolutioners, and protestators or remonstrators. They sent deputies up to London the former, Mr. Sharp, knowing his activity, address, and penetration the latter, Mr. Guthrie, a noted adherent to the covenant. A day being appointed for hearing the two agents, Guthrie spoke first, and spoke so long that, when he ended, the protector told Sharp, he would hear him another time; for his hour ior other business was approaching. But Sharp begged to be heard, promising to be short; and, being permitted to speak, in a few words urged his cause so well as to incline Oliver to his party. Having succeeded in this important affair, he returned to the exercise of his function; and always kept a good understanding with the chief of the opposite party that were most eminent for worth and learning. When general Monk advanced to London, the chief of the kirk sent Sharp to attend him, to acquaint him with the state of things, and to put him in mind of what was necessary; instructing him to use his utmost endeavours to secure the freedom and privileges of their established judicatures; and to represent the sinfulness and offensiveness of the late established toleration, by which a door was opened to many gross errors and loose practices in their church.

Mr. Sharp wrote, besides the works already mentioned 1. “Remarks on several very important Prophecies in five Parts. I. Remarks on the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th Verses in the seventh Chapter of Isaiah; in answer to Dr. Williams’s Critical Dissertation on the same subject; II. A Dissertation on the nature and style of Prophetical Writings, intended to illustrate the foregoing Remarks III. A Dissertation on Isaiah vii. 8 IV. On Gen. xlix. 10; V. Answer to some of the principal Arguments used by Dr. Williams in Defence of his Critical Dissertation,” 1768, 8vo. 2. “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating Slavery, &c.” with some other tracts in support of his opinions. 3. “Remarks on the Encroachments on the Riyer Thames, near Durham Yard,” 1771, 8vo. 4. “Remarks on the Opinions of some of the most celebrated writers on Crown Law, respecting the due distinction between Manslaughter and Murder; being an attempt to shew tiiat the plea of sudden anger cannot remove the imputation and guilt of murder, when a mortal wound is wilfully given with a weapon: that the indulgence allowed by the courts to voluntary manslaughter in rencounters, and in sudden affrays and duels, is indiscriminate, and without foundation in law: and that impunity in such cases of voluntary manslaughter is one of the principal causes of the continuance and present increase of the base and disgraceful practice of duelling. To which are added, some thoughts on the particular case of the gentlemen of the army, when involved in such disagreeable private differences. With a prefatory address to the reader, concerning the depravity and folly of modern men of honour, falsely so called; including a short account of the principles and designs of the work,” 1773, 8vo. 5. “Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek of the New Testament; containing many new proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from passages which are wrongly translated in the common English Version. To which is added a plain matter-of-fact argument for the Divinitv of Christ, by the Editor,” Durhiin, '798, 8vo. The first twenty pages of this important, critical, and theological work, appeared in t797, in the second fasciculus of the “Museum Oxoniense,” published by Dr. Burgess, the present very excellent bishop of St. David’s. A Supplement to the Remarks was, at the same time, promised in the third fasciculus of the Museum. “But,” says Dr. Burgess, “as many learned friends concurred with the editor in thinking that the Remarks contain a very valuable accession to the evidences of Christ’s divinity, he was unwilling to detain the Supplement, which exemplifies the rules of the Remarks, any longer from the public; and has, therefore, prevailed on Mr. Sharp to permit him to publish it with the Remarks. He earnestly recommends them both to Mr. Wakeneiu’s must deliberate consideration. To Mr. Sharp’s Remarks and Supplement he has subjoined a plain historical proof of the divinity or Cnrist, iounded on Chnst’s own testimony of himself, attested and, interpreted by his living witnesses and enemies, the Jews; on the evidence of his trial and crucifixion; and on the most explicit declarations of the apostles after the resurrection of Christ. What appeared to him on a former occasion (in a sermon on the divinity of Christ, 1792, second edition), to be a substantial and unanswerable argument, he has, in this little exercise on the subject, endeavoured to render an easy and popular proof of our Saviour’s divinity. It was printed separately for the use of the unlearned part of his parishioners; and is subjoined to this treatise for the convenience of other unlearned readers, and such as have not much considered the subject.” A second edition of the “Remarks” was published in 1804, with the following letter to Mr. Sharp prefixed: “Dear sir, I have great pleasure in presenting you with a new edition of your valuable tract. That you have very happily and decisively applied your rule of construction to the correction of the common English version of the New Testament, and to the perfect establishment of the great doctrine in question, the divinity of Christ, no impartial reader, I think, can doubt, who is at all acquainted with the original language of the New Testament. I say decisively applied, because I suppose, in all remote and written testimony, the weight of evidence must ultimately depend on the grammatical analogy of the language in which it is recorded. I call the rule yours; for, though it was acknowledged and applied by Bege and others to some of the texts alluded to by you, yet never so prominently, because singly, or so effectually, as in your remarks, In the addition to the former edition, I wished to excite the attention of a learned and declared enemy to the doctrine of our Saviour’s divinity; but he is no more and J do not know that he even expressed, or has left behind him, any opinion on the subject, or that any other Socinian has undertaken to canvass the principles of your Remarks. The public has, however, lately seen an ample and learned confirmation of your rule, drawn from a very minute, laborious, and candid examination of the Greek and Latin fathers, in ‘Six Letters addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq. respecting his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament. London, 1802.’ I have taken some pains to improve the plain argument for Christ’s divinity, which I before subjoined to your Remarks. In this edition I have prefixed to it a table of evidences by Dr. Whitby, which I hope the younger part of your readers will find useful to them in pursuing the different branches of this most important subject; and you, J think, will not disapprove, because it is conducive to the principal purpose of your tract.” Bishop Burgess afterwards adverted, in a note on his primary charge, to a weak attack on Mr. Granville Sharp, in a publication entiled “Six more Letters, &c. by Gregory Blunt, esq.” 1803. Of this Dr. Burgess says with great truth, “These letters are very well calculated to mislead the unlearned reader, by abstract questions, gratuitous assertions, and hypothetical examples, but communicate nothing on the score of authority, which bears any comparison with the unanimous consent of the Greek fathers; and nothing at all which has any pretence to grammatical observation.” In the latter part of 1812, Mr. Sharp demonstrated that his faculties retained their full vigour, by an elaborate illustration of the LXVIIIth Psalm, relative to the Hill of Bashan, and the calling together of the Jews.

, an ingenious poet, was born at Ravensworth, near Richmond in Yorkshire, about the year 1738 or 1739. His father was a person in low circumstances, and followed the occupation of a shoemaker. Our author was first put to school at Kirkbyhill, in his father’s neighbourhood; but he was soon removed to Scorton, five miles from Richmond, where, after having gone through a common course of education, he was appointed usher. Some lime after he became usher to the grammar-school at Darlington under Mr. Metcalf, and while there published his first poem, in 1756, called “Liberty. Humbly inscribed to the Right Hon. the Earl of Darlington,” 4to. During his residence at this place he began to shew that negligence of the dictates of prudence, and the rules of economy, which marked his future life, insomuch that he was obliged to quit his post and the country; and with nothing but his talents came in quest of fortune to the metropolis.

In London his first employment was as a writer for the newspapers. In the spring of 1760 he was at St. Edmond’s Bury, probably a member of the Norwich company of comedians, and published under the name of W. Seymour, “Odes on the Four Seasons,” 4to, a performance which had been one of his youthful productions. In the summer of that year he joined the hasty raised troop with which Mr. Foote opened the Hay market with the “Minor,” in. which Shaw performed the part of Sir George Wealthy. The winter of that year he passed either in Ireland or in some country company, and afterwards performed on both the London theatres; but about 1762 abandoned a pursuit from which he was likely to derive neither profit nor credit. In the same year he resumed the pen, and the poetical war kindled up by Churchill raging at that juncture with great violence, he wrote a satire, called cc The Four Farthing Candles,“4to. in which he attacked Messrs. Lloyd, Churchill, Colman, and Shirley. This performance was executed with some spirit and success, and obtained so much notice, as to encourage him to proceed as an author. In 1766, he published” The Race, a poem," 4to, in which he characterized the chief poets of that period, and some of them with great severity. This poem was re-published and enlarged in the next year. It appears from it, that he had, by this time, no want of confidence in his powers. He had learnt to deal his satire about with no unsparing hand; and if it was not felt by the parties against whom it was directed, it was owing to no lenity or forbearance in the satirist.

About this time he wrote an account of the virtues of a then popular medicine, called “The Beaume de Vie,” and was admitted as a partner to a proportion of the profits arising from it. He had hitherto led a dissipated life, but becoming sensible of it married, and for a short time had the care of the last earl of Chesterfield, then an infant, to instruct him in the first rudiments of literature. He also issued proposals for publishing his poems by subscription; but this was never executed, and he returned the money he had received. In 1768, he lost his wife in child bed, of her first child, and on this occasion wrote his best performance, entitled “A Monody to the memory of a young Lady, by an afflicted Husband,” 4to. The child, which was a daughter, lived but a short time after its, mother, and Mr. Shaw again lamented his second loss in strains not inferior to the former, inserted in vol. III. of Pearch’s Poems. The publication of these introduced him to the notice of the first lord Lyttelton, but it does not appear that he derived any advantage from his lordship’s acquaintance.

He died Jan. 22, 1696, in the 59th year of his age, leaving behind him the character of an upright, modest, sensible, aud moderate man, an ornament to his profession, and a benefactor to his country. Besides bishop Fuller abovementioned, who said that he was glad to have so worthy a man in his diocese upon any terms, he appears to have been highly respected by Dr. Barlow, the subsequent bishop of Lincoln, and lived likewise on friendly terms with the vicar of Ashby de la Zouch. When toleration was granted to the dissenters, he licensed his school for a place of worship, but contrived that the meetings should be between church, hours, and attended the church at the usual periods with his whole school and many of his congregation. He wrote several religious tracts, particularly “Immanuel;” “The True Christian 1 s Test,” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, &c;” and a Latin grammar, and an epitome of the same; with, what may seem very odd in one of his character, two comedies, 'the one called “Words made visible, or Grammar and Rhetoric,” 1679, 8vo the other, “The different Humours of Men,” 1692, 12mo, which were acted by his scholars for their amusement before the neighbours at Christmas.

Early in life he appears to have written a comedy, which in 1766 he made an effort to get represented at Coventigarden; and as the manager, Mr. Beard, had not returned it in what Shebbeare called proper time, the latter published a pamphlet of correspondence on the subject. In 1768 he wrote the review of books in the “Political Register” for three mouths, and was often engaged to write for particular: persons, with whom he frequently quarrelled when he came to be paid, and sometimes prosecuted them in the courts. His pen seems to have been constantly employed, and he wrote with great rapidity what certainly can now be read with little satisfaction, and must soon be forgotten. Though pensioned by government, he added little to its support, and gave disgust to its friends from the virulence with which he attacked its adversaries, and which defeated his own purpose. During the latter part of his life, he retired more from public view. In defence, however, of the measures of administration respecting the American war, he wrote two pamphlets, one against Mr. Burke, and another against Dr. Price.

His publications, satirical, political, and medical, amount, it is said, to thirty-four, besides a novel called “Lydia, or Filial Piety,” in which also he has introduced living characters. He died Aug. 1, 1788, leaving, we are told, among those who knew him best, the character of a benevolent man, which, from the affectionate manner in which he speaks of his relations, he probably deserved. His character, in other respects, cannot be held up to admiration.

Mr. Sheridan appeared to much more advantage afterwards as a reformer of the manners of the Dublin audience, which he attempted with great spirit. The young and unruly among the male part of the audience, had long claimed a right of coming into the green-room, attending rehearsals, and carrying on gallantries, in the most open and offensive manner, with such of the actresses as would admit of them, while those who would not were perpetually exposed to insult and ill-treatment. These grievances Sheridan determined by degrees to remove, and at last happily effected, though not until he was involved in contests with the most tumultuous audiences, both at the hazard of losing his means of subsistence, and even of losing his life, from the resentment of a set of lawless rioters, who were at length, through an exertion of justice in the magistracy of Dublin in the support of public decency, convinced of their error, or at least of the impracticability of pursuing it any farther with impunity. During the space of about eight years, Mr. Sheridan possessed the office of manager of the theatre royal of Dublin, with all the success both with respect to fame and fortune that could well be expected; till at length he was driven from the stage and its concerns by another of those popular tumults by which managers and performers are daily liable to suffer. In the summer of the year 1754, in which the rancour of political party arose to the greatest height that it had almost ever been known to do in Dublin, Mr. Sheridan unfortunately revived a tragedy, viz. Miller’s “Mahomet.” In this play were many passages respecting liberty, bribery, and corruption, which pleased the anti-courtiers as expressive of their own opinions in regard to certain persons at that time in power, and therefore they insisted on those passages being repeated, a demand which, on the first night of its representation, the actor in whose part most of them occurred, complied with. The absurdity, however, of such repetitions, merely as destroying the effect of the tragedy, having occurred to the manager, the same speeches, when again called for by the audience on the succeeding night, were refused by the actor, and he being obliged to hint the cause of his refusal, the manager became the object of their resentment. On his not appearing to mollify their rage by some kind of apology, they flew out into the most outrageous violence, cul the scenery to pieces with their swords, tore up the benches and boxes, and, in a word, totally despoiled the theatre; concluding with a resolution never more to permit Mr. Sheridan to appear on that stage.

In the year 1757 Mr. Sheridan had published a plan, by which he proposed to the natives of Ireland the establish^ ment of an academy for the accomplishment of youth in every qualification necessary for a gentleman. In the formation of this design he considered the art of oratory, his favourite hobby, as one of the principal essentials; and in order to give a stronger idea of the utility cf that art, by example as well as theory, he delivered in public two or three orations calculated to give the highest proofs of the abilities of the proposer, and his fitness for the office of superintendant of such an academy, for which post he modestly offered his service to the public. His biographer, however, gives us no further account of this plan, but proceeds to relate more of his theatrical disputes, in which he always appears to have been unfortunate, although with a shew of reason on his side. In 1759 we find him again in England as a lecturer on his darling elocution. Four years before he had published a volume in 8vo, called “British Education the source of the Disorders of Great Britain. Being an essay towards proving that the immorality, ignorance, and false taste which so generally prevail, are the natural and necessary consequences of the present defective system of education; with an attempt to shew that a revival of the art of speaking, and the study of our own language, might contribute in a great measure to the cure of those evils.” In confirmation of this opinion, he fiad composed a course of lectures on elocution^ and began to deliver them in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and other places, with the success which generally attends novel plans; and in one instance with very extraordinary success, for at Cambridge, March 16, 1759, he was honoured with the same degree he had received in Dublin, that of M. A. In the winter of 1760, he again appeared at Drury-lane theatre, and again had a quarrel with Garrick, which put an end to his engagement.

Mr. Sheridan’s biographer asserts that “his talents were more solid than brilliant, and his genius inferior to his industry.” If this opinion refers to his merit on the stage, we are not enabled to appreciate its justice: if to his writings, we perceive very little that is either solid or brilliant, or. that deserves to be called genius. He set out in life with absurd and wild notions of the utility of oratory to cure the moral and political evils of the world, and he persisted in them to the last. His biographer allows that he had no mean opinion of himself, and might have added that this opinion of himself, with its concomitant, envy, his preposterous schemes, and his lofty sense of superiority, became the bane of his life, marked as it “uniformly” might be “with uprightness and integrity.” In his biography of Swift, he was fortunate in obtaining the best materials, but peculiarly unfortunate in a want of judgment to make use of them, and in not seeing, what every one else saw, that although they might furnish an impartial account of that.extraordinary man, they could by no art support a continued panegyric. Sheridan’s early attachment to the stage, where he was to learn his wonderworking oratory, proved of lasting detriment to him. It disturbed his imagination, threw his mind out of a regular train of thinking, and, with the distresses which his repeated quarrels and failures brought upon him, led him to the quackery of itinerant lectures, which were neglected after the first curiosity had been gratified.

Mr. Sheridan’s wife, Frances, was born in Ireland about the year 1724, but descended from a good English family which had removed thither. Her maiden name was Chamberlaine, and she was grand-daughter of sir Oliver Cham* berlaine. The first literary performance by which she distinguished herself, was a little pamphlet at the time of the political dispute relative to the theatre, in which Mr. Sheridan had newly embarked his fortune. A work so well timed exciting the attention of Mr. Sheridan, he by an accident discovered his fair patroness, to whom he was soon afterwards married. She was a person of the most amiable character in every relation of life, with the most engaging manners. After lingering some years in a very weak state of health, she died at Blois, in the south of France, in the year 1767. Her “Sydney Bidclulph” has been ranked with the first productions of the novel class in ours, or in any other language. She also wrote a little romance, in one volume, called “Nourjahad,” in which there is a great deal of imagination, productive of an ad­Vol. XXVII. H H mirable moral. And she was the authoress of two comedies; “The Discovery,” and “The Dupe.”

, eldest son to the preceding, and bishop of London, was born in that city in 1678. He was sent at an early age to Eton school, where he laid the foundation of that classical elegance which is visible in most of his works, especially in his much-admired sermons, About 1693 he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted of Katherine-hall, under the tuition of Dr. Long, afterwards bishop of Norwich. Here he took his degree of B. A. in 1697, and that of M. A. in 1701, and between these periods was elected to a fellowship, and entered into holy orders. How highly he must have been esteemed even at this early period, appears from his first preferment in the church, which was to one of its highest dignities, under the bench, the mastership of the Temple, to which he was appointed in 1704. That such a rapid elevation should have given offence, can excite no surprize. It was probably unprecedented, and in so young a man, might be thought unjustifiable, yet it took place at a time when preferments were not lightly bestowed, and Mr. Sherlock in a very short time exhibited such talents as removed all prejudices against him. Indeed he appears to have felt it necessary to justify the authors of his promotion, both upon his own account and that of the church. He exerted the utmost diligence, therefore, in the cultivation of his talents and the display of his learning and eloquence, and in the course of a few years became one of the most celebrated preachers of his time; and notwithstanding some decree of natural impediment (what is called a thickness of speech), he delivered his sermons with such propriety and energy as to rivet the attention of his hearers, and command their admiration.

In 1714, at which time he took his doctor’s degree in divinity, he succeeded sir William Dawes in the mastership of Katherine-hall, and when appointed vice-chancellor, in his turn, discharged the duties of that office in a manner the most beneficial to the university. In particular he exerted himself in inspecting and bringing into order the public archives, and in the course of this employment acquired such a knowledge of the constitution, history, power, and immunities of the university, as gave his opinion a very great weight in all subsequent disputes. He likewise, during his residence in Katherine-hall, discovered not only very superior abilities with deep and extensive learning, but also much wisdom, policy, and talents for governing. It was in allusion to this political sway, that Dr. Bentley during his disputes at Cambridge, gave Dr. Sherlock the nickname of cardinul Alberom, while about the same time Bentley’s antagonist, Middleton, called Sherlock, “the principal champion and ornament of both church and university.” This was very high praise from one who reflected so little honour on either.

He and his two brothers, sir Thomas and sir Robert, rendered themselves so famous by their travels and gallant exploits, that in 1607, they were made the subject of a comedy called “The Travels of the three brothers Shirleys,” by John Day, 4to, 1607, of which, and of them, some other particulars may be seen in our authorities; but their adventures seem to be confused together. The late lord Orford had an intention to have cleared up these mistakes, as among his papers are many notes on the subject.

There was one Mr. Henry Shirley, a contemporary of our author, who wrote a tragedy called “The Martyred Soldier;” which was often acted with applause. It was printed in 1631, and dedicated by the publisher J. K. to sir Kenelm Digby; the author being then dead. More recently there was a William Shirley, who was for some years resident in Portugal, in a public character, as it is supposed. On some disgust, however, or dispute in which he had involved himself there, he returned to England about 1749. He was esteemed well versed in affairs of trade, and the commercial interests and connections of different kingdoms, especially those of Great Britain and Portugal. He was also considered as the author of several letters on those subjects, published in the Daily Gazetteer, and signed Lusitanicus; and wrote a pamphlet, entitled “Observations upon the sentence of the conspirators against the king of Portugal,” 1755, 8vo. In his poetical capacity, however, Mr. Shirley does not stand in so considerable a light, though several of his plays have been represented on the stage; but others were rejected by Garrick, whom tie abused in the newspapers. He is said to have written for the stage as late as 1777, when he must have been advanced in years; but the time of his death is not specified in our authority.

Two editions of “Cases in parliament resolved and adjudged upon petitions and writs of error,” by sir Bartholomew, have been published, one in 1698, and another in 1740, with many references, and a table of principal matters. These cases are learnedly reported, and the arguments of the counsel, as well as of the judges, are recorded in a very able manner. This mode of reporting, however, though valuable in itself, and particularly desirable to the profession, was. thought an infringement upon the privileges of the House of Lords, and the bookseller was called to the bar, for the publication of it. Sir Bartholomew also published his “Reports of cases in Banco Regis from 30 Car. II. to 6 William III.” 1708, and 1720, 2 vols. folio; bnt the second volume is first in point of time. A second edition was published in 1794, in 2 vols. 8vo, by Thomas Leach, esq. with additional notes and references.

Proceeding to Argos, and thence to Pvlycena, the travellers were highly gratified by rinding, on the gate of the latter, those ancient lions, which Pausanias describes as the work of the Cyclops; and near it the reputed tomb of Agamemnon, a circular building, formed of immense masses of stone, placed with such geometrical precision, though without mortar, that not one had given way. That which forms the portal is described by Dr. Sibthorp as the largest stone he ever saw employed in any edifice. A number of fragments of vases, like those commonly called Etruscan, lay among the ruins of Mycena. From this place they returned by land to Argos, whence they proceeded to Corinth, Patras, and by way of Elis to Pyrgos. Here they obtained another escort, and safely reached Calamata, on the gulf of -Corone, where they were detained by the celebration of Easter, on the 12th of April, amid a profusion of sky-rockets and crackers. Proceeding in a boat along the barren and craggy shore, covered with bushy and prickly Euphorbia^ they reached Cardamoula. Here Panagiote, a popular character, nephew of the Cherife, came down, with a train of followers, to welcome the strangers, and conducted them to his tower-like castle, where a narrow entrance, and dark winding stair-case, led to a chamber, whose thick walls and narrow loop-holes seemed well prepared for defence. Taygetus, the highest mountain in the Morea, and almost rivalling Parnassus, was ascended by our adventurous travellers; but the quantity of snow, and the grea't distance, prevented their reaching the summit. Panagiote and fifty of his followers accompanied them, and he displayed his botanical knowledge by shewing Dr. Sibthorp darne^ still called aiga, among the corn, which he said occasioned dizziness; and a wonderful root, the top of which is used as an emetic, the bottom as a purge. This proved Euphorbia Apios, to which the very same properties are attributed by Dioscorides.

, a very accomplished English gentleman, and one of the greatest ornaments of the court of queen Elizabeth, was born Nov. 29, 1554, at Penshurst in Kent. He was the grandson of sir William Sidney, knight banneret, and chamberlain and steward of the household to Henry VIII. His father, Henry Sidney, was from his infancy the companion and bosom friend of Edward VI., who conferred upon him the honour of knighthood, constituted him ambassador to France, and afterwards promoted him to several appointments near his person. He was at this time universally beloved and admired, as the most ac^ complished gentleman in the court of the youthful monarch, who expired in his arms. Sir Henry, after this melancholy event, retired to his seat at Penshurst. He afterwards enjoye'd the favour of queen Mary, and gave his son the name of Philip, in compliment to her husband the king of Spain. In Elizabeth’s reign his abilities were more immediately called forth, and proved him a brave soldier, a consummate general, an able counsellor, and a wise legislator, while in private life he was no less estimable as a husband, father, and a friend; firmly attached to the church of England, and adorning his Christian profession by his temperance and exemplary piety. He was lord president of Wales, and for the space of eleven years discharged the administration of lord deputy of Ireland, with extraordinary justice and probity, and left to provincial governors an example of integrity, moderation, and wisdom, which was never surpassed. The mother of Philip Sidney, was Mary, the eldest daughter of the unfortunate duke of Northumberland, a lady no less illustrious and amiable than her husband.

To his attainments in Greek and Latin, he had now added a fenowledm.' of the French, Spanish, and Italian languages. On his return he became the delight and admiration of the English court, by his dignified and majestical address, the urbanity of his manners, and the sweet complacency of his whole deportment. The queen treated him with peculiar kindness, calling him “her Philip,” in opposition, it; is said, to Philip of Spain, her sister’s husband. When she war, on a visit at Wanstead, Sidney composed a masque to amuse her majesty, called “The Lady of May,” which was performed before her. In this dramatic composition he betrayed some proficiency in the school of courtly adulation, by the frequent allusions he has made to Elizabeth’s beaut).

Among the fashionable amusements in the court of Elizabeth, tournaments were most in vogue. In 1580, Philip earl of Arundel, and sir William Drury his assistant, challenged all comers to try their feats of arms in those exercises. This challenge was given in the genuine spirit of chivalry in honour of the queen. Among those who gallantly offered themselves as defenders, were Edward Vere, earl of Oxford, lord Windsor, Mr. Philip Sidney, and fourteen others. The victory Was adjudged by her majesty to the earl of Oxford. With this earl of Oxford Sidney had afterwards a serious quarrel, having received a personal insult from him. The queen interposed to prevent a duel, with which Sidney was much dissatisfied, and to compose his mind retired to Wilton, the seat of his brother-in-law the earl of Pembroke. In this seat of rural beauty (and not at Houghton-house, as asserted in Gough’s Camden, which was not built until after his death) he planned the design of the “Arcadia.” It has been conjectured that the Ethiopic history of Heliodorus, which had been recently translated into English prose by Thomas Underdowne, suggested that new mode of writing romance which is pursued in this work; but it seems more probable that he derived the plan of his work from the “Arcadia” of Sannazarius, a complete edition of which was printed at Milan in 1504. The persons introduced by the Italian author are shepherds, and their language, manners, and sentiments are such as suit only the innocence and simplicity of pastoral life. This species of composition may be considered as forming the second stage of romance-writing. The heroism and the gallantry, the moral and virtuous turn of the chivalry-romance, were still preserved; but the dragons, the necromancers, the enchanted castles were banished, and some small resemblance to human nature was admitted. Still, however, there was too much of the marvellous in them to please an age which aspired to refinement. The characters were discerned to be strained, the style swollen, the adventures incredible, and the books themselves were voluminous and tedious. With respect to the “Arcadia,” Sidney formed a just estimate when he characterized it as “an idle composition, as a trifle, and triflingly handled.” He appears indeed to have written it chiefly for his sister’s amusement, to whom he sent it in portions as it came from his pen. He never completed the third book, nor was any part of the work printed during his life. It is said he intended to arrange the whole anew* and to have changed the subject by celebrating the prowess and military deeds of king Arthur, The whole, imperfect as he left it, was corrected by his sister’s pen, and carefully perused by others under her direction, so that it was very properly called “The countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia.” It now lies neglected on the shelf, and has almost sunk into oblivion; yet the reception it obtained from the public, having gone through fourteen impressions, and having been translated into the French, Dutch, and other European languages, clearly evinces that it was once held in very high estimation. “There are,” says his biographer, “passages in this work exquisitely beautiful, and useful observations on life and manners, a variety and accurate discrimination of characters, fine sentiments expressed in strong and adequate terms, animated descriptions, equal to any that occur in the ancient or modern poets, sage lessons of morality, and judicious reflexions on government and policy.”

, a Roman poet, and author of a poetical history of the second Punic war, which decided the empire of the world in favour of the Romans, was born in the reign of Tiberius, about A. D. 15, and is supposed to have derived the name of Italicus from the place of his birth; but whether he was born at Italica in Spain, or atCorsinium in Italy, which, according to Strabo, had the name of Italica given it during the social war, is a point which cannot be known: though, if his birth had happened at either of these places, the grammarians tell us, that he should have been called Italicensis, and not Italicus. When he came to Rome, he applied himself to the bar; and, by a close imitation of Cicero, succeeded so well, that he became a celebrated advocate and most accomplished orator. His merit and character recommended him to the highest offices in the republic, even to the consulship, of which he was possessed when Nero difed. He is said to have been aiding in the accusation of persons of high rank and fortune, whom that tyrant had devoted to destruction: but he retrieved his character afterwards by a long and uniform course of virtuous behaviour, and held a principal office under the emperor Vitellius, which he executed so well as to preserve his credit with the public. Vespasian sent him as proconsul into Asia, where he behaved with integrity and unblemished reputation. After having thus spent the best part of his life in the service of his country, he bade adieu to public affairs, resolving to consecrate the remainder of his days to retirement and the Muses. He had several fine villas in the country one at Tusculum, celebrated for having been Cicero’s and a farm near Naples, said to have been Virgil’s, and at which was his tomb, which Silius often visited. Martial compliments him on both these accounts. In his retirement he applied himself to poetry, not so much from the impulse of genius, which would have appeared earlier, but from his enthusiastic regard for Virgil, to whose memory he paid the highest veneration, and whose birth-day he is said to have celebrated annually with more solemnity than his own. He has endeavoured to imitate him in his poem; and, though he falls greatly short, yet there are some splendid passages and strains of imagination which enliven a historical detail that otherwise may be read with more pleasure in Livy’s prose. After spending a considerable time in this retirement, and reaching his seventy- fifth year, he was seized with an incurable ulcer, which afflicted him with unsupportable pains, and drove him to put an end to his life by refraining from sustenance. The best and almost the only account we have of Silius Italicus is in one of Pliny’s letters, from which most of the above particulars are taken.

His works are very numerous, some on subjects of divinity, commentaries on the scriptures, c. and some on the controversies most agitated in his time. He wrote also the lives of Peter Martyr, Gesner, and Bullinger, each in a thin 4io volume; published an epitome of Gesner’s “Bibliotheca,* 5 155-), fol. and was editor of some of the works of Martyr and Bullinger. To those we may add, 1.” Je­thici costtiographta, Antonini Itinerarimn, Rutiliani Numantiani hinerarium, et alia varia,“basil', 1575, 12mo, with valuable scholia. 2.” Helvetiorum Respublica,“often reprinted, and esteemed one of the best of that collection of little books called” Republics.“3.” Vallesise descriptionis libri duo, et de Alpibus commentarius,“1574, 8vo. 4.” Vocabularia rei nummarise ponderum et mensurarum, Gr. Lat. Heb Arab, ex diversis autoribus collecta," Tignri, 1584, 8vo, &c. &C.

, an ancient philosopher of the sixth century, was a native of Cihcia, a disciple of Ammonias, the peripatetic, and endeavoured to unite the Platonic and Stoic doctrines with the peripatetic. Distrusting his situation under the emperor Justinian, he went to Cosroes king of the Persians: but returned to Athens, after it had been stipulated in a truce between the Persians and the Romans, A. D. 549, that he and his friends should live quietly and securely upon what was their own, and not be compelled by the Christians to depart from the religion of their ancestors. From his wish to unite discordant sects, he is called by a modern (Peter Petit) “omnium veterum philosophorurn coagulum.” He wrote commentaries upon several of Aristotle’s works, once thought to be valuable in themselves, but now consulted only for some curious fragments of ancient philosophers preserved in them. Of these there are three Aldine editions, 152b and 1527. But, of all his productions, some of which are lost, at least unpublished, his “Commentary upon Epictetus” has obtained most reputation. Fabricius is of opinion, that there is nothing in Pagan antiquity better calculated to form the manners, or to give juster ideas of a Divine Providence. It has been several times printed in Greek and Latin, particularly at Ley den, 1639, in 4to, and at London, in 1670, in 8vo. Dacier published a French translation of it at Paris, 1715, 12mo; and Dr. George Stanhope an English one at London, 1704, 8vo.

, an Italian annalist, was born in 1613, and was a monk of Parma, where he employed the leisure hours which a monastic life afforded, in writing- the history of his times. The confidence placed in him by political men, and the correspondence to which he had access, enabled him to penetrate into the secret motives and causes of actions and events, and gave an air of authenticity and consequence to his public communications. He is said to have been the first, in Italy at least, who published a kind of political journal under the name of “Memorie recondite,” afterwards collected into volumes. The first two having found their way into France, induced cardinal Mazarine to entertain a very high opinion of the author, and by his persuasion, Louis XIV. invited Siri to Paris. On his arrival, he was preferred to a secular abbey, and quitting his ecclesiastical functions, lived at court in great intimacy and confidence with the king and his ministers, and was made almoner and historiographer to his majesty. There, in 1677, he published the 3d and 4th volumes of his journal, and continued it as far as the eighth, 4to. This, says Baretti, is as valuable a history as any in Italian, though the style and language are but indifferent, and it is very difficult to find all the volumes. The period of time they include is from 1601 to 1640. He published also another work of a similar kind, called “11 Mercurio, owero istoria de' correnti Tempi,” from 1647 to 1682, which extends to fifteen 4to volumes, the two last of which are more difficult to be found than all the rest. The former work, however, is in most estimation on account of the historical documents it contains, which are always useful, whatever colouring an editor may please to give. Siri has not escaped the imputation of venality, especially in his attachment to the French court, yet Le Cierc observes (Bibl. Choisie, vol. IV.) that no French writer dared to speak so freely of the public men of that nation as Siri has done. There is a French translation of the “Memorie recondite,” under the title of “Memoires secrets,” which, Landi says, might have been much improved from Siri’s extensive correspondence with almost all the ministers of Europe, now extant in the Benedictine library of Parma, and among the private archives of Modena. Siri died in 1683, in the seventieth year of his age.

, originally called Francis Albisola Della Rovera, is said by some writers to have been the son of a fisherman at Celles, a village live leagues from Savona in the territory of Genoa, but others derive him from a branch of a noble family. He was born in 1413, entered the Franciscan order, took a doctor’s degree at Padua, and taught with reputation in the universities of Bologna, Pavia, Sienna, Florence, and Perugia. After this he became general of the Franciscans, then cardinal through the interest of cardinal Bessarion, and at length pope, August 9, 1471, on the death of Paul II. He immediately armed a fleet against the Turks, and displayed great magnificence and liberality during his whole pontificate. He was almost the founder of, and certainly greatly enriched the Vatican library, and entrusted the care of it to the learned Platina. He published a bull, March 1, 1746, granting indulgences to those who should celebrate the festival of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin; the first decree of the Roman church concerning that festival. The establishment of the feast of St. Joseph, for which Gerson had taken great pains, is also ascribed to this pope. Historians have reproached him with conniving at the vices of his nephews, being too violent against the Medici family and the Venetians, and having joined in the conspiracy of the Pazzi at Florence. There seems upon the whole to have been little in his character to command the respect of posterity, except his patronage of literature. He died August 13, 1484, aged 71. Before his election to the pontificate, he wrote the following treatises “De Sanguine Christi,” Rome, 1473, fol. scarce “De futuris contigentibus” “De potentia Dei;” “De Conceptione beatse V.irginis,” &c.; a very scarce work is also attributed to him, entitled “Regulne Cuncellariae,” 1471, 4to, translated into French by Dupinet, 1564, 8vo, and reprinted under the title of “La Banque Romaine,” 1700, 12mo.

The lenity of Gregory’s government had introduced a general licentiousness among all ranks of people; which, though somewhat restrained while he lived, broke out into open violence the very day after his death. Riots, rapes, robberies, and murders, were, during the vacancy of the see, claily committed in every part of the ecclesiastical state; so that the reformation of abuses, in the church as well as the state, was the first and principal care of Sixtus V. for such was the title Montalto assumed. The first days of his pontificate were employed in receiving the congratulations of the Roman nobility, and in giving audience to foreign ministers; and though he received them with seeming cheerfulness and complaisance, yet he soon dismissed them, desiring to be excused, “for he had something else to do than to attend to compliments.” It having been customary with preceding popes to release prisoners on the day of their coronation, delinquents used to surrender themselves after the pope was chosen; and several offenders, judging of Montalto’s disposition by his behaviour while a cardinal, came voluntarily to the prisons, not making the least doubt of a pardon: but they were fatally disappointed; for when the governor of Rome and the keeper of St. Angelo’s castle waited on his holiness to know his intention upon this matter, Sixtus replied, “You certainly do not either know your proper distance, or are very impertinent. What have you to do with pardons and acts of grace, and releasing of prisoners? Don't you think it sufficient, that our predecessor has suffered the judges to lie idle and unemployed these thirteen years? Would you have us likewise stain our pontificate with the same neglect of justice? We have too long seen, with inexpressible concern, the prodigious degree of wickedness that reigns in the ecclesiastical state, to think of granting any pardon. God forbid we should entertain such a design! So far from releasing any prisoners, it is our express command, that they be more closely confined. Let them be brought to a speedy trial, and punished as they deserve, that the prisons may be emptied, and room made for others; and that the world may see, that Divine Providence has called us to the chair of St. Peter to reward the good, and to chastise the wicked; that we bear not the sword in vain, but are the minister of God, and a revenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil.”

“J. Sceltonus Vates Pierius hie situs est.” Skelton appears to have been a more considerable personage, at one time at least, than his contemporaries would have us to believe. It is certain that he was esteemed a scholar, and that his classical learning recommended him to the office of tutor to prince Henry, afterwards king Henry VIII., who, at his accession, made him royal orator, an office so called by himself, the nature of which is doubtful, unless it was blended with that of laureat. As to his general reputation, Erasmus, in a letter to Henry VIII. styles him “Britannicarum literarum decus et lumen,” a character which must have either been inferred from common opinion, or derived from personal knowledge. Whatever provocation he gave to the clergy, he was not without patrons who overlooked his errors and extravagancies for the sake of his genius, and during the reign of Henry VII. he had the enviable distinction of being almost the only professed poet of the age. Henry Algernon Percy, fifth earl of Northumberland, one of the very few patrons of learned men and artists at that time, appears to have entertained a high regard for our author. In a collection of poems magnificently engrossed on vellum for the use of this nobleman, is an elegy on the death of the earl’s father, written by Skelton. This volume is now in the Bullish Museum, but the elegy may be seen in Skelton’s works, and in Dr. Percy’s Relics.

“Skelton’s characteristic vein of humour is capricious and grotesque. If his whimsical extravagancies ever move our laughter, at the same time they shock our sensibility. His festive levities are not only vulgar and indelicate, but frequently want truth and propriety. His subjects are often as ridiculous as his metres: but he sometimes debases his matter by his versification. On the whole, his genius seems better suited to low burlesque, than to liberal and manljr satire. It is supposed by Caxton, that he improved our language; but he sometimes affects obscurity, and sometimes adopts the most familiar phraseology of the common people.” After quoting some lines from the “Boke of Colin Cloute,” Mr. Warton remarks, that these are in the best manner of his petty measure, which is made still more disgusting by the repetition of the rhymes, but allows that in the poem called “The Bouge of Court,” or the Rewards of a Court, the author, by “adopting the more grave and stately movement of the seven-lined stanza, has shewn himself not alwajs incapable of exhibiting allegorical imagery with spirit and dignity.”

During his holding this curacy he resided in Dr. Madden’s house, called Manor-waterhouse, about three miles from Newtovm- Butler, as private tutor; and had three or four boys to instruct in English and the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages. This left him little time for the composition of his sermons, and such as he wrote at this time, he afterwards very much disliked. Here, however, he exhibited that active benevolence which always formed a striking feature in his character, and although the salary derived both from his curacy and his teaching was very small, he gave at least the half away in charitable purposes. Here likewise it would appear that he wrote his first publication, an anonymous pamphlet, printed at Dublin, recommending Dr. Madderi'a scheme for establishing premiums in Trinity college; but Madden, although he admired this pamphlet, and solicited the publisher for the name of its author, never made the discovery: Skelton judging it for his advantage to keep the secret. In the mean time, his situation being rendered extremely irksome by the vulgar mind and parsimonious disposition of Mrs. Madden, he resigned both the curacy and his tutorship in about two years.

He published the same year, “Some proposals for the revival of Christianity,” another piece of irony against the enemies of the church, which was imputed to Swift, who, as usual, neither affirmed nor denied; but only observed, that the author “had not continued the irony to the end.” In 1737, he published a “Dissertation on the constitution and effects of a Petty Jury.” In this, among other things, ^eems to object to locking up a jury without food, until they agree upon their opinion. The attorney general called at his bookseller’s, who refused to give up the name of the author. “Well,” said the attorney general, “give my compliments to the author, and inform him from me, that I do not think there is virtue enough in the people of this country ever to put his scheme into practice.”

After he returned to his curacy, he was offered a school xvorth 500l. a year, arising from the benefit of the scholars, but refused it as interfering with the plan of literary improvement and labour which he had marked out for himself; and when told that he might employ ushers, he said he could not in conscience take the money, without giving up his whole time and attention to his scholars. In 1744, he published “The Candid Reader, addressed to his terraqueous majesty, the WorUl.” The objects of his ridicule in this are Hill, the mathematician, who proposed making verses by an arithmetical table, lord Shaftesbury, and Johnson, the author of a play called “Hurlothrumbo,” with a parallel between Hurlothrumbo and the rhapsody of Shaftesbury. In the same year he also published “A Letter to the authors of Divine Analogy and the Minute Philosopher, from an old officer,” a plain, sensible letter, advising the two polemics to turn their arms from one another against the common enemies of the Christian faith. During the rebellion in 1745, he published a very seasonable and shrewd pamphlet, entitled the “Chevalier’s hopes.” On the death of Dr. Sterne, the see of Clogher was filled by Dr. Clayton, author of the “Essay on Spirit,” a decided Arian; and between him and Skelton there could consequently be no coincidence of opinion, or mutuality of respect. In 1748, Mr. Skelton having prepared for the press his valuable work entitled “Deism revealed,” he conceived it too important to be published in Ireland, and therefore determined to go to London, and dispose of it there. On his arrival, he submitted his manuscript to Andrew Millar, the bookseller, to know if he would purchase it, and have it printed at his own expence. The bookseller desired him, as is usual, to leave it with him for a day or two, until he could get a certain gentleman of great abilities to examine it. Hume is said to have come in accidentally into the shop, and Millar shewed him the ms. Hume took it into a room adjoining the shop, examined it here and there for about an hour, and then said to Andrew, print. By this work Skelton made about 200l. The bookseller allowed him for the manuscript a great many copies, which he disposed of among the citizens of London, with whom, on account of his preaching, he was a great favourite. He always spake with high approbation of the kindness with which he was received by many eminent merchants. When in London he spent a great part of his time in going through the city, purchasing books at a cheap rate, with the greater part of the money he got by his “Deism revealed,” and formed a good library. This work was published in 1749, in two volumes, large octavo, and a second edition was called for in 1751, which waacomprized in two volumes 12mo. It has ever been considered as a masterly answer to the cavils of deists; but the style in this, as in some other of his works, is not uniform, and his attempts at wit are rather too frequent, and certainly not very successful. A few months after its publication the bishop of Clogher, Dr. Clayton, was asked by Sherlock, bishop of London, if he knew the author. “O yes, he has been a curate in my diocese near these twenty years.” “More shame for your lordship,” answered Sherlock, “to let a man of his merit continue so long a curate in your diocese.”

Dr. Smalridge, who had long been admired as a preacher, was chosen lecturer of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London, in Jan. 1708, and for some time quitted the university. His early acquaintance with Atterbury had now been improved into a great degree of intimacy and friendship, arising no doubt, from a similarity of sentiments and studies; and in 1710 Dr. Smalridge had an opportunity of giving a public testimony of his regard for Atterbury, by promoting his advancement to the prolocutor’s chair in the lower house of convocation, and presenting him to the upper house, in an elegant speech, which was much admired, and afterwards printed. In this speech he even touches on Atterbury’s warmth in controversy, with considerable delicacy indeed, but in a manner that became one who would not deceive the learned body he was addressing. Smalridge himself was not much of a party man, and studiously avoided an intemperate interference in disputed points respecting either church or state, unless where his principles might be called in question, or his silence misunderstood.

In 1743, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and July 3, 1745, was elected a fellow of Pembroke hall. About this time, he wrote a comedy, of which a fevr songs only remain; and a ludicrous soliloquy of the Princess Periwinkle, preserved in the Old Woman’s Magazine. The play was called “A Trip to Cambridge, or the Grateful Fair.” The business of the drama, says his biographer, “was laid in bringing up an old country baronet to admit his nephew a fellow commoner at one of the colleges in, which expedition a daughter or niece attended. In their approach to the seat of the Muses, the waters from a heavy rain happened to be out at Fenstauton, which gave a youug student of Emmanuel an opportunity of shewing his gallantry as he was riding out, by jumping from his horse and plunging into the flood to rescue the distressed damsel, who was near perishing in the stream, into which she had fallen from her poney, as the party travelled on horseback. The swain being lucky enough to effect his purpose, of course gained an interest in the lady’s heart, and an acquaintance with the rest of the family, which he did not fail to cultivate on their arrival at Cambridge, with success as far as the fair one was concerned. To bring about the consent of the father (or guardian, fur my memory is not accurate), it was contrived to have a play acted, of which entertainment he was highly fond; and the Norwich company luckily came to Cambridge just at that time; only one of the actors had been detained on the road; and they could not perform the plav that night, unless the baronet would consent to take apart; which, rather than be disappointed of his favourite amusement, he was prevailed upon to do, especially as he was assured that it would amount to nothing more than sitting at a great table, and signing an instrument, as a justice of peace might sign a warrant: and having been some years of the quorum, he felt himself quite equal to the undertaking. The tinder-play to he acted by the Norwich company on this occasion, was the ‘ Bloody War of the King of Diamonds with the King of Spades;’ and the actors in it came on with their respective emblems on their shoulders, taken from the suits of the cards they represented. The baronet was the king of one of the parties, and in signing a declaration of war, signed his consent to the marriage of his niece or daughter, and a surrender of all her fortune.” This farce vvas acted at Pembroke-college-hall, the parlour of which made the green-room.

During the publication of the “Midwife,” he wrote the prologue and epilogue to Othello, when acted at Drurylane theatre by the Delaval family and their friends. Of the importance of this prologue and epilogue he had so high an opinion, that when he published them, in March 1751, he added a solemn notice of their being entered in the hallbook of the stationers’ company, and threatened to prosecute all persons who should pirate them, or any part of them. As he affected to conceal his share in the “Midwife,” he permits that old lady to copy these articles “because a work of merit printed in that Magazine is as a brilliant set in gold, and increased, not diminished, in its lustre.” He was now acquiring the various arts of puffing, and he ever preserved a much higher opinion of his works than even his best friends could allow to be just. Among other schemes, to which it is to be regretted a man of talents should descend, we find him about the beginning of 1752, endeavouring to amuse the town with a kind of farcical performance, called the “Old Woman’s Oratory,” intended partly to ridicule orator Henley’s buffooneries, and partly to promote the sale of the Old Woman’s Magazine. In neither of these was he very successful; the magazine was soon discontinued for want of encouragement, and Henley was a man whose absurdities could be heightened only by himself.

On the 16th of September 1792, Mr. Smeaton was suddenly struck with paralysis, as he was walking in his garden at Austhorpe, and remaining in a very infirm state, though in full possession of his faculties, died on the 28th of the ensuing month. The character of this celebrated engineer may properly be given in the words of his friend Mr. Holmes. “Mr. Smeaton had a warmth of expression, that might appear to those who did not know him to border on harshness, but those more intimately acquainted with him, knew it arose from the intense application of his mind, which was always in the pursuit of truth, or engaged in investigating difficult subjects. He would sometimes break out hastily, when any thing was said that did not tally with his ideas; and he would not give up any tiling he argued for, till his mind was convinced by sound reasoning. In all the social duties of life, he was exemplary; he was a most affectionate husband, a good father, a warm, zealous, and sincere friend, always ready to assist those he respected, and often before it was pointed out to him in what way he could serve them. He was a lover and encourager of merit, wherever he found it; and many men are in a great measure indebted for their present situation to his assistance and advice. As a companion he was always entertaining and instructive; and none could spend their time in his company without improvement.” As a man,“adds Mr. H.” I always admired and respected him, and his memory will ever be most dear to me." A second edition of his narrative of the Eddystone, was published in 1793, under the revisal of his friend Mr. Aubert: but without any addition. The papers of Mr. Smeaton were purchased of his executors by sir Joseph Banks, under the voluntary promise of accounting to them, for the profits of whatever should be published. Accordingly under the inspection of a society of civil engineers, founded originally by Mr. Smeaton, three 4to volumes of his reports have been published 1797, &c. with a life prefixed. During many years of his life, Mr. Smeaton was a constant attendant on parliament, his opinion being continually called for. And here his natural strength of judgment and perspicuity of expression had their full display. It was his constant practice, when applied to, to plan or support any measure, to make himself fully acquainted with it, and be convinced of its merits, before he would be concerned in it. By this caution, joined to the clearness of his description, and the integrity of his heart, he seldom failed having the bill he supported carried into an ad of parliameut. No person was heard with more attention, nor had any one ever more confidence placed in his testimony. In the courts of law he had several compliments paid to him from the bench, by the late lord Mansfield and others, on account of the new light he threw upon difficult subjects.

In 1751 Mr. Smith was elected professor of logic in the university of Glasgow; and the year following, upon the death of Mr. Cragie, the immediate successor of Dr. Hutcheson, he was removed to the professorship of moral philosophy in that university. His lectures in both these professorships were of the most masterly kind, but no part of them has been preserved, except what he himself published in his two principal works. A general sketch of his lectures has indeed been given by his biographer, in the words of one of his pupils, from which it appears that his lectures on logic were at once original and profound. His course of moral philosophy consisted of four parts; the first contained natural theology, or the proofs of the Being and Attributes of God; the second comprehended ethics, strictly so called, and consisted chiefly of the doctrines which he published afterwards in his “Theory of Moral Sentiments.” In the third part he treated more at length of that branch of morality which relates to justice. This also he intended to give to the public; but this intention, which is mentioned in the conclusion of the “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” he did not live to fulfil. In the fourth and last part of his lectures he examined those political regulations which are founded, not upon the principle of justice, but of expediency. Under this view he considered the political institutions relating to commerce, to finances, to ecclesiastical and military establishments. What he delivered on these subjects formed the substance of the work which he afterwards published under the title of *' An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of tue Wealth of Nations." There was no situation in which his abilities appeared to greater advantage than that of a professor. In, delivering his lectures he trusted almost entirely to extemporary elocution. His manner, though not graceful, was plain and unaffected; and, as he seemed to be always interested in his subject, he never failed to interest his hearers. His reputation was accordingly raised very high, and a multitude of students from a great distance resorted to the university of Glasgow merely on his account.

It does not appear that he made any public trial of his powers as a writer before the year 1755, when he furnished some criticisms on Johnson’s Dictionary, to a periodical work called “The Edinburgh Review,” which was then begun, but was not carried on beyond two numbers. In 1759 he first published his “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” to which he afterwards subjoined “a Dissertation on the Origin of Languages, and on the different Genius of those which are original and compounded.”

In 1776, Mr. Smith’s father died; in four or five years afterwards Mr. Smith served the office of high sheriff for Hampshire, a-xl immediately afterwards, his affairs were brought to a crisis, and hevxas confined in the King’s-bench. prison. There Mrs. Smith accompanied him, and passed with him the greater part of his confinement, which lasted seven months, and it was by her exertions principally, that he was liberated. At this unhappy period, she had recourse to those talents, which had hitherto been cultivated only for her own private gratification. She collected together a few of those poems, which had hitherto been confined to the sight of one or two friends, and had them printed at Chichester in 1784, 4to, with the title “Elegiac Sonnets and other Essays.” A second edition was eagerly called for in the same year.

The little happiness she enjoyed from Mr. Smith’s liberation was soon clouded, and he was obliged to fly to France to avoid the importunity of his creditors. Thither likewise Mrs. Smith accompanied him; and after immediately returning with the vain hope of settling his affairs, again passed over to the continent, where having hired a dreary chateau in Normandy, they spent an anxious, forlorn, and expensive winter, which it required all her fortitude, surrounded by so many children and so many cares, to survive. The next year she was called on again to try her efforts in England. In this she so far succeeded as to enable her husband to return; soon after which they hired the old mansion of the Mill family at Wolbeding in Sussex.

It now became necessary to exert her faculties again as a means of support; and she translated a little novel of abbe Prevost; and made a selection of extraordinary stories from “Les Causes Celebres” of the French, which she entitled “The Romance of Real Life.” Soon after this she was once more left to herself by a second flight of her husband abroad; and she removed with her children to a small cottage in another part of Sussex, whence she published a new edition of her “Sonnets,” with many additions, which afforded her a temporary relief. In this retirement, stimulated by necessity, she ventured to try her powers of original composition in a novel called “Emmeline, or the Orphan of the Castle,” 1788. This, says her biographer, *' displayed such a simple energy of language, such an accurate and lively delineation of character, such a purity of sentiment, and such exquisite scenery of a picturesque and rich, yet most unaffected imagination, as gave it a hold upon all readers of true taste, of a new and captivating kind “The success of this novel encouraged her to produce others for some successive years,” with equal felicity, with an imagination still unexhausted, and a command of language, and a variety of character, which have not yet received their due commendation.“” Ethelinde“appeared in 178!;” Celestina“in 1791;” Desmond“in 1792; and” r \ ht- Old Manor House“in 1793. To these succeeded” The Wanderings of Warwick“the” Banished Man;“”Momalbert;“”Marchmont;“” The young Philosopher,“and the” Solitary Wanderer," making in all 38 volumes. They weie not, however, all equally successful. She was led by indignant feelings to intersperse much of her private history and her law-suits; and this again involved her sometimes in a train of political sentiment, which was by no means popular, and had it been just, was out of place in a moral fiction.

Besides these, Mrs. Smith wrote several beautiful little volumes for young persons, entitled “Rural Walks;” “Rambles Farther;” “Minor Morals,” and “Conversations;” and a poem in blank verse, called “The Emigrant,” in addition to a second volume of“Sonnets.”

His works are not many, and those scattered up and down in miscellaneous collections. His celebrated tragedy, called “Phaedra and Hippolitus,” was acted at the theatre royal in 1707. This play was introduced upon the stage at a time when the Italian opera so much engrossed the polite world, that sense was thought to be sacrificed to sound: and this occasioned Addison, who wrote the prologue, to satirize the vitiated taste of the public. The chief excellence of this play, which has been praised far beyond its merits, is the versification. It is not destitute of the pathetic; but is so wonderfully inferior, not only to the Hippolytus of Euripides, but even to the Phédre of Racine, and is so full of glaring faults, that it is astonishing how Addison could tolerate it, or how it could be made even a temporary fashion to admire it. It is now as little thought of as it deserves. This tragedy, with “A Poem to the Memory of Mr. John Phillips,” his most intimate friend, three or four odes, and a Latin oration spoken publicly at Oxford, “in laudem Thomas Bodleii,” were publhhed in 1719, under the name of his Works, by his friend Oldisworth, who prefixed a character of Smith.

He died in 1710, in his forty-second year, at the seat of George Ducket, esq. called Hartham, in Wiltshire; and was buried in the parish church there. Some time before his death, he engaged in considerable undertakings; and raised expectations in the world, which he did not live to gratify. Oldisworth observes, that he had seen of his about ten sheets of Pindar, translated into English; which, he says, exceeded any thing in that kind he could ever hope for in our language. He had drawn out a plan for a tragedy of Lady Jane Grey, and had written several scenes of it; a subject afterwards nobly executed by Mr. Rowe. But his greatest undertaking was a translation of Longinus, to which he proposed a large addition of notes and observations of his own, with an entire system of the art of poetry in three books, under the titles of “thoughts, diction, and figure.” He intended also to make remarks upon all the ancients and moderns, the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and English poets; and to animadvert upon their several beauties and defects. Oldisworth has represented Smith as a man abounding with qualities both good and great; and that may perhaps be true, in some degree, though amplified by the partiality of friendship. He had, nevertheless, some defects in his conduct one was an extreme carelessness in the particular of dress which singularity procured him the name of “Captain Rag.” The ladies, it is said, at once commended and reproved him, by the name of the “handsome sloven.” It is acknowledged also, that he was much inclined to intemperance which was caused perhaps by disappointments, but led to that indolence and loss of character, which has been frequently destructive to genius, even of a higher order than he appears to have possessed. Dr. Johnson thus draws up his character: “As his years advanced, he advanced in reputation; for he continued to cultivate his mind; but he did not amend his irregularities, by which, he gave so much offence, that, April 24, 1700, the dean and chapter declared ' the place of Mr. Smith void, he having been convicted of riotous misbehaviour in the house of Mr. Cole, an apothecary; but it was referred to the dean when and upon what occasion the sentence should be put in execution. Thus tenderly was he treated; the governors of his college could hardly keep him, and yet wished that he would not force them to drive him away. Some time afterwards he assumed an appearance of decency; in his own phrase, he whitened himself, having a desire to obtain the censorship, an office of honour and some profit in the college; but when the election came, the preference was given to Mr. Foulkes, his junior; the same, I suppose, that joined with Freind in an edition of part of Demosthenes; it not being thought proper to trust the superintendance of others to a man who took so little care of himself. From this time Smith employed his malice and his wit against the dean, Dr. Aldrich, whom he considered as the opponent of his claim. Of his lampoon upon him, I once heard a single line too gross to be repeated. But he was still a genius and a scholar, and OxtV-rd was unwilling to lose him: he was endured, with all his pranks and his vices, two years longer; but on December 20, 1705, at the instance of all the canons, the sentence declared five years before was put in execution. The execution was, I believe, silent and tender; for one of his friends, from whom I learned much of his life, appeared not to know it. He was now driven to London, where he associated himself with the whigs, whether because they were in power, or because the tories had expelled him, or because he was a whig by principle, may perhaps be doubted. He was, however, caressed by tnen of great abilities, whatever were their party, and was supported by the liberality of those who delighted in his conversation. There was once a design, hinted at by Oldisvvorih, to have made him useful. One evening, as he was sitting with a friend at a tavern, he was called down by the waiter, and, having stayed some time below, came up thoughtful. After a pause, said he to his friend, ‘ He that wanted me below was Addison, whose business was to tell me that a history of the revolution was intended, and to propose that I should undertake it. I said, ’ What shall I do with the character of lord Sunderland?‘ And Addison immediately returned, ’ When, Rag, were you drunk last?' and went away. Captain Rag was a name that he got at Oxford by his negligence of dress. This story I heard from the late Mr. Clark, of Lincoln’s Inn, to whom it was told by the friend of Smith. Such scruples might debar him from some profitable employments; but as they could not deprive him of any real esteem, they left him many friends; and no man was ever better introduced to the theatre than he, who, in that violent conflict of parties, had a prologue and epilogue from the first wits on either side. But learning and nature will now-and-then take different courses. His play pleased the critics, and the critics only. It was, as Addison has recorded, hardly heard the third night. Smith had, indeed, trusted entirely to his merit; had insured no band of applauders, nor used any artifice to force success, and found that naked excellence was not sufficient for its own support. The play, however, was bought by Lintot, who advanced the price from fifty guineas, the current rate, to sixty; and Halifax, the general patron, accepted the dedication. Smith’s indolence kept him from writing the dedication, till Lintot, after fruitless importunity, gave notice that he would publish the play without it. Now, therefore, it was written; and Halifax expected the author with his book, and had prepared to reward him with a place of three hundred pounds a year. Smith, by pride, or caprice, or indolence, or bashful ness, neglected to attend him, though doubtless warned and pressed by his friends, and at last missed his reward by not going to solicit it. In 1709, a year after the exhibition of Phaedra, died John Philips, the friend and fellow-collegian of Smith, who, on that occasion, wrote a poem, which justice must place among the best elegies which our language can shew, an elegant mixture of fondness and admiration, of dignity and softness. There are some passages too ludicrous; but every human performance has its faults. This elegy it was the mode among his friends to purchase fora guinea-, and, as his acquaintance was numerous, it was a very profitable poem. Of his ‘ Pindar,’ mentioned by Oldisworth, I have never otherwise heard. His ‘ Longinus’ he intended to accompany with some illustrations, and had selected his instances of * the false Sublime,’ from the works of Blackmore. He resolved to try again the fortune of the stage, with the story of * Lady Jane Grey.' It is not unlikely that his experience of the inefficacy and incredibility of a mythological tale might determine him to choose an action from English history, at no great distance from our own times, which was to end in a real event, produced by the operation of known characters. Having formed his plan, and collected materials, he declared that a few months would complete his design; and, that he might pursue his work with fewer avocations, he was, in June, 1710, invited by Mr. George Ducket, to his house at Hartham in Wiltshire. Here he found such opportunities of indulgence as did not much forward his studies, and particularly some strong ale, too delicious to be resisted. He ate and drank till he found himself plethoric: and then, resolving to ease himself by evacuation, he wrote to an apothecary in the neighbourhood a prescription of a purge so forcible, that the apothecary thought it his duty to delay it till he had given notice of its danger. Smith, not pleased with the contradiction of a shopman, and boastful of his own knowledge, treated the notice with rude contempt, and swallowed his own medicine, which, in July 1710, brought him to the grave. He was buried at Hartham. Many years afterwards, Ducket communicated to Oldmixon, the historian, an account, pretended to have been received from Smith, that Clarendon’s History was, in its publication, corrupted by Aldrich, Smalridge, and Atterbury; and that Smith was employed to forge and insert the alterations. This story was published triumphantly by Oldmixon, and may be supposed to have been eagerly received: but its progress was soon checked for, finding its way into the journal of Trevoux, it fell under the eye of Atterbury, then an exile in France, who immediately denied the charge, with this remarkable particular, that he never in his whole life had once spoken to Smith; hrs company being, as must be inferred, not accepted by those who attended to their characters. The charge was afterwards very diligently refuted by Dr< Burton of Eton a man eminent for literature, and, though not of the same party with Aldrich and Atterbury, too studious of truth to leave them burthened with a false charge. The testimonies which he has collected have convinced mankind that either Smith or Ducket were guilty of wilful and malicious falsehood. This controversy brought into view those parts of Smith’s life which with more honour to his name might have been concealed. Of Smith I can yet say a little more. He was a man of such estimation among his companions, that the casual censures or praises which he dropped in conversation were considered, like those of Scaliger, as worthy of preservation. He had great readiness and exactness of criticism, and by a cursory glance over a new composition would exactly tell all its faults and beauties. He was remarkable for the power of reading with great rapidity, and of retaining with great fidelity what he so easily collected. He therefore always knew what the present question required; and, when his friends expressed their wonder at his acquisitions, made in a state of apparent negligence and drunkenness, he never discovered his hours of reading or method of study, but involved himself in affected silence, and fed his own vanity with their admiration and conjectures. One practice he had, which was easily observed: if any thought or image was presented to his mind that he could use or improve, he did not suffer it to be lost; but, amidst the jollity of a tavern, or in the warmth of conversation, very diligently committed to paper. Thus it was that he had gathered two quires of hints for his new tragedy; of which Howe, when they were put into his hands, could make, as he says, very little use, but which the collector considered as a valuable stock of materials. When he came to London, his way of life connected him with the licentious and dissolute; and he affected the airs and gaiety of a man of pleasure; but his dress was always deficient: scholastic cloudiness still hung about him, and his merriment was sure to produce the scorn of his companions. With all his carelessness, and all his vices, he was one of the murmurers at form tie; and wondered why he was suffered to be poor, when Addison was caressed and preferred: nor would a very little have contented him; for he estimated his wants at six hundred pounds a year. In his course of reading it was particular, that he had diligently perused, and accurately remembered, the old romances of knight-errantry. He had a high opinion of his own merit, and something contemptuous in his treatment of those whom he considered as not qualified to oppose or contradict him. He had many frailties; yet it cannot but be supposed that he had great merit, who could obtain to the same play a prologue from Addison, and an epilogue from Prior; and who could have at once the patronage of Halifax, and the praise of Oldisworth.”

His sermons and treatises were published at sundry times about the close of the sixteenth century, but were collected into one volume 4to, in 1675, to which Fuller prefixed the life of the author. This volume consists of “A preparative to marriage a Treatise on die Lord’s Supper Examination of Usury Be-nefit of Contentation, &c.” and other practical pieces. His treatise on “Atheism” was, soon after its first publication, translated into Latin, and published at Oppenheim, 1614, 8vo. Granger says, “he was called the silver-tongued preacher,” as though he were second to Chrysostom, to whom the epithet of golden is appropriated.

, commonly called Capt. John Smith, or Smyth, was born at Willoughby in the county of Lincoln, but descended from the Smyths of Cuerdley. He ranks with the greatest travellers and adventurers of his age, and was distinguished by his many achievements in the fpur quarters of the globe. In the wars of Hungary about 1602, in three single combats he overcame three Turks, and cut off their heads, for which and other gallant exploits Sigismund, duke of Transylvania, under whom he served, gave him his picture set in gold, with a pension of three hundred ducats: and allowed him to bear three Turks heads proper as his shield of arms. He afterwards went to America, where he was taken prisoner by the Indians, from whom he found means to escape. He often hazarded his life in naval engagements with pirates, Spanish men of war, and in other adventures, and had a considerable hand in reducing New-England to the obedience of Great Britain, and in reclaiming the inhabitants from barbarism. If the same, which is very probable, who is mentioned in Stow’s “Survey of London,” under the name of “Capt. John Smith, some time governor of Virginia and admiral of New-England,” he died June 21, 1631, and was buried at St. Sepulchre’s church, London. There is a ms life of him, by Henry Wharton in the Lambeth library, but his exploits may be seen in his “History of Virginia, NewEngland, and the Summer Isles,” written by himself, and published at London in 1624, fol. Wood also attributes to him, l. “A Map of Virginia, with a description of the country, the commodities, people, government, and religion,” Oxon. 1612, 4to. 2. “New-England’s Tryals, &c.” Lond. 1620, 4to. 3. “Travels in Europe, &c.” ibid. 1630, reprinted in Churchill’s Voyages, vol. II.

On the accession of George I. he was again introduced at court by the earl of Grantham, lord chamberlain to the prince of Wales (Afterward George II.) and was made chaplain to the princess, in which office he continued, until her highness came to the throne, to give attendance in his turn; but at that period, although he was still her majesty’s chaplain, he had no farther promotion at court. For this two reasons have been assigned, the one that he was negligent in making use of his interest, and offered no solicitation; the other, that his Tory principles were not at that time very acceptable. He used to be called the Hanover Tory; but he was in all respects a man of moderation, and sincerely attached to the present establishment. As some compensation for the loss of court-favour, his old fellowstudent, Dr. Gibson, when bishop of Lincoln, promoted him to the prebend of Dunholm in that church, and upon his translation to London gave him the donative of Paddington, near London. In this place, Dr. Smith built a house for himself, the parsonage-house having been lost by his predecessor’s neglect, and afterwards retired here with his family for the benefit of his health. He also established an afternoon lecture, at the request of the inhabitants, and procured two acts of parliament, to which he contributed a considerable part of the expence, for twice enlarging the church-yard. The same patron also promoted him to the prebend of St. Mary, Newington, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, which proved very advantageous to him; but, as he $ow held two benefices with cure of souls, namely, St. Dionisand Paddington, he gave the rectory of Newington, annexed to the prebend, to Dr. Ralph Thoresby, son to the celebrated antiquary. On the building of the new church of St. George’s, Hanover-square, he was chosen lecturer in March 1725, and was there, as every where else, much admired for his talents in the pulpit. He had before resigned the lectureship of Trinity chapel in Conduit-street, and in 1731 resigned also that of St. George’s, in consequence of having been, on Oct. 20, 1730, elected provost of Queen’s college, which owes much of its present splendor and prosperity to his zeal and liberality. We have already noticed that he had persuaded sir Joseph Williamson to alter his will in its favour, which had before been drawn up in favour of endowing a college in Dublin; and it was now to his interference that the college owed the valuable foundation of John Michel, esq. for eight master fellows, four bachelor scholars, and four undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners, besides livings, &c. Dr. Smith was also instrumental in, procuring queen Caroline’s donation of 1000l. lady Elizabeth Hastings’s exhibitions, and those of sir Francis Bridgman, which, without his perseverance, would have been entirely lost; and besides what he bequeathed himself, he procured a charter of mortmain, in May 1732, to secure these several benefactions to the college.

, bishop of Gloucester, a very learned prelate, was born in the city of Hereford, and became, about the year 1568, a student in Corpus Christi college, Oxford; from which college he transferred himself to Brasen Nose, and took the degrees in arts, as a member of that house. He was afterwards made one of the chaplains, or petty canons of Christ-church, and was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, whilst he belonged to that royal foundation. In process of time he was raised to the dignity of canon residentiary of the cathedral church of Hereford: he was created doctor of divinity in 1594; and, at length, in 1612, advanced to tke see of Gloucester, and consecrated on the 20th of September in that year. His knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Oriental languages was so extraordinary, that, upon this account, he was described, by a learned bishop of the kingdom, as a, “very walking library.” He used to say of himself, that he was “covetous of nothing but books.” It was particularly for his exact and eminent skill in the Eastern tongues, that he was thought worthy, by king James the First, to be called to that great work, the last transiation by authority of our English Bible. In this undertaking he was esteemed one of the principal persons. He began with the first, and was the last man in the translation of the work: for after the task was finished by the whole number appointed to the business, who were somewhat above forty, the version was revised and improved by twelve selected from them; and, at length, was referred to the final examination of Bilson bishop of Winchester, and our Dr. Smith. When all was ended, he was commanded to write a preface, which being performed by him, it was made public, and is the same that is now extant in our Church Bible. The original is said to be preserved in the Bodleian library. It was for his good services in this translation, that Dr. Smith was appointed bishop of Gloucester, and had leave to hold in commendam with his bishopric his former livings, namely, the prebend of Hinton in the church of Hereford, the rectories of Upton-onSevern, Hartlebury in the diocese of Worcester, and the first portion of Ledbury, called Overhall. According to Willis he died October 20; but W r ood says, in the beginning of November, 1624, and was buried in his own cathedral. He was a strict Calvinist, and of course no friend to the proceedings of Dr. Laud. In 1632, a volume of sermons, transcribed from his original manuscripts, being fifteen in number, was published at London, in folio, and he was the editor of bishop Babington’s works, to which he prefixed a preface, and wrote some verses for his picture. One of bishop Smith’s own sermons was published in octavo, 1602, without his knowledge or consent, by Robert Burhill, under the title of “A learned and godly Sermon, preached at Worcester, at an assize, by the Rev. and learned Miles Smith, doctor of divinitie.”

"Afterwards, however, it met with great opposition for, about lo'tv, when Smith was going to travel, Cheke being appointed the king’s lecturer of the Greek language, began by explaining and enforcing the new pronunciation, but was opposed by one liateclitf, a scholar of the university; who, being exploded for his attempt, brought the dispute before bishop Gardiner, the chancellor. Upon this, the bishop interposed his authority; who, being averse to all innovations as well as those in religion, and observing these endeavours in Cambridge of introducing the new pronunciation of Greek to come from persons suspected to be no friends to the old papal superstitions, he made a solemn decree against it. Cheke was very earnest with the chancellor to supersede, or at least to connive at the neglect of this decree; but the chancellor continued indexible. But Smith, having waited upon him at Hampton Court, and discoursed with him upon the point, declared his readiness to comply with the decree; but upon his return, recollected his discourse with the bishop, and in a long and eloquent epistle in Latin, privately sent to him, and argued with much freedom the points in controversy between them. This epistle consisted of three parts. In the first he shewed what was to be called true and right in the whole method of pronunciation; and retrieved this from the common and present use, and out of the hands both of the ignorant and learned of that time, and placed it with the ancients, restoring to them their right and authority, propounding them as the best and only pattern to be imitated by all posterity *vith regard to the Greek tongue. In the second he compared the old and new pronunciation with that pattern, that the bishop might see whether of the two came nearer to it. In the third he gave an account of his whole conduct in this affair. This epistle was dated from Cambridge, August 12, 1542. He afterwards, while he was ambassador at Paris, caused it to be printed there by Robert Stephens, in 4to, in 1568, under the title of “De recta et emendata Linguae Graecse Pronunciatione,” together with another tract of his concerning the right pronunciation and writing English/'

Another of his projects was the establishment of a colony in a land which he had purchased in Ireland, called The Ardes, a rich and pleasant country on the eastern coast of Ulster, and of considerable extent, lying well for trade by sea. Sir Thomas in 1571 had procured a patent from her majesty for it, the substance of which was, that he was to be lieutenant-general there for war, and for distribution of Jands, orders, and laws in the matters thereunto pertaining; in short, to obtain and govern the country to be won, following the instructions and orders to him to be directed from the queen and her council; and this for the first seven years. Afterwards the government of the country to return to such officers as the customs and laws of England did appoint, except the queen should think him worthy to be appointed the governor thereof, as being a frontier country, the right to remain only in him as to the inheritance; the authority to muster and call together his sol tiers throughout the same country, and to dispose of them upon the frontiers, as he should see cause for the better defence of the country. Sir Thomas sent his natural son, Thomas Smith, with a colony thither, who did good service there, but was at last intercepted and slain by a wild Irishman. The settlement of this colony cost sir Thomas ten thousand pounds; but after his death it seems to have been neglected for some time, and the Ardes were afterwards lost to his family, being given away by king James I. to some of the Scots nobility.

In 1746 he first presented himself to the public as the author of “Advice, a Satire,” in which he endeavoured to excite indignation against certain public characters, by accusations which a man of delicacy would disdain to bring forward under any circumstances, and which are generally brought forward under the very worst. What this production contributed to his fame, we are not told; his friends, however, were alarmed and disgusted, and his enemies probably increased. About this time he wrote (for Coventgarden theatre), an opera called “Alceste,” which was never acted or printed, owing, it is said, to a dispute between the author and the manager. Sir John Hawkins, who, in all his writings, trusts too much to his memory, informs us, that Handel set this opera to music, and, that his labour might not be lost, afterwards adapted the airs to Dryden’s second ode on St. Cecilia’s day. But Handel composed that ode in 1739, according to Dr. Burney’s more accurate and scientific history of music. In 1747, our author published “Reproof, a Satire,” as a second part of “Advice,” and consisting of the same materials, with the addition of some severe lines on Rich, the manager of Covent-garden theatre, with whom he had just quarrelled.

In 1750, he took a trip to Paris, where he renewed his acquaintance with Dr. Moore, his biographer, who informs us that he indulged the common English prejudices against the French nation, and never attained the language so perfectly as to be able to mix familiarly with the inhabitants. His stay here was not long, for in 1751, he published his second most popular novel, “Peregrine Pickle,” in 4 vo!s. 12mo, which was received with great avidity. In the second edition, which was called for within a few months, he speaks with more craft than truth of certain booksellers and others who misrepresented the work, and calumniated the author. He could not, however, conceal, and all his biographers have told the shameless tale for him, that “he received a handsome reward” for inserting the profligate memoirs of lady Vane. It is only wonderful, that after this he could “flatter himself that he had expunged every adventure, phrase, and insinuation that could be construed by the most delicate readers into a trespass upon the rules of decorum.” In this work, as in “Roderick Random,” he indulged his unhappy propensity 'to personal satire and revenge, by introducing living characters. He again endeavoured to degrade those of Garrick and Quin, who, it is said, had expressed a more unfavourable opinion of the “Regicide” than even Garrick: and he was perhaps yet more unpardonable in holding up Dr. Akenside to ridicule.

His first publication, in this retirement, if it may be so called, was the “Adventures of Ferdinand count Fathom,” in 1753. This novel, in the popular opinion, has been reckoned greatly inferior to his former productions, but merely perhaps because it is unlike them. There is such a perpetual flow of sentiment and expression in this production, as must give a very high idea of the fertility of his mind; but in the delineation of characters he departs too much from real life, and many of his incidents are highly improbable. Mr. Cumberland, in the Memoirs of his own life, lately published, takes credit to himself for the character of Abraham Adams, and of Sheva, in his comedy of the Jew, which are, however, correct transcripts of Smollett’s Jew, nor would it have greatly lessened the merit of his benevolent views towards that depressed nation, had Mr. Cumberland frankly made this acknowledgment.

When lord Bute was promoted to the office of first minister, Smollett’s pen was engaged to support him against the popular clamour excited by Wilkes and his partizans. With this view our author commenced a weekly paper called “The Briton,” which was answered by Wilkes in his more celebrated “North Briton.” Had this been a contest of argument, wit, or even mere personal and political recrimination, Smollett would have had little to fear from the talents of Wilkes; but the public mind, inflamed by every species of misrepresentation, was on the side of Wilkes, and the “Briton” was discontinued, when lord Bute, its supposed patron, could no longer keep his seat. Before this short contest, Smollett had lived on terms of intimacy with Wilkes, who, having no animosities that were not absolutely necessary to serve a temporary interest, probably did not think the worse of Smollett for giving him an opportunity to triumph over the author of “The Complete History of England.” Smollett, however, was not disposed to view the matter with this complacency. He expected a reward for his services, and was disappointed, and his chagrin on this occasion he soon took an opportunity to express.

He set out, however, for Italy early in 1770, with a debilitated body, and a mind probably irritated by his recent disappointment, but not without much of the ease which argues firmness, since, during this journey he could so pleasantly divert his sorrows by writing “The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker.” This novel, if it may be so called, for it has no regular fable, in point of genuine humour, knowledge of life and manners, and delineation of character, is inferior only to his “Roderick Random” and “Peregrine Pickle.” It has already been noticed that Matthew Bramble, the principal character, displays the cynical temper and humane feelings of the author on his tour on the continent; and it may now be added that he has given another sketch of himself in the character of Serle in the first volume. This account of the ingratitude of Paunceford to Smollett is strictly true, and as his biographers seem unacquainted with the circumstances, the following may not be uninteresting, as related to the writer of this article by the late intimate friend of Smollett, Mr. Hamilton, the printer and proprietor of the Critical Review.

“He was of an intrepid, independent, imprudent disposition, equally incapable of deceit and adulation, and more disposed to cultivate the acquaintance of those he could serve, than of those who could serve him What wonder that a man of his character was not, what is called, successful in life”

, a man of great learning and abilities, was the third son of Marianus Socinus, an eminent civilian at Bologna, and has by some been reckoned the founder of the Socinian sect, as having been in reality the author of all those principles and opinions, which Faustus Socinus afterwards propagated with more boldness. He was born at Sienna in 1525, and designed by his father for the study of the civil law. With this he combined the perusal of the scriptures; thinking that the foundations of the civil law must necessarily be laid in the word of God, and therefore would be deduced in the best manner from it. To qualify himself for this inquiry, he studied the Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic tongues. What light he derived from this respecting the civil law is not known, but he is said to have soon discovered, that the church of Rome taught many tilings plainly contrary to scripture. About 1546 he became a member of a secret society, consisting of about forty persons, who held their meetings, at. different times, in the territory of Venice, and particularly at. Vicenza, in which they deliberated concerning a general reformation of the received systems of religion, and particularly endeavoured to establish the doctrines afterwards publicly adopted by the Socinians; but being discovered, and some of them punished, they dispersed into other countries; and our Socinus, in 1547, began his travels, and spent four years in France, England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland; and then settled at Zurich. He contracted a familiarity, and even an intimacy, with the learned wherever he went and Calvin, Melancthon, Builinger, Beza, and others of the same class, were amongst. the number of his friends. But having soon discovered, by the doubts he proposed to them, that he had adopted sentiments the most obnoxious to these reformers, he became an object of suspicion and Calvin, in particular, wrote to him an admonitory letter, of which the following is a part; “Don't expect,” says he, “that I should answer all your preposterous questions. If you chuse to soar amidst such lofty speculations, suffer me, an humble disciple of Jesus Christ, to meditate upon such things as conduce to my edification; as indeed I shall endeavour by my silence to prevent your being troublesome to me hereafter. In the mean time, I cannot but lament, that you should continue to employ those excellent talents with which God has blessed you, not only to no purpose, but to a very bad one. Let me beg of you seriously, as I have often done, to correct in yourself this love of inquiry, which may bring you into trouble.” It would appear that Socinus took this advice in part, as he continued to live among these orthodox divines for a considerable time, without molestation. He found means, however, to communicate his notions to such as were disposed to receive them, and even lectured to Italians, who wandered up and down in Germany and Poland. He also sent writings to his relations, who lived at Sienna. He took a journey into Poland about 1558; and obtained from the king some letters of recommendation to the doge of Venice and the duke of Florence, that he might be safe at Venice, while his affairs required his residence there. He afterwards returned to Switzerland, and died at Zurich in 1562, in his thirty-seventh year. Being naturally timorous and irresolute, he professed to die in the communion of the reformed church, but certainly had contributed much to the foundation of the sect called from his, or his nephew’s name, for he collected the materials that Faustus afterwards digested and employed with such dexterity and success. He secretly and imperceptibly excited doubts and scruples in the minds of many, concerning several doctrines generally received among Christians, and, by several arguments against the divinity of Christ, which he left behind him in writing, he so far seduced, even after his death, the Arians in Poland, that they embraced the communion and sentiments of those who looked upon Christ as a mere man, created immediately, like Adam, by God himself. There are few writings of Laelius exta.it, and of those that bear his name, some undoubtedly belong to others.

His sect did not die with him; but the sentiments of the modern Socinians are widely different from those of their founder, who approached to a degree of orthodoxy nowhere now to be found among them. To enter, however, upon all the varieties of their opinions would occupy a much larger space than is consistent with the plan of this work. Yet all those varieties, and all the shapes and forms on which the modern Socinians, or Unitarians, as they affect to be called, rest their opinions, may be traced to the main principle of Socinianism, as stated by Mosheim. Although, says that writer, the Socinians profess to believe that our divine knowledge is derived solely from the Holy Scriptures; yet they maintain in reality, that the sense of the Scripture is to be investigated and explained by the Dictates of right reason, to which, of consequence, they attribute a great influence in determining the nature, and unfolding the various doctrines of religion. When their writings are perused with attention, they will he found to attribute more to reason, in this matter, than most other Christian societies. For they frequently insinuate artfully, and sometimes declare plainly, that the sacred penmen were guilty of many errors, from a defect of memory, as well as a want of capacity; that they expressed their sentiments without perspicuity or precision, and rendered the plainest things obscure by their pompous and diffuse Asiatic style; and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to employ the lamp of human reason to cast a light upon their doctrine, and to explain it in a manner conformable to truth. It is easy to see what they had in view by maintaining propositions of this kind. They aimed at nothing less than the establishment of the following general rule, viz. that the history of the Jews, and also that of Jesus Christ, were indeed to be derived from the books of the Old and New Testament, and that it was not lawful to entertain the least doubt concerning the truth of this history, or the authenticity of these books in general; but that the particular doctrines which they contain, were, nevertheless, to be understood and explained in such a manner as to render them consonant with the dictates of reason. According to this representation of tilings, it is not the Holy Scripture, which declares clearly and expressly what we are to believe concerning the nature, counsels, and perfections of the Deity; but it is human reason, which shews us the system of religion that we ought to seek in, and deduce from, the divine oracles. This fundamental principle of Socinianism, continues Mosheim, will appear the more dangerous and pernicious, when we consider the sense in which the word reason was understood by this sect. The pompous title of right reason was given, by the Socinians, to that measure of intelligence and discernment, or, in other words, to that faculty of comprehending and judging, which we derive from nature. According to this definition, the fundamental rule of Socinianism necessarily supposes, that no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose pu.is are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding.; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of an and argument, ai to answer the extent of our limited faculties. Thosr wlio adopt this singular rule, must at the same time grant that the number of religions must be nearly equ~l to that of individuals. For as there is a great variety in the talents and capacities of different persons, so what will appear dnKcolt and abstruse to one, will seem evident and clear to another; and thus the more discerning and penetrating will adopt as divine truth, what the slow and superficial will look upon as unintelligible jargon. This consequence, however, does not at all alarm the Socinians, who suffer their members to explain, in very different ways, many doctrines of the highest importance, and permit every one to follow his particular fancy in composing his theological system, provided they acknowledge in general, the truth and authenticity of the history of Christ, and adhere to the precepts which the gospel lays down for the regulation of our lives and actions.

His first masters were Anaxagoras, and Archelaus: by which last he was much beloved, and travelled with him to Samos, to Pytho, and to the Isthmus. He was scholar likewise of Damo, whom Plato calls a most pleasing teacher of music, and of all other things that he himself would teach to young men. He heard also Prochcus the sophist, to whom must he added Diorima and Aspasia, women of great renown for learning. By listening to all these, he became master of every kind of knowledge which the age in which he lived could afford. With these uncommon endowments Socrates appeared in Athens, under the character of a good citizen, and a true philosopher. Being called upon by his country to take arms in the long and severe struggle between Athens and Sparta, he signalized himself at the siege of Potidaea, both by his valour, and by the hardiness with which he endured fatigue. During the severity of a Thracian winter, whilst others were clad in furs, he wore only his usual clothing, and walked barefoot upon the ice. In an engagement in which he saw Alcibiades (a young man of noble rank whom he accompanied during this expedition) falling down wounded, he advanced to defend him, and saved both him and his arms; and though the prize of valour was, on this occasion, unquestionably due to Socrates, he generously gave his vote that it might be bestowed upon Alcibiades, to encourage his rising merit. Several years afterwards, Socrates voluntarily entered upon a military expedition against the Bo3otians, during which, in an unsuccessful engagement at Delium, he retired with great coolness from the field; when, observing Xenophon lying wounded upon the ground, he took him upon his shoulders, and bore him out of the reach of the enemy. Soon afterwards he went out a third time in a military capacity, in the expedition for the purpose of reducing Amphipolis; but this proving unsuccessful, he returned to Athens, and remained there till his death.

Xenophon represents him as excelling in all kinds of learning. He instances only in arithmetic, geometry, and astrology, but Plato mentions natural philosophy; lilomeneus, rhetoric; and Laertius, medicine. Cicero affirms, that by the testimony of all the learned, anu toe judgment of all Greece, he was, in respect to wisdom, acuteness, politeness, and subtilty, in eloquence, variety, and richness, and in whatever he applied himself to, beyond comparison the first man of his age. As to his philosophy, it may be necessary to observe, that having searched into all kinds of science, he first discovered that it was wrong to neglect those things which concern human life, for the sake of inquiring into those things which do not; secondly, that the things men have usually made the objects of their inquiries, ure above the reach of human understanding, and the source of all the disputes, errors, and superstitions, which have prevailed in the uorld; and, thirdly, that such divine mysteries cannot be made subservient to the uses of human life. Thus, esteeming speculative knowledge so far only as it conduces to practice, be decried in all the sciences what he conceived to be useless, and exchanged speculation for action, and theory for practice: and thus, says Cicero, “first called philosophy down from heaven, and from things involved by. nature in impenetrable secrecy, which yet had employed all the philosophers till his time, and brought her to common life, to inquireafter virtue and vice, good and evil.” That Socrates had an attendant spirit, genius, or daemon, which guarded him from dangers, is asserted by Plato and Antisthenes, who were his contemporaries, and repeated by innumerable authors of antiquity; but what this attendant spirit, genius, or daemon was, or what we are to understand by it, neither antient nor modern writers have in general been able to determine. There is some disagreement concerning the name, and more concerning the nature of it: only it is by most writers agreed, that the advice it gave him was always dissuasive; “never impelling,” says Cicero, “but often restraining him.” It is commonly named his daemon, by which title he himself is supposed to have owned it. Plato sometimes calls it his guardian, and Apuleius his god; because the namv of daemon, as St. Austin tells us, at last grew odious. As for the sign or manner, in which this daemon or genius foretold, and by foretelling, guarded him against evils to come, nothing certain can be collected about it. Plutarch, who rejects some popular absurdities upon the subject, conjectures, first, that it iiiigtit be an apparition; but at last concludes, that it was his observation of some inarticulate unaccustomed sound or voi-e, conveyed to him in an extraordinary way, as happens in dreams. Others confine this foreknowledge of evils within the soul of Socrates himself; and when he said that “his enius advised him,” think that he only meant that “his mind foreboded and so inclined him.” But this is inconsistent with the description which Socrates himself gives of a voice and signs from without. Lastly, some conceive it to be one of those spirits that have a particular care of men; which Maxhmis Tyrius and Apuletus describe in such a manner, that they want only the name of a good angel; and this Laciantius has suppl ed; for, after proving that God sends angels to guard mankind, he adds, “and Socrates affirmed that there was a daemon constantly near him, which had kept him company from a child, and by whose beck and instruction he uidecl his life.” Such are the varieties of opinion entertained unon this singular subject, winch, however, have arisen chiefly out of the prevalence of Platonic ideas, and the desire of exalting Socrates beyond all reason. The account given by Xeriophon, the strictest and truest Socratic, and confirmed by some passages in Plutarch’s treatise “De Genio Socratis,” is perhaps clear and reasonable. It is plainly this, that, believing in the gods of his country, and the divinations commonly in use, Socrates, when he took an omen, said that he proceeded by divine intimation. This he did out of piety, thinking it more respectful to the gods to refer the suggestion to them, than to the voice or other intermediate sign by which they conveyed it. His phrase on this occasion was, To dai/wviov auna ay/Aa'iveiv, which being in some degree ambiguous, as foufumotnignt mean either the divine power abstractedly, 01 -Omh- parricular deity, his e-iemies took advantage of it to accuse him of introducing new deities; and his friends to indulge the vanity of boasting that he had an attendant daemon. This account may be seen at full length, supported by many arguments and proofs from the original authors, in a little tract on this subject, published in 1782*.

country. He called the sign, what- what is to come I call the same thing

to him, a daemon or divinity. This attribute to birds the power which beexplanation of the matter is favoured longs to the gods.“The altercations that Socrates had with the Sophists therefore gained him respect, and made him popular with the Athenians; hut he had a private quarrel with one Anytus, which, after many years continuance, was the occasion of his death. Anytus was an orator by profession, a sordid and avaricious man, who was privately maintained and enriched by leather-sellers. He had placed two of his sons under Socrates, to be taught; but, because they had not acquired such knowledge from him as to enable them to get their living by pleading, he took them away, and put them to the trade of leather-selling. Socrates, displeased with this illiberal treatment of the young men, whose ruin he presaged at the same time, reproached, and exposed Anytus in his discourses to his scholars. Anytus, hurt by this, studied all means of revenge but feared the Athenians, who highly reverenced Socrates, as well on account of his great wisdom and virtue, as for the particular opposition which he had made to those vain babblers the Sophists. He therefore advised with Melitus, a young orator; from whose counsel he began, by making trial in smaller things, to sound how the Athenians would entertain a charge against his life. He suborned the comic poet Aristophanes, to ridicule him and his doctrines in his celebrated comedy called” The Clouds.“Socrates, who seldom went to the theatre, except when Euripides, whom he admired, contested with any new tragedian, was present at the acting of” The Clouds;“and stood up all the while in the most conspicuous part of the theatre. One that was present asked him if he was not vexed at seeing himself brought upon the stage?” Not at all,“answered he:” I am only a host at a public festival, where I provide a large company with entertainment."

He died, according to Plato, when he was more than seventy, 396 B. C. He was buried with many tears and much solemnity by his friends, among whom the excessive grief of Plato is noticed by Plutarch: yet, as soon as they performed that last service, fearing the cruelty of the thirty tyrants, they stole out of the city, the greater part to Euclid at Megara, who received them kindly; the rest to other places. Soon after, however, the Athenians were recalled to a sense of the injustice they had committed against Socrates; and became so exasperated, as to insist that the authors of it should be put to death. Melitus accordingly suffered, and Anytus was banished. In farther testimony of their penitence, they called home his friends to their former liberty of meeting; they forbade public spectacles of games and wrestlings for a time; they caused his statue, made in brass by Lysippus, to be set up in the Pompeium; and a plague ensuing, which they imputed to this unjust act, they made an order, that no man should mention Socrates publicly and on the theatre, in order to forget the sooner what they had done.

, called L‘Abate Ciccio, from his mode of dressing like an abbot, an illustrious Italian painter, was descended of a good family, and born at Nocera de’ Pagani near Naples in 1657. His father Angelo, who had been a scholar of Massimo, and was a good painter and a man of learning, discerned an uncommon genius in his son; who is said to have spent whole nights in the studies of poetry and philosophy. He designed also so judiciously in chiaro obscure, tiiat his performances surprised all who saw them. Angelo intended him for the Jaw, and did not alter his purpose, though he was informed of his other extraordinary talents, till cardinal Orsini advised him. This cardinal, afterwards Benedict Xiji. at a visit happened to examine the youth in philosophy, and, although satisfied with his answers, observed, that he would do better, if he did not waste so much of his time in drawing; but when these drawings were produced, he was so surprised, that he told the father how unjust he would be both to his son and to the art, if he attempted to check a genius so manifestly displayed. Ou this, Solimene had full liberty given him to follow his inclination. Two years passed on, while he studied under his lather, after which, in 1674, he went to Naples, and put himself under the direction of Francesco di Maria. Thinking, however, that this artist laid too great a stress on design, he soon left him, and guided himself by the works of Lanfranc and Calabrese in composition and chiaro obscuro, while those of Pietro Cortona and Luca Jordano were his standards for colouring, and Guido and Carlo Maratti for drapery. By an accurate and well-managed study of these masters, he formed to himself an excellent style, and soon distinguished himself as a painter. Hearing that the Jesuits intended to paint the chapel of St. Anne in the church Jesu Nuovo, he sent them a sketch by an architecture painter; not daring to carry it himself, lest a prejudice against his youth might exclude him. His design was nevertheless accepted, and, while he was employed on this chapel, the best painters of Naples visited him, astonished to h'nd themselves surpassed by a mere boy. This was his first moment of distinction, and his reputation increased so fast, that great works were offered him from every quarter. His fame extending to other countries, the kings of France and Spain made him very advantageous proposals to engage him in their service, all which he declined. Philip V. arriving at Naples, commanded him to paint his portrait, and allowed him to sit in his presence: and the emperor Charles VI. knighted him on account of a picture he sent him. In 1701, he resided at Rome during the holy year: when the pope and cardinals took great notice of him. This painter is also known by his sonnets, which have been often printed in collections of poetry; and, at eighty years of age, he could repeat from memory the most beautiful passages of the poets, in the application of which he was very happy. He died in 1747, at almost ninety. He painted entirely after nature; being fearful, as he said, that too servile an attachment to the antique might damp the fire of his imagination. He was a man of a good temper, who neither criticised the works of others out of envy, nor was blind to his own defects. He told the Italian author of his life, that he had advanced many falsities in extolling the character of his works: which had procured him a great deal of money, but yet were very far short of perfection. The grand duke of Tuscany with difficulty prevailed on Solimene’s modesty to send him his picture, which he wanted to place in his gallery among other painters.

, an ancient Latin grammarian, and (as it appears) a Roman, whom some have imagined to have lived in the time of Augustus, though in his “Polyhistor” he has made large extracts from the elder Pliny, probably lived about the middle of the third century. We have of his the abovementioned work, which Salmasius has published in 2 vols. folio: illustrated with a commentary of his own, if to overwhelm a small tract, and bury it under a mass of learning, can be called illustrating. There are various other editions. The “Polyhistor” is an ill-digested compilation of historical and geographical remarks upon various countries: and the extracts in it from Pliny are so large, and his manner withal so imitated, that the author has been called, “The Ape of Pliny.”

, an ingenious Spanish writer, was of an ancient and illustrious family, and born at Placenza in Old Castile, July 18, 1610. He was sent to Salamanca to study law; but, having a natural turn for poetry, gave it the preference, and cultivated it with a success which did him great honour. He was but seventeen, when he wrote an ingenious comedy, called “Amor y Obligacion:” and he afterwards composed others, which were received with the highest applause. Antonio affirms him to have been the best comic poet Spain has ever seen. At six and twenty, he applied himself to ethics and politics. His great merit procured him a patron in the count d'Oropesa, viceroy then of Navarre, and afterwards of the kingdom of Valence, who appointed him his secretary. In 1642, when he wrote his comedy of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” for representation at Pampeluna, upon the birth of the count’s son, Philip IV. of Spain made him one of his secretaries; and, after Philip’s death, the queen regent made him first historiographer of the Indies, a place of great profit as well as honour. His “History of the Conquest of Mexico” was thought to justify this honour, and was much praised. But it is evident that his object was to celebrate the glories of Ferdinand Cortez, his hero, to whom he has imputed many strokes of policy, many reflections, and many actions, of which he was not capable; and he has very wisely closed his account with the conquest of Mexico, that he might not have occasion to introduce the cruelties afterwards committed. Nevertheless, the history is reckoned upon the whole very interesting, and has been translated into several languages; and he is better known for it, out of his own country, than for his poetry and dramatic writings, although they are said to be excellent. After living many years in the busy and gay world, he resolved to dedicate himself to the service of God, by embracing the ecclesiastical state; and accordingly was ordained a priest at fifty- seven. He now renounced all profane compositions, and wrote nothing but some dramatic pieces upon subjects of devotion, which are represented in Spain on certain festivals. He died April 19, 1686. His comedies were printed at Madrid in 1681, 4to; his sacred and profane poems, at the same place, 1716, 4to; his “History of Mexico” often, but particularly at Brussels in 1704, folio; with his life prefixed by D. Juan de Goyeneche. There is also a collection of his “Letters” published at Madrid in 1737.

, one of the seven wise men of Greece, as they are called, was born atS;t!amis, of Athenian parents, who were descended from Codrus, in the sixth century B. C. His father leaving little patrimony, he had recourse to merchandise for his subsistence. He hat!, however, a greater thirst after knowledge and fame, than after riches, and made his mercantile voyages subservient to the increase of his intellectual treasures. He very early cultivated the art of poetry, and applied himself to the study of moral and civil wisdom. When the Athenians, tired out with a long and troublesome war. with the Megarensians, for the recovery of the isle of Salamis, prohibited any one, under pain of death, to propose the renewal of their claim to that island, Solon, thinking the prohibition dishonourable to the state, and finding many of the younger citizens desirous to revive the war, feigned himself mad, and took care to have the report of his insanity spread through the city. In the mean time, he composed an elegy, adapted to the state of public affairs, which he committed to memory. Every tiling being thus prepared, he sallied forth into the market place, with the kind of cap on his head which was commonly worn by sick persons, and, ascending the herald’s stand, he delivered, to a numerous crowd, his lamentation for the desertion of Salamis. The verses were heard with general applause; and Pisistratus seconded his advice, and urged the people to renew the war. The decree was immediately repealed, and the conduct of the war being committed to Solon and Pisistratus, they defeated the Megarensians, and recovered Salamis. He afterwards acquired additional fame by a successful alliance which he formed among the states, in defence of the temple at Delphos, against the Cirrhoeans.

, an eminent English lawyer, was born at Worcester, March 4, 1650, but no register of his baptism can be found. A house called White Ladies is shown on the east side of the cathedral, and very near St. MichaePs church, where he is said to have been born. His father, John Somers, was an attorney of considerable eminence, and had an estate of about 300l. per ann. at Clifton. During the rebellion he commanded a troop of horse, part of Cromwell’s army, but resigned his commission after the battle of Worcester, and returned to his profession, and, among other business, had the superintendance of the finances and estates of the Talbots, earls of Shrewsbury, which eventually produced a lasting friendship and cordiality between the duke of Shrewsbury and his son, the subject of this article. Of old Mr. Somers the following anecdote has been recorded: “He used to frequent the terms in London, and in his way from Worcester was wont to leave his horse at the George, at Acton, where he often made mention of the hopeful son he had at the Temple. Cobbet, who kept the inn, hearing him enlarge so much in praise of his son, to compliment the old gentleman, cried, ` Why wont you let us see him, Sir?‘ The father, to oblige his merry landlord, desired the young gentleman to accompany him so far on his way home; and being come to the George, took his landlord aside, and said, ’ I have brought him, Cobbet, but you must not talk to him as you do to me; he will not sutler such fellows as you in his company'.” After the restoration Mr. Somers obtained a pardon for what he might have committed while in the republican army, which pardon is still in the possession of the family. He died Jan. 1681, and was buried at Severnstoke, in the county of Worcester; where an elegant Latin inscription, engraved on a marble monument, and written by his son, is still to be seen.

Upon a change of measures in 1708, he was again called into office, and appointed president of the council. But the whig interest, of which he was the chief support, began now rapidly to decline. The same engine was played off against it, which has so often since been the last resource of party animosity. The empty splendours of conquest were derided; and the people warned that, while they joined in the huzza of victory, they were impoverishing themselves merely to enrich a few creatures of the minister. Swift had no small concern in this revolution of the public mind, by his pamphlet on “The Conduct of the Allies.” Another change of administration was effected in 1710, and lord Somers once more retired from public life. Towards the latter end of queen Anne’s reign he grew very infirm, and survived the powers of his understanding. Mr. Cooksey, one of his biographers, and a descendant, attributes this to a cause which every admirer of lord Somers must regret, and perhaps wish suppressed *. His lordship died of an apoplexy, April 26, 1716.

which married sir Philip Yorke, who thereby came to the right of the fourth share of that collection, and purchased the other fourth. They consisted of about 6000 articles, and were valued at near 4000l. by Mr. Gyles and Mr. Charles Davies. I was employed, when apprentice to Mr. Gyles, in dividing them between sir Joseph Jekyll and sir Philip Yorke, previous to which I called them over, to see if they answered the catalogue. Every book almost went through my hands four or five times. This gave me a.n opportunity, when young, of attaining the knowledge. of many scarce books, much sooner than the common course of business would have done. The catalogue was excellently well ranged in sciences and their subdivisions, *by the care, I heard, of the rev. Humphrey Wanley. It was about 17X1 the affair was finished. A fine collection of Bibles in all languages made a part."

If JEschylus be styled, as he usually has been, the father, Sophocles will certainly demand the title of the master of tragedy; since what the former brought into the world, the other reduced to a more regular form. Diogenes Laertius, when he would give us the highest idea of the advances Plato made in philosophy, compares them to the improvements of Sophocles in tragedy. The chief reason of Aristotle’s giving him the preference to Euripides was, his allowing the chorus an interest in the main action, so as to make every thing to conduce regularly to the main design; whereas we often meet in Euripides with a rambling song of the chorus, entirely independent of the main business of the play. Aristotle, indeed, has given Euripides the epithet of T^ayixuralog, but it is easy to discover, that he can mean only the most pathetic; whereas, on the whole, he gives Sophocles the precedency, at least in the most noble perfections of ceconomy, manners, and style. Dionysius Halicarnassensis, in his “Art of Rhetoric,” commends Sophocles for preserving the dignity of his persons and characters; whereas Euripides, says he, did not so much consult the truth of his manners, as their conformity to common life. He gives the preference to Sophocles on two other accounts: first, because Sophocles chose the noblest and most generous affections and manners to represent; while Euripides employed himself in expressing the more dishonest, abject, and effeminate passions; and, secondly, because the former never says anything but what is necessary, whereas the latter frequently amuses the reader with oratorical deductions. Cicero had so high an opinion of Sophocles, that he called him the divine poet; and, Virgil, by his “Sophocleo cothurno,” has left a mark of distinction, which seems to denote a preference of Sophocles to all other writers of tragedy. Sophocles is certainly the most masterly of the three Greek tragedians, the most correct in the conduct of his subjects, and the most just and sublime in his sentiments; and is eminent for his descriptive talent.

In 1653 he embraced the Popish religion; and, going to Paris in 1654, published, according to custom, a discourse upon the motives of his conversion, which he dedicated to cardinal Mazarine. He went afterwards to Rome, where he made himself known to Alexander VII, by a Latin letter addressed to that pope, in which he inveighed against the envious Protestants, as he called them. Upon his return from Rome, he came over to England; and afterwards published, in 1664, a relation of his voyage hither, which brought him into trouble and disgrace; for, having taken some unwarrantable liberties with the character of a nation with which France at that time thought it policy to be on good terms, he was stripped of his title of “Historiographer of France,” which had been given him by the king, and sent for some time into banishment. His book also was discountenanced and discredited, by a tract published against it in the city of Paris; while Sprat, afterwards bishop of Rochester, refuted its absurdities in “Observations on M. de Sorbiere’s Voyage into England,” 1665, 12mo. This work was reprinted with an English edition of Sorbiere’s voyage, and a life of him in 1709, 8vo. Voltaire has also been very severe upon this work: “I would not,” says he, “imitate the late Mr. Sorbiere, who, having stayed three months in England, without knowing any thing either of its manners or of its language, thought fit to print a relation, which proved but a dull scurrilous satire upon a nation he knew nothing of.”

, founder of the celebrated college called after him, was born October 9, 1201, at Sorbonne, otherwise Sorbon, a little village of Rhetelois in the diocese of Rheinis, whence he had his name. His family was poor and obscure, and not of the blood royal as Dupleix imagined. He distinguished himself as a student at Paris, and after having taken a doctor’s degree, devoted his whole attention to preaching and religious conferences, by which he soon became so celebrated that St. Louis wished to hear him. This prince immediately conceived the highest esteem for Sorbonne, invited him to his own table, took great pleasure in his conversation, and in order to have him more constantly about his person, appointed him his chaplain and confessor. Robert, being made canon of Cambray about 1251, and reflecting on the pains it had cost him to obtain a doctor’s degree, determined to facilitate the acquisition of learning to poor scholars. For this purpose he judged that the most convenient and efficacious plan would be to form a society of secular ecclesiastics, who, living in a community, and having the necessaries of life provided for them, should be wholly employed in study, and teach gratis. All his friends approved the design, and offered to assist him both with their fortunes and their advice. With their assistance, Robert de Sorbonne founded, in 1253, the celebrated college which bears his name. He then assembled able professors, those most distinguished for learning and piety, and lodged his community in the rue des deux portes, opposite to the palace des Thermes. Such was the origin f the famous college of Sorbonne, which proved the model of all others, there having been no society in Europe before that time where the seculars lived and taught in common, 'i he founder had two objects in view wi tins establishment, theology and the arts; but as his predilection was to the former, he composed his society principally of doctors and bachelors in divinity. Some have said that his original foundation was only for sixteen poor scholars (boursiers) or fellows; but it appears by his statutes that from the first establishment, it consisted of doctors, bachelor-fellows, bachelors not fellows, and poor students as at present, or at least lately. The number of fellows was not limited, but depended on the state of the revenues. The number in the founder’s time appears to have been about thirty, and he ordered that there should be no other members of his college than guests and associates (hospites et socii), who might be chosen from any country or nation whaieu-r. A guest, or perhaps as we should call him, a commoner, was required to be a bachelor, to maintain a thesis, tailed, from the founder’s name, Robertine, and was to be admitted by a majority of votes after three different scrutinies. These hospites remained part of the establishment until the last, were maintained and lodged in the house like the rest of the doctors and bachelors, had a right to study in the library (though without possessing a key), and enjoyed all other rights and privileges, except that they had no vote in the assemblies, and were obliged to quit the house on becoming doctors. For an associate, Socius, it was necessary, besides the Robertine thesis, to read a course of philosophical lectures gratis. In 1764, when the small colleges were united with that of Louis-le-grand, the course of philosophy was discontinued, and a thesis substituted in its place, called the second Robertine.

As to the fellowships, they were granted to those only among the Socii who had not forty livres, of Paris money, per annum, either from benefices or paternal inheritance; and when they became possessed of that income, they ceased to be fellows. A fellowship was worth about five sous and a half per week, and was held ten years. At the end of seven years all who held them were strictly examined, and if any one appeared incapable of teaching, preaching, or being useful to the public in some oilier way, he was deprived of his t<-!! /wship. Yet, as the founder was far from wishing to exclude the rich from his college, but, on the contrary, sought to inspire them with a taste for learning, and to revive a knowledge of the sciences among the clergy, he admitted associates, who were not fellows, “Socii uon Bursales.” These were subject to the same examinations and exercises as the Socii, with this only difference, that they paid fn - e sols and a half weekly to the honse, a sum eqnal to that which the fellows received. All the Socii bore and still bear the title of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House and Society of Sorbonne,” whereas the Hospites have only the appellation of “Doctors or Bachelors of the House of Sorbonne.” Their founder ordered that every thing should be managed and regulated by the Socii, and that there should be neither superior nor principal among them. Accord'ngly he forbade the doctors to treat the bachelors as pupils, or the bachelors to treat the doctors as masters, whence the ancient Sorbonists used to say, “We do not live together as doctors and bachelors, nor as masters and pupils; but we live as associates and equals.” In consequence of this equality, no monk of whatever order, has at any time been admitted “Socius of Sorbonne;” and from the beginning of the seventeenth century, whoever is received into the society takes an oath on the gospels, ' That he has no intention of entering any society or secular congregation, the members of which live in common under the direction of one superior, and that if after being admitted into the society of Sorbonne, he should change his mind, and enter any such other community, he will acknowledge himself from that time, and by this single art, to have forfeited all privileges of the society, as well active as passive, and that he will neither do nor undertake any thing contrary to the present regulation.“Robert de Sorbonne permitted the doctors and bachelors to take poor scholars, whom he wished to receive benefit from his house; and great numbers of these poor scholars proved very eminent men. The first professors in the Sorbonne were William de Saint Amour, Odon de Douai, Gerard de Rheims, Laurence the Englishman, Gerard ^'Abbeville, &c. They taught theology gratis, according to the founder’s intention; and from 1253, to the revolution, there have been always six professors at least, who gave lectures on the different branches of that science gratis, even before the divinity professorships were established. Fellowships were given to the poor professors, that is, to those whose incomes did not amount to forty livres; but it appears from the registers of the Sorbonne, that the first professors above mentioned, were very rich, consequently they were not fellows. Robert de Sorbonne ordered that there should always be some doctors in his college who applied particularly to the study of morality and casuistry; whence the Sorbonne has been consulted on such points ever since his time from all parts of the kingdom. He appointed different offices for the government of his college. The first is that of the Proviseur, who was always chosen from among the most eminent persons. Next to him is the Fn‘ciu’, chosen from the Socii bachelors, who presided in the assemblies of the society, at the Robertine acts, at the reading of the Holy Scriptures, at meals, and at the Sorboniques, or acts of the licentiates, for which he fixed the day; he also made two public speeches, one at the first, the other at the last of these. The keys of the gate were delivered up to him every night, and he was the first person to sign all the acts. The other offices are those of” Senieur, Conscripteur, Procureurs, Professors, Librarian, &c.“There is every reason to believe that the Sorbonne, from its foundation, contained thirty-six apartments, and it was doubtless in conformity to this first plan that no more were added when cardinal Richelieu rebuilt it in the present magnificent style. One, however, was afterwards added, making thirty-seven, constantly occupied by as many doctors and bachelors. After Robert de Sorbonne had founded his divinity college, he obtained a confirmation of it from the pope, and it was authorized by letters patent from St. Louis, uho had before given him, or exchanged with him, some houses necessary for that establishment in 1256, and 1258. He then devoted himself to the promotion of learning and piety in his college, and with success, for it soon produced such excellent scholars as spread its fame throughout Europe. Legacies and donations now flowed in from every quarter, which enabled the Sorbonists to study at their ease. The founder had aLvays a particular partiality for those who were poor, for although his society contained some very rich doctors, as appears from the registers and other monumeiHs remaining in the archives of the Sorbonne, yet his establishment had the poor principally in view, the greatest part of its revenues being appropriated to their studies and maintenance. He would even have his college called” the House of the Poor,“which gave rise to the form used by the Sorbonne bachelors, when they appear as respondents, or maintain theses in quality of Antique; and hence also we read on many Mss. that they belong to the” Pauvrcs Matures de Sorbonne.“The founder, not satisfied with providing sufficient revenues for his college, took great pains to establish a library. From the ancient catalogue of the Sorbonne library drawn up in 1289 and 1290, it appears to have consisted at that time of above a thousand volumes; but the collection increased so fast, that a new catalogue became necessary two years after, i. e. in 1292, and again in 1338, at which time the Sorbonne library was perhaps the finest in France. All the books of whatever value were chained to the shelves, and accurately ranged according to their subjects, beginning with grammar, the belles lettres, &c. The catalogues are made in the same manner, and the price of each book is marked in them. These Mss. are still in the house. Robert de Sorbonne (very different from other founders, who begin by laying down rules, and then make it their whole care to enforce the observance of them,) did not attempt to settle any statutes till he had governed his college above eighteen years, and then prescribed only such customs as he had before established, and of which the utility and wisdom were confirmed to him by long experience. Hence it is that no attempt towards reformation or change has ever been made in the Sorbonne; all proceeds according to the ancient methods and rules, and the experience of five centuries has proved that the constitution of that house is well adapted to its purposes, and none of the French colleges since founded have supported themselves in so much regularity and splendour. Robert de Sorbonne having firmly established his society for theological studies, added to it a college for polite literature and philosophy. For this purpose he. bought of William de Cambrai, canon of S. Jean de Maurienne, a house near the Sorbonne, and there founded the college tie Culvi, in 1271. This college, which was also called” the little Sorbonne,“became very celebrated by the great men xvho were educated there, and subsisted till 1636, when it was demolished by cardinal Richelieu’s order, and the chapel of the Sorbocne huilt upon the same spot. The cardinal had, however, engaged to erect another, which should belong equally to the house, and be contiguous to it; but his death put a stop to this plan: and to fulfil his promise in some degree, the family of Richelieu united the college du Plessis to the Sorbonne in 1648. Robert de Sorbonne had been canon of Paris from 1258, and became so celebrated as to be frequently consulted even by princes, and chosen for their arbiter on some important occasions.' He bequeathed all his property, which was very considerable, to the society of Sorbonne, and died at Paris, August 15, 1274, aged seventy-three, leaving several works in Latin. The principal are, a treatise on” Conscience,“another on” Confession,“and” The Way to Paradise,“all which are printed in the” Bibl. Patrum." He wrote also other things, which remain in ms. in the library. The house and society of Sorbonne is one of the four parts of the faculty of theology at Paris, but has its peculiar revenues, statutes, assemblies, and prerogatives.

, a contemporary of the preceding, but more connected with this country, was born at Cordova, and educated among the Dominicans of Salamanca. Having distinguished himself in the duties of the cloister, and made an eqiujl progress in learning, especially divinity and the sacred languages, he was called to court, and was successively confessor to the king of Spain, and to Charles V. of Germany, who employed him to write against the Lutherans. When Philip of Spain married our queen Mary, Soto was one of those Spanish divines who attended him to England, and settled at Oxford, where he was professor of divinity, and sometimes read a Hebrew lecture, as Wood supposes, for Dr. Bruerne, the Hebrew professor. This occurred in 1556; and, the year before, Soto had been incorpora; ed D. D. in this university. After the death of queen Mary, he was called to the council of Trent, where be died in April 1563. He published “Institutiones Chris, tiana?,” 1548, and some other works of the controversial kind against John Brentius, or Brent. Dodd says he was a zealous assertor of church discipline, as appears by a letter which he wrote to pope Pius IV. in his last sickness, in which he insists that the residence of bishops should be declared dejure divino.

Soufflot was much beloved by his relations and friends, who, knowing the excellence of his heart, were not offended by a kind of warmth and roughness of character which was peculiar to him. They called him jocularly “Le bourru bienfaisant,” the benevolent humourist, as we may perhaps translate it; from the title of a comedy then fashionable. He did not live to finish the church of St. Genevieve; but, besides the buildings here mentioned, he was concerned in many others, particularly the beautiful theatre at Lyons.

After the revolution, South took the oath of allegiance to their majesties; though he is said to have excused himself from accepting a great dignity in the church, vacated by a refusal of those oaths. Bishop Kennet says, that at first he made a demur about submitting to the revolution, and thought himself deceived by Dr. Sherlock, “which was the true foundation of the bitter difference in writing: about the Trinity.” Whatever the cause, Dr. South, in 1693, published “Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s book, entitled, ‘A vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity,’ &c. together with a more necessary vindication of that sacred and prime article of the Christian faith from his new notions and false explications of it: humbly offered to his admirers, and to himself the chief of them,” 1693, 4to. Sherlock having published in 1694 a “Defence” of himself against these Animadversions, South replied, in a book entitled, “Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock’s neur notion of the Trinity, and the charge made good in an answer to the Defence,” &c. This was a sharp contest, and men of great note espoused the cause of each; though the cause of each, as is curious to observe, was not the cause of orthodoxy, which lay between them both: for if Sherlock ran into Tritheism, and made three substances as well as three persons of the Godhead, South on the other hand leaned to the heresy of Sabellius, which, destroying the triple personage, supposed only one substance with something like three modes. The victory, nevertheless, was adjudged to South in an extraordinary manner at Oxford, as we have already noticed in the life of Sherlock; for Mr. Bingham of University college, having fallen in with Sherlock’s notions, and asserted in a sermon be to re the university, that “there were three infinite distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, and also that the three persons in the Trinity are three distinct minds or spirits and three individual substances, was censured by a solemn decree there in convocation: wherein they judge, declare, and determine the aforesaid words, lately delivered i;i the said sermon, to be” false, impious, heretical, and contrary to the doctrine of the church of England.“But this decree rather irritated, than composed the differences: and at length the king interposed his authority, by directions to the archbishops and bishops, that no preacher whatsoever in his sermon or lecture, should presume to preach any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, than what was contained in the Holy Scriptures, and was agreeable to the three Creeds and thirty-nine Articles of religion. This put an end to the controversy; though not till after both the disputants, together with Dr. Thomas Burnet, master of the Charter-house, had been ridiculed in a wellknown ballad, called” The Battle Royal.“Burnet about the same time had ridiculed, in his” Arclueologia Philosophica," the literal account of the creation and fall of man, as it stands in the beginning of Genesis; and this being thought heterodox and profane, exposed him to the lash upon the present occasion.

, an English dramatic writer, who has been very improperly admitted by Wood into the “Athenae Oxonienses,” and grossly misrepresented in every particular, was born at Dublin in 1659, and was admitted a student of Trinity college, March 30, 1676, where Dr. Whitenhall was his tutor. In his eighteenth year, he quitted Ireland, and removed to the Middle-Temple, London, where he devoted himself to play-writing and poetry, instead of law. His “Persian Prince, or Loyal Brother,” in 1682, was introduced at a time when the Tory interest was triumphant in England; and the character of the Loyal Brother was no doubt intended to compliment James duke of York, who afterwards rewarded him. After his accession to the throne, Southern went into the army, and served as ensign, upon the duke of Monmouth’s landing, in earl Ferrers’s regiment, before the duke of Berwick had it. This affair being over, he retired to his studies; and wrote several plays, from which he is supposed to have drawn a very handsome subsistence. In the preface to his tragedy called “The Spartan Dame,” he acknowledges, that he received from the booksellers as a price for this play 150l. which was thought in 1721, the time of its being published, very extraordinary. He was the first who raised the advantage of play-writing to a second and third night; which Pope mentions in these lines:

The reputation which Dryden gained by the many prologues he wrote, made the players always solicitous to have one of his, as being sure to be well received by the public. Dryden’s price for a prologue had usually been four guineas, with which sum Southern once presentee; him when Dryden, returning the money, said, “Young man, this is too little, I must have six guineas.” Southern answered, that four had been his usual price: “Yes,” says Dryden, “it has been so, but the players have hitherto had my labours too cheap; for the future I must have six guineas.” Southern also was industrious to draw all imaginable profits from his poetical labours. Dryden once took occasion to ask him, how much he got by one of his plays? Southern said, after owning himself ashamed to tell him, 7OO/.; which astonished Dryden, as it was more by 6OO/, than he himself had ever got by his most successful plays. But it appears that Southern was not beneath the arts of solicitation, and often sold his tickets at a very high price, by making applications to persons of quality and distinction; a degree of servility, which Dryden might justly think below the dignity of a poet, and more in the character of an under-player. Dryden entertained a high opinion of Southern’s abilities; and prefixed a copy of verses to a comedy of his, called “The Wife’s Excuse,” acted in 1692. The night that Southern’s “Innocent Adultery” was first acted, which has been esteemed by some the most adocting play in any language, a gentlemnu took occasion to ask Dryden, “what was his opinion of Southern’s genius?” who replied, “that he thought him such another poet as Otway.” Such indeed was Dry den’s opinion of his talents, that being unable to finish his “Cieomenes,” he consigned it to the care of Southern, who wrote one half of the fifth act of that tragedy, and was with reason highly flattered by this mark of the author’s confidence and esteem. Of all Southern’s plays, ten in number, the most finished is “Oroonoko, or the Royal Slave:” which is built upon a real fact, related by Mrs. Beha in a novel. Besides the tender and delicate strokes of passion in this play, there are many shining and manly sentiments; and some have gone so far beyond the truth as to say, that the most celebrated even of Shakspeare’s plays cannot furnish so many striking thoughts, and such a glow of animated poetry. Southern died May 26, 1746, aged eighty-five. He lived the last ten years of his life in Tothill street, Westminster, and attended the abbey service very constantly; being particularly fond of church music. He is said to have died the oldest and the richest of his dramatic brethren. Oldys, in his ms additions to Gildon’s continuation of Langbaine, says, that he remembered Mr. Southern “a grave and venerable old gentleman. He lived near Covent-garden, and used often to frequent the evening prayers there, always neat and decently dressed, commonly in black, with his silver sword and silver locks; but latterly it seems he resided at Westminster.” The late poet Gray, in a letter to Mr. Walpole, dated from Burnham in Buckinghamshire, in Sept. 1737, has also the following observation concerning this author: “We have old Mr. Southern at a gentleman’s house a little way off, who often comes to see us; he is now seventy-seven years old, and has almost wholly lost his memory; but is as agreeable an old man as can be; at least I persuade myself so when I look at him, and think of Isabella and Oroonoko.” Mr. Mason adds in a note on this passage, that “Mr. Gray always thought highly of his pathetic powers, at the same time that he blamed his ill taste for mixing them so injudiciously with farce, in order to produce that monstrous species of composition called Tragi-comedy.” Mr. Southern, however, in the latter part of his life, was sensible of the impropriety of blending tragedy and comedy, and used to declare to lord Corke his regret at complying with the licentious taste of the time. His dramatic writings were for the first time completely published by T. Evans, in 3 vols. 12mo.

, so named in Italy, and usually so called, was born in 1589, at Xativa, a city in Spain, about ten leagues from Valentia. Though his parents were not in circumstances to give him the education in painting which his early genius deserved, he contrived to travel into Italy, and there applied to his art under the greatest masters. He first resided at Parma, where he so completely studied the works of Correggio, as to be able to imitate his style and colouring with great success. He then removed to Rome, where he changed his manner altogether, and adopted Caravaggio as his model. Like that master, he painted with bold and broad lights and shadows, and gave so extraordinary a degree of force to his pictures, that the works of most other artists, when placed near them, appear comparatively tame and feeble. In his colouring he is esteemed equal to Caravaggio, and superior to him in correctness of design; yet inferior in sweetness and mellowness of touch. It is said, that a cardinal having become his patron at Rome, and given him apartments in his own palace, he became indolent, and unable to exert his talents; in order to do justice to which, he found it necessary to return to that poverty in which he was bred, and therefore voluntarily renounced this asylum, and fixed himself at Naples. Here his works being greatly admired, and his pencil being, after a time, constantly employed by the viceroy of Naples, and other potentates of Europe, he gradually rose to that affluence, the sudden acquisition of which, had produced so bad an effect. It was not so now; he continued to paint historical pictures, and sometimes portraits, which are dispersed throughout Europe; but he rarely worked for the churches or convents. His principal works are at Naples, and in the Escurial in Spain.

, a celebrated modern naturalist, was born at Scandiano, in Italy, Jan. 10, 1729, and studied polite literature under the Jesuits at Reggio de Modena, whence he removed to Bologna, where his relation Laura Bassi, a lady deservedly celebrated for her genius, eloquence, and knowledge of natural philosophy and mathematics, was at that time one of the most illustrious professors of Italy. Under this instructor, he improved his taste for philosophy, but bestowed at the same time much attention in the cultivation of his native language, and became a very accomplished Latin, Greek, and French scholar. His father had destined him for the law as a profession, but Vallisneri, the professor of natural history at Padua, was the means of diverting him from this pursuit, and he soon acquired such reputation, that in 1754, the university of Keggio chose him professor of logic, metaphysics, and Greek. This, however, was not his final destination, for, during the six years that he held this office, he devoted all his leisure hours to those physical researches which constituted the basis of his fame. Some new discoveries excited his passion for natural history, which was continually augmented by the success of his early efforts; and his observations upon the animalculae in infusions attracted the attention of Haller and Bonnet, and various universities, Coimbra, Parma, and Cesena, tempted him with flattering offers, but he preferred an invitation to be professor at Modena, in 1760, where about five years afterwards he published a pamphlet, in which he proved by many ingenious experiments the anirnality of microscopical animalcuia; and in the same year a truly original dissertation “De lapidibus ab aqua resilientibus.” Here he demonstrates, by the most strking experiments, contrary to the received opinion, that the phenomenon which is called by children “ducks and drakes,” is not produced by the elasticity of the water, but by the change of direction which the stone undergoes in its motion after having struck upon the water when it ascends the inflection of the cavity indented by the shock.

, a very learned writer, as well as excellent statesman, the eldest son of the preceding, was born at Geneva in 1625). He distinguished himself so much in his earliest youth by his progress in literature, that, on a visit to Leyden with his father in 1642, he gained immediately the friendship of Daniel Heinsius and Salmasius, and preserved it with both, notwithstanding the mutual animosity of these two celebrated scholars. Like his father he was not satisfied with making himself master of Greek and Latin, but also applied himself with great vigour to the oriental languages. Ludovicus Capellus had published, at Amsterdam, in 1645, a dissertation upon the ancient Hebrew letters against John Buxtorf; in which he maintains, that the true characters of the ancient Hebrews were preserved among the Samaritans, and lost among the Jews. Spanheim undertook to refute Capellus in, certain theses, which he maintained and published at sixteen years of age; but which afterwards, out of his great candour and modesty, he called “unripe fruit;” and frankly owned, that Bochart, to whom he had sent them, had declared himself for Capellus against Buxtorf.

, a puritan divine of considerable note, was born at South-Somercote in Lincolnshire in 1548. Of his early education we have no account until he became a fellow of Magdalen college, Oxford, in 1570, in whicli year he was admitted bachelor of arts. Soon after he was presented, by Arthur lord Grey, to the parsonage of Bletchley in Buckinghamshire, where he was held in great esteem for his piety. He was also chaplain to Cooper, bishop of Lincoln, who, in 1575, bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Stow. In 1581 he proceeded in his divinity degrees, being then, Wood says, in great esteem for his learning. In 1582, h'ncling that he could not attend to his archdeaconry, from its distance from his cure, he resigned it, and retained Bletchley only; but in Sept. 1582 he was installed into the prebend of Sutton in Marisco in the church of Lincoln. In 1603 he was called to the conference at Hampton-court, as one of the representatives of the puritans, as he had been one of their champions in 1584 at the dispute at Lambeth; but the issue of the Hampton-court conference was, that he inclined to conformity, and afterwards expressed his sentiments in “A brotherly persuasion to unity and uniformity in judgment and practice, touching the received and present ecclesiastical government, and the authorized rites and ceremonies of the church of England,” Lond. 1607, 4to. This brought on a controversy, his book being answered by two anonymous writers. During queen Elizabeth’s reign he had written on the subject of the succession to the crown, the title of which we are not told. This brought him into some trouble, but in a conversation with king James he so satisfied him that his majesty ever after countenanced him. He died at Bletchley Oct. 8, 1616, and was buried in the chancel of that church, with a long epitaph on a plate of brass.

, a well-known English historian, was born at Farington in Cheshire, about 1555, and brought up to the business of a taylor, and became a freeman of the company of Merchant-taylors in the city of London. He had probably shewn some taste for literature, as sir Fulk Grevile, a patron of learning, took him from his shop-­board, and supported him in his study of English history and antiquities. By such encouragement he published, in 1606, his “Theatre of Great-Britain;” which was afterwards reprinted, particularly in 1650, under this title: “The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the isles adjoyning. With the shires, hundreds, cities, and shire-townes within the kingdome of England, divided and described by John Speed,” folio. Nicolson observes, that these maps “are extremely good; and make a noble apparatus, as they were designed, to his history: but his descriptions of the several counties are mostly short abstracts of what Camden had said before him.” In 1614 he published, in folio, “The History of Great Britain under the conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; their originals, manners, warres, coines, and scales, with the successions, lives, actes, and issnes of the English monarchs, from Julius Cæsar to our most gracious sovereigne king James;” dedicated to James I. He borrowed many of his materials from Camden; and was supplied with many by sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, and other antiquaries, with whom he was well acquainted. There are prefixed to it commendatory poems in Latin, French, and English, by sir Henry Spelman and others; and many writers have spoken of it in terms of high commendation. Speed was not only an historian, but also a divine; for, in 1616, he published a work in 8vo, called “The Cloud of Witnesses, or the Genealogies of Scripture, confirming the truth of holy history and humanity of Christ.” This was prefixed to the new translation of the Bible in 1611, and printed for many years in the subsequent editions, particularly of the folio and quarto sizes, and king James I. gave him a patent for securing the property of it to him and his heirs.

On the death of sir Henry, his papers became the property of his eldest son, sir John Spelman, whom he calls “the heir of his studies.” Sir John, whom, by the way, Wood erroneously calls sir Henry’s youngest son, received great encouragement and assurance of favour from Charles I. That king sent for sir Henry Spelman, and offered him the mastership of Sutton’s hospital, with some other advantages, in consideration of his good services both to church and state; but sir Henry, thanking his majesty, replied, “that he was very old, and had one foot in the grave, but should be more obliged, if he would consider his son” on which, the king sent for Mr. Spelman, and conferred that and the honour of knighthood upon him at Whitehall in 1611. After the rebellion commenced, his majesty, by a letter under his own hand, commanded him from his house in Norfolk, to attend at Oxford where he resided in Brazennose college, and was often called to private conncii, and employed to write several p.ipers in vindication of the proceeding of the court. He wis the author of “A view of a pretende book, entitled, ' Observations upon his Majesty’s late Answers and Epistles,” Oxford, 1642, 4to. His name is not to it; but Dr Barlow, who ha i received a copy from him, informed VVood that it was composed bv him. Si: John wi“'e also” The case of our affairs in law, religion, and other circumstances, briefly ex mined and presented to the cmisc ence,“1643, 4to. While he vva^ thus attending the aduirs of the public, and his own private studies, as those ' >uld iiive him leave, he died July 25, 1643. His funeral sermon, by his majesty’s special order, was preached by archbishop Usher. He published the Saxon Psalter under the title of” Phaltenum Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus,“1641, 4to, from an old manuscript in his father’s library, collated with three other copies. He wrote also the” Life of king Alfred the Great" in English, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, 1709, 8vo. It had been translated into Latin by Mr. Wise, and was published by Obadiah Walker, master of University college at Oxford in 1678, fol.

1747. Of this work of acknowledged taste and learning“, Mr. Gray has been thought to speak too contemptuously in his Letters. His chief objection is, that the author has illustrated his subject from the Roman, and not from the Greek poets; that is, that he has not performed what he never undertook; nay, what he expressly did not undertake. A third edition appeared in folio in 1774, and the abridgment of it by N. Tindal has been frequently printed in 8vo. There is a pamphlet with Spence’s name to it in ms. as the author, called” Plain Matter of Fact, or, a short review of the reigns of our Popish Princes since the Reformation; in order to shew what we are to expect if another shouKl happen to reign over us. Part I.“1748, 12mo. He was installed prebendary of the seventh stall at Durham, May 24, 1754; and published in that year” An account of the Life, Character, and Poems of Mr. Blacklock, student of philosophy at Edinburgh,“8vo, which was afterwards prefixed to his poems. The prose pieces which he printed in” The Museum“he collected and published, with some others, in a pamphlet called” Moralities, by sir Harry Beaumont,“1753. Under that name he published,” Crito, or a Dialogue on Beauty,“and” A particular account of the emperor of China’s Gardens, near Pekin, in a letter from F. Attiret, a French missionary now employed by that emperor to paint the apartments in those gardens, to his friend at Paris;“both in 1752, Hvo, and both reprinted in Dodsley’s” Fugitive Pieces.“He wrote” An Epistle from a Swiss officer to his friend at Rome,“first printed in” The Museum,“and since in the third volume of” Dodsley’s Collection.“The several copies published under his name in the Oxford Verses are preserved by iNichols, in the” Select Collection,“1781. In 175S he published” A Parallel, in the manner of Plutarch, between a most celebrated Man of Florence (Magliabecchi), and one scarce ever heard of in England (Robert Hill, the Hebrew Taylor),“12mo, printed at Strawberry Hill. In the same year he took a tour into Scotland, which is well described in an affectionate letter to Mr. Shenstone, the collection of several letters published by Mr. Hull in 1778. In 17c3 he communicate i to Dr. Wartun several excellent remarks on Virgil, which he had made when he wasbroad, and some few of Mr. Pope’s. West Finchale Priory (the scene of the holy Godric’s miracles and austerities, who, from an itinerant merchant, turned hermit, and wore out three suits of iron cloaths), was now become Mr. Spence’s retreat, being part of his prebendal estate. In 1764 he was well pourtrayed by Mr. James Ridley, in his admirable” Tales of the G nil,“under the name of” Pbesoi Ecnep> (his name rrad backwar l>) iervise of the groves,“and a panegyrical letter from nim to that ingenious moralist, under the same signature, is inserted i-i 4k Lexers of Emi'-eni Persons,” vol. III. p. 139. In 1764 he paid the last kind office to the remains of his friend Mr. Dodsley, who died on a visit to him at Durham. He closed his literary labours with “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil with some other classical observations; by the late Mr. Holdsworth. Published, with several notes and additional remarks, by Mr. Speutv,” 4to. This volume, of which the greater part was printed off in 1767, was published in February 1768; and on the iiOth of August following, Mr. Spence was unfortunately drowned in a caiidl in his garden at Byrieet in Surrey. Being, when the accident inppened, quite alone, it could only be conjectured in what manner it happened but it was generally supposed to have been occasioned by a fit while he was standing near the brink of the water. He was found flat upon his face, at the edge, where the water was too shallow to cover his head, or any part of his body. He was interred at Byfleet church, where is a marble tablet inscribed to his memory. The duke of Newcastle possesses some ms volumes of anecdotes of eminent writers, collected by Mr. Spence, who in his lifetime communicated to Dr. Warton as many of them as related to Pope; and, by permission of the noble owner, Dr. Johnson has made many extracts from them in his “Lives of the English Poets.” These have lately been announced for publication. Mr. Spence’s Explanation of an antique marble at Ciandon place, Surrey, is in “Gent. Mag.” 1772, p. 176 “Mr. Spence’s character,” says a gentleman who bad seen this memoir before it was transplanted into the present work, " is properly delineated and his Polymetis is justl vindicated from the petty criticisms of the; fastidious Gray *. In Dr. Johnson’s masterly preface to Dry den,

The religious meetings, or Colleges of Piety, as they were called, tended, in several instances, to inflame the people with a blind and intemperate zeal, and produced tumults, and various complaints; lill at length, in many places, severe laws were passed against the Pietists. Spener settled for a time at Dresden, and afterwards at Berlin, where be held important offices of ecclesiastical trust under the elector of Brandenburg, and where he died i.> 1705, aged severity. He was a man of eloquence and piety; and certainly far from intending to produce dissentions and schisms. His pious works were published in the German language; but he wrote some in Latin on genealogy and heraldry; such as “Opus heraldicum” “Theatrum nobilitati.-” “Sylloge historico-gen^alogica,” &c. His son, James Charles Spener, wrote a “Historia Germanica universalis et pragmatica,” 2 vols. 8vo, and “Notitia Germaniæ antiquæ,” 1717, 4to, both works of authority. He died in 1730.

It remains to be observed, almost in the words of Mr. Todd, that Spenser is the author of four Sonnets, which are admitted into the late editions of his works, of which three are prefixed to separate publications, and the fourth occurs in letters by his friend Harvey. He is conjectured to be the author of a sonnet signed E. S. addressed to Master Henry Peacham, and entitled “A Vision upon his Minerva,” and of some poor verses on Phiilis, in a publication called “Chorus Poetarum,” 1684. The verses on queen Elizabeth’s picture at Kensington have been likewise given to Spenser, hut lord Orford ascribes them to the queen herself. As “Britain’s Ida” iias been usually printed with the works of Spcenser, it is still retained, although the critics are agreed that it was not written by him. The lost pieces of Spenser are said to be, 1. His translation of Ecclesiasticus. 2. Translation of Canticum Canticorum. 3. The Dying Pelican. 4. The hours of our Lord. 5. The Sacrifice of a Sinner. 6. The Seven Psalms. 7. Dreams. 8. The English Poet. 9. Legends. 10. The Court of Cupid. 11. The Hell of Lovers. 12. His Purgatory. 13 A Se'nnight’s Slumber. 14. Pageants. 15. Nine Comedies. 16. Stemmata Dudleiana. 17. Epithalamion Thamesis. If his pen was thus prolific, there is very little reason to suppose that he might not have had leisure and industry to have nearly completed his “Faerie Queene,” before the fatal rebellion which terminated all his labours.

, an Italian scholar of great eminence in the sixteenth century, was born at Padua April 12, 1500, of noble parents. After finishing his studies at Bologna, under the celebrated Pomponatius, he returned to Padua, and took a doctor’s degree in philosophy and medicine. He also was made professor of logic, and afterwards of philosophy in general; but soon after he had obtained the chair of philosophy, he was so diffident of his acquirements that he returned to Padua for farther improvement under his old master, and did not return to hi% professorship until after the death of Pomponatius. In 1528, however, the death of his father obliged him to resign his office, and employ his time on domestic affairs. Yet these, a marriage which he now contracted, the lawsuits which he had to carry on, and some honourable employments he was engaged in by^the government, did not prevent him from cultivating his literary talents with such success, that there were few men in his time who could be compared with him in point of learning, eloquence, and taste. In 1560 he was deputed to go to Rome by the duke of Urbino, under the pontificate of Pius IV. and there obtained the esteem of the learned of that metropolis, and received marks of high favour from the pope and his nephew Charles Borromeo, who invited him to those literary assemblies in his palace, which were called “Vatican nights.” On his departure, after four years residence, the pope gave him the title and decorations of a knight. When he returned home he was equally honoured by the dukes of Urbino and Ferrara, but certain lawsuits, arising from his family affairs, induced him to remove again to Rome, about the end of 1573, and he did not return until five years after, when he took up his final residence at Padua. He had flattering invitations to quit his native city from various princes, but a private life had now more charms for him. He died June 12, 1588, having completed his eighty- eighth year. His funeral was performed with every circumstance of respect and magnificence. His works form no less than 5 vols. 4to, elegantly printed at Venice in 1740; but there had been editions of individual parts printed and reprinted often in his life-time. His range of study was extensive. He was equally conversant in Greek and Latin, sacred and profane literature, and displayed on every subject which employed his pen, great learning and judgment. Among his works, are dialogues on morals, the belles lettres, rhetoric, poetry and history. He wrote also both serious and burlesque poetry. His prose style is among the best of his age, and has fewer faults than arc to be found among the Italian writers o! the sixteenth century. He wrote a tragedy, “Canace et Macareus,” which had its admirers and its critics, and occasioned a controversy on its merits.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family in that country. His grandfather was killed in the battle of Floddon-field with his king, James IV.* He was born in 1565; and the writer of his life telU us, as something very important, that among the rest r were present at his birth, “not ordinary gossipers,” says he, “but women of good note,” there was one who, in a sober, though prophetic fit, taking the child in her arms, called aloud to the rest in these or the like terms, “You may all very well rejoice at the birth of this child-, for he will become the prop and pillar of this church, and the main and chief instrument in defending it.” He shewed from his childhood a very ready wit, great spirit, and a good memory; and, being educated in the university of Glasgow, arrived so early to perfection, that he received his degree in his sixteenth year. Having made himself a thorough master of profane learning, he applied himself to sacred; and became so distinguished in it, that at eighteen he was thought fit to succeed his father, who was minister of Calder.

Upon the change of administration, a new parliament being called, he was proposed candidate for the City of Westminster, together with sir Henry Dutton-Colt, but being unsuccessful, was chosen again for Cockermouth. He continued prisoner in Spain till 1712, when his imperial majesty made an exchange for the duke of Escalone, formerly viceroy of Naples; and in July the general set out on his return home by the way of France, and on the 16th of August arrived in England. In parliament he now opposed vigorously the measures of the court, and particularly the Bill of Commerce between Great Britain and France. Upon the calling a new parliament in 1713, he lost his election at Cockermouth by a small majority, but was soon after chosen unanimously for Wendover in Bucks; and opposed the Schism-bill with great spirit. Upon the arrival of king George I. in England, he was received by his majesty with particular marks of favour; and on the 27th of September 1714, appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and October the 1st sworn one of the privy- council. On the 20th of the same month, the day of his majesty’s coronation, he, with the lord Cobham, set out with a private commission to the emperor’s court; where having succeeded in his negotiations, he returned to England in the latter end of December. A new parliament being summoned to meet at Westminster on the 17th of March 1714-15, he was unanimously chosen for Cockermouth, as he was likewise for Aldborough in Yorkshire. In July 1716 he attended his majesty to Germany, and was principally concerned in the alliance concluded at that time with France and the States-general, by which the Pretender was removed beyond the Alps, and Dunkirk and Mardyke demolished. He returned with his majesty in 1716, and the following year was appointed first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer. He was afterwards created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of baron Stanhope of Elvaston, in the county of Derby, and viscount Stanhope of Mahon in the island of Minorca. In March 1718, he was appointed principal secretary of state, in the room of the earl of Sunderland, who succeeded lord Stanhope in the Treasury: and soon after was created earl Stanhope. The Spanish power growing more formidable, an alliance was set on foot between his Britannic majesty, the emperor, and the king of France, for which purpose earl Stanhope set out in June for Paris, and thence to Madrid, but finding nothing could be done with that court, he returned to England in September. In December following, he introduced a bill into the House of Lords “for strengthening the protestant interest in these kingdoms,” in which he proposed a repeal of the occasional-conformity bill, and the schism bill, and it passed by a majority of eighteen.

On the accession of George II. in 1727, whom he had served with steadiness for thirteen years, lord Chesterfield seemed to have a right to expect particular favour. In this he was disappointed, owing to his having paid his court to the king’s mistress lady Suffolk, instead of applying to the queen, which her majesty, as well as the king, who always preserved a high respect for the queen, resented; but in 1728 he was appointed ambassador to Holland, in which station he was determined to distinguish himself, and his efforts were perfectly successful. Mr. Slingeland, then the grand pensionary of Holland, conceived a friendship for him, and much advanced his diplomatic education. Having by his address preserved Hanover from a war, he received high marks of his majesty’s favour in being made high steward of the household, and knight of the garter. He came over in the summer of 1730, to be installed at Windsor, and then returned to his embassy. He was recalled in 1732, on the plea of health; and when he recovered, began again to distinguish himself in the House of Lords; and in the same year, on the occasion of the excise-bill, went into strong opposition against sir Robert Walpole. He was immediately obliged to resign his office of high steward, and so ill received at court that he desisted from attending it; He continued in opposition, not only to the end of sir Robert’s ministry in 1742, but even against the men with whom he had acted in the minority. It was not till the coalition of parties in 1744, by what was called “the broad-bottomed treaty,” that he was admitted into the cabinet, and then very much against the will of the king, who now had long considered him as a personal enemy. In the course of this long opposition he had frequently distinguished himself by his speeches; but particularly on the occasion of the bill for putting the theatres under the authority of a licenser, which he opposed in a speech of great animation, still extant in his works. During the same period we find him engaging in marriage with Melosina de Schulenburg, countess of Walsingham, to whom he was united in September 1733; but still constantly attentive to the education of his natural son by a former connection at the Hague. By his wife he had no children. In 1741 and 1742 he was obliged to pay temporary visits to the continent on account of his health, at which time it appears that he wrote regularly to his son, then only ten years old.

Walter de Stapledon was not more eminent for the judgment and firmness which he displayed as a statesman, in times of peculiar difficulty, than for his love of learnia<r. After he had engaged Hart, or Hart-hall, for the accommodation of his scholars, he purchased a tenement on the scite of the present college, called St. Stephen’s hall, in 1315, and having purchased also some additional premises, known then by the names of Scot-hall, Leding- Park-Hall, and Baltaye-Hall, he removed the rector and scholars of Stapledon, or Hart-hall to this place, in pursuance of the same foundation charter which he had obtained of the king for founding that hall in the preceding year. According to the statutes which he gave to this society, the number of persons to be maintained appears to have been thirteen, one to be instructed in theology or canon law, the rest in philosophy. Eight of them were to be of the archdeaconries of Exeter, Totness, and Barnstaple, four of the archdeaconry of Cornwall, and one, a priest, might be nominated by the dean and chapter of Exeter from any other part of the kingdom. In 1404, Edmund Stafford, bishop of Exeter, a great benefactor, changed the name from Stapledon to Exeter Hall, but it did not rise to the consequence of a corporate body until the time of sir William Petre, who, in 1565, procured a new body of statutes, and a regular deed of incorporation, increasing also the number of fellowships, &c.

When he was young, he fell in love with, and married a widow, daughter of Claudius Apollinaris, a musician of Naples. He describes her in his poems, as a very beautiful, learned, ingenious, and virtuous woman, and a great proficient in his own favourite study of poesy. Her society was a solace to him in his heavy hours, and her judgment of no small use in his poem, as he himself has confessed to us in his “Sylvas.” He inscribed several of his verses to her, and as a mark of his affection behaved with singular tenderness to a daughter which she had by a former husband. During his absence at Naples for the space of twenty years, she behaved with the strictest fidelity, and at length followed him, and died there. He had no children by her; and therefore adopted a son, whose death he bewails in a very pathetic manner. It appears that he sold a tragedy called “A<;ave” to Paris, already mentioned, and that what he got by this and Domitian’s bounty had set him above want. He informs us that h'e had a small country seat in Tuscany, where Alba formerly stood. With regard to his moral character, from what we can collect, he appears to have been religious almost to superstition, an affectionate husband, a loyal subject, and good citizen. Some critics, however, have not scrupled to accuse him of gross flattery to Domitian: and that he paid his court to him with a view to interest, cannot be denied, yet his advocates are willing to believe that his patron had not arrived to that pitch of wickedness and impiety at the time he wrote his poem, which he showed afterwards. Envx made no part of his composition. That he acknowledged merit, wherever he found it, his Genethliacon of Lucan, and Encomia on Virgil, bear ample testimony. He carried his reverence for the memory of the latter almost to adoration, constantly visiting his tomb, and celebrating his birthday with great solemnity. His tragedy of “Agave” excepted, we have all his works, consisting of his “Sylvae,” or miscellaneous pieces, in five books, his “Tbebaid” in twelve, and his “Achilleid” in two.

a learned gentleman, of Cussington, Leicestershire, after having completed his academical education at Peter- house, Cambridge, was admitted of the Inner Temple, July 2, 1647, and called to the bar June 12, 1654. In 1656, he married Mary the youngest daughter of John Onebye, esq. of Hinckley, and steward of the records at Leicester, and succeeded his father-in-law in that office in 1672. In 1674, when the court espoused the cause of popery, and the presumptive heir to the crown openly professed himself a Catholic, Mr. Staveley displayed the enormous exactions of the court of Rome, by publishing in 1674, “The Romish Horseleech.” This work was reprinted in 1769. Some years before his death, which happened in 1683, he retired to Belgrave near Leicester, and passing the latter part of life in the study of English history, acquired a melancholy habit, but was esteemed a diligent, judicious, and faithful antiquary. His “History of Churches in England: wherein is shown, the time, means, and manner of founding, building, and endowing of Churches, both, cathedral and rural, with their furniture and appendages,” was first published in 1712, and reprinted 1773. It is a work of considerable research and learning, the result of having carefully examined many books and records; and contains a complete account of the sacred furniture of churches from the earliest origin. In one respect, however, he has too hastily adopted the notion that the Saxons had no stone buildings among them, while he is forced to acknowledge that Bede’s Candida casa was one of them. Besides this work, Mr. Staveley left a curious historical pedigree of his own family, drawn up in 1682, the year before he died, which is preserved at large in the work which furnishes this article; and also some valuable collections towards the “History and Antiquities of Leicester,” to which he had more particularly applied his researches. These papers, which Dr. Farmer, the late learned master of Emanuei-college, Cambridge, intended once to publish, were, by that gentleman’s permission, put into the hands of Mr. Nichols, who gave them to the world in the “Bibliotheca Topographia Britannica,” and since in his more elaborate “History of Leicestershire.” The younger Mr. S. Carte (an able antiquary, and an eminent solicitor), who had a copy of Mr. Staveley’s papers, says of them, in a ms letter to Dr. Ducarel, March 7, 1751: “His account of the earls of Leicester, and of the great abbey, appears to have been taken from Dugdale’s” Baronage,“and” Monasticon;“but as to his sentiments in respect to the borough, I differ with him in some instances. By the charter for erecting and establishing the court of records at Leicester, the election of the steward is granted to the mayor and court of aldermen, who likewise have thereby a similar power, in respect to a bailiff” for executing their writs. But afterwards, viz. Dec. 20, 7 Jac. I. the great earl of Huntingdon bavins: been a considerable benefactor to Leicester, the corporation came to a resolution of granting to him and his heirs a right of nominating alternately to the office of steward and bailiff, and executed a bond under their common seal, in the penalty of one thousand pounds, for enforcing the execution of their grant. And as John Major, esq. was elected by the court of aldermen to succeed Mr. Staveley, in December, 1684, I infer that Staveley was nominated by the earl of Huntingdon, and confirmed by the aldermen, in pursuance of the grant above-mentioned.

, the first of a class of writers called the British Essayists, which is peculiar to this country, was born at Dublin in 1671. Mis family, of English extraction, was genteel. His father, who was a counsellor at law, and private secretary to James, the first duke of Ormond, sent his son, then very young, to London, where he was placed in the Charter-house by the duke, who was one of the governors of that seminary. From thence he was removed to Merton college, Oxford, and admitted a postmaster in 1691. In 1695 he wrote a poem on the funeral of queen Mary, entitled the “Procession.” His inclination leading him to the army, he rode for some time privately in the guards. He became an author first, as he tells us himself, when an ensign of the guards, a way of life exposed to much irregularity; and, emg thoroughly convinced of many things, of which he often repented, and which he more often repeated, he wrote for his own private use a little book called “The Christian Hero,” with a design principally to fix upon his own mind a strong impression of virtue and religion, in opposition to a stronger propensity towards unwarrantable pleasures. This secret admonition was too weak; and therefore, in 1701, he printed the book with his name, in hopes that a standing testimony against himself, and the eyes of the world upon him in a new light, might curb his desires, and make him ashamed of understanding and seeming to feel what was virtuous, and yet of living so contrary a life. This, he tells us, had no other effect, but that, from being thought a good companion, he was soou reckoned a disagreeable fellow. One or two of his acquaintance thought fit to misuse him, and try their valour upon him; and every body, he knew, measured the least levity in his words or actions with the character of “The Christian Hero.” Thus he found himself slighted, instead of being encouraged, for his declarations as to religion; so that he thought it incumbent upon him to enliven his character. For this purpose he wrote the comedy, called u The Funeral, or Grief a- la- Mode,“which was acted in 1702; and as nothing at that time made a man more a favourite with the public than a successful play, this, with some other particulars enlarged upon to -advantage, obtained the notice of the king; and his name, to be proTided for, was, he says, in the last table-book ever worn by the glorious and immortal William the Third. He had before this obtained a captain’s commission in lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, by the interest of lord Cutts, to whom he had dedicated his” Christian Hero,“and who likewise appointed him his secretary. His next appearance as a writer, as he himself informs us, was in the office of Gazetteer; where he worked faithfully, according to order, without ever erring, he says, against the rule observed by all ministries, to keep that paper very innocent and very insipid. He received this appointment in consequence of being introduced by Addison to the acquaintance of the earls of Halifax and Sunderland. With Addison he had become acquainted at the Charter-house. His next productions were comedies;” The Tender Husband“being acted in 1703, and” The Lying Lover“in 1704. In 1709 he began” The Taller;“the first number of which was published April 12, 1709, and the last Jan. 2, 1711. This paper greatly increased his reputation and interest; and he was soon after made one of the commissioners of the Stamp-office. Upon laying down” The Tatler,“he b'egan, in concert with Addison,” The Spectator,“which began to be published March 1, 1711 after that,” The Guardian,“the first paper of which came out March 12, 1713; and then,” The Englishman,“the first number of which appeared Oct. 6, the same year. Besides these works, he wrote several political pieces, which were afterwards collected, and published under the title of” Political Writings," 1715, 12mo. Oneofthes6 will require to be mentioned particularly, because it was attended with remarkable consequences relating to himself.

Having a design to serve in the last parliament of queen Anne, he resigned his place of commissioner of the Stampoffice, in June 1713; and was chosen member for the borough of Stockbridge in Hampshire; but he did not sit long in the House of Commons, before he was expelled for writing “The Englishman,” being the close of a paper so called, and “The Crisis.” This last is one of his political writings, and the title at full length runs thus "The Crisis, or a Discourse representing, from the most authentic records, the just causes of the late happy Revolution, and the several settlements of the crown of England and Scotland on her majesty; and, on the demise of her majesty without issue, upon the most illustrious princess Sophia, electress and duchess-dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants, by previous acts

Vol. XXVIII. A A of both parliaments of the late kingdoms of England and Scotland, and confirmed by the parliament of Great-Britain. With some seasonable remarks on the danger of a popish successor.“He explains in his” Apology for himself,“the occasion of his writing this piece. He happened one day to visit Mr. William Moore of the Inner-Temple; where the discourse turning upon politics, Moore took notice of the insinuations daily thrown out, of the danger the Protestant succession was in; and concluded with saying-, that he thought Steele, from the kind reception the world gave to what he published, might be more instrumental towards curing that evil, than any private man in England. After much solicitation, Moore observed, that the evil seemed only to flow from mere inattention to the real obligations under which we lie towards the house of Hanover: if, therefore, continued he, the laws to that purpose were reprinted, together with a warm preface, and a well-urged peroration, it is not to be imagined what good effects it would have. Steele was much struck with the thought and prevailing with Moore to put the law- part of it together, he executed the rest; yet did not venture to publish it, till it had been corrected by Addison, Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and others. It was immediately attacked with great severity by Swift, in a pamphlet published in 1712, under the title of,” The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of the author of the Crisis:“but it was not till March 12, 1715, that it fell under the cognizance of the House of Commons. Then Mr. John Hungerford complained to the House of divers scandalous papers, published under the name of Mr. Steele; in which complaint he was seconded by Mr. Auditor Foley, cousin to the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Auditor Harley, the earl’s brother. Sir William Wyndham also added, that” some of Mr. Steele’s writings contained insolent, injurious reflections on the queen herself, and were dictated by the spirit of rebellion.“The next clay Mr. Auditor Harley specified some printed pamphlets published by Mr. Steele,” containing several paragraphs tending to sedition, highly reflecting upon her majesty, and arraigning her administration and government.“Some proceedings followed between this and the 18th, which was the day appointed for the hearing of Mr. Steele; and this being come, Mr. Auditor Folejr moved, that before they proceed farther, Mr. Steele should declare, whether he acknowledged the writings that bore his name? Steele declared, that he” did frankly and ingenuously own those papers to he part of his writings; that he wrote them in behalf of the house of Hanover, and owned them with the same unreservedness with which he abjured the Pretender.“Then Mr. Foley proposed, that Mr. Steele should withdraw; but it was carried, without dividing, that he should stay and make his defence. He desired, that he might be allowed to answer what was urged against him paragraph by paragraph; but his accusers insisted, and it was carried, that he should proceed to make his defence generally upon the charge against him. Steele proceeded accordingly, being assisted by his friend Addison, member for Malmsbury, who sat near him to prompt him upon occasion; and spoke for near three hours on the several heads extracted from his pamphlets. After he had withdrawn, Mr. Foley said, that,” without amusing the House with long speeches, it is evident the writings complained of were seditious and scandalous, injurious to her majesty’s government, the church and the universities;“and then called for the question. This occasioned a very warm debate, which lasted till eleven o'clock at night. The first who spoke for Steele, was Robert Walpole, esq. who was seconded by his brother Horatio Walpole, lord Finch, lord Lumley, and lord Hinchinbrook: it was resolved, however, by a majority of 245 against 152, that” a printed pamphlet, entitled l The Englishman, being the close of a paper so called,‘ and one other pamphlet, entitled * The Crisis,’ written by Richard Steele, esq. a member of this House, are scandalous and seditious libels, containing many expressions highly reflecting upon her majesty, and upon the nobility, gentry, clergy, and universities of this kingdom; maliciously insinuating, that the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover is in danger under her majesty’s administration; and tending to alienate the good affections of her majesty’s good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them:“it was resolved likewise, that Mr. Steele,” for his offence in writing and publishing the said scandalous and seditious libels, be expelled this House.“He afterwards wrote” An Apology for himself and his writings, occasioned by his expulsion,“which he dedicated to Robert Walpole, esq. This is printed among his” Political Writings/' 1715, I2i“. He had no'v nothing to do till the death of the queen, but to indulge himself svith his pen; and accordingly, in 1714, he published a treatise, entitled” The Romish Ecclesiastical History of late years.“This is nothing more than a description of some monstrous and gross popish rites, designed to hurt the cause of the Pretender, which was supposed to be gaining ground in England: and there is an appendix subjoined, consisting of particulars very well calculated for this purpose. In No. I. of the appendix, we have a list of the colleges, monasteries, and convents of men and women of several orders in the Low Countries; with the revenues which they draw from England. No. II. contains an extract of the” Taxa Cameroe,“or” Cancellariat Apostolicse,“the fees of the pope’s chancery; a book, printed by the pope’s authority, and setting forth a list of the fees paid him for absolutions, dispensations, indulgencies, faculties, and exemptions. No. 111. is a bull of the pope in 1357, given to the then king of France; by which the princes of that nation received an hereditary right to cheat the rest of mankind. No. IV. is a translation of the speech of pope Sixtus V. as it was uttered in the consistory at Rome, Sept. 2, 1589; setting forth the execrable fact of James Clement, a Jacohine friar, upon the person of Henry III. of France, to be commendable, admirable, and meritorious. No. V. is a collection of some popish tracts and positions, destructive of society and all the ends of good government. The same year, 1714, he published two papers: the first of which, called” The Lover;“appeared Feb. 25; the second,” The Reader," April 22. In the sixth number for May 3, we have an account of his design to write the history of the duke of Marlborough, from the date of the duke’s commission of captain general and plenipotentiary, to the expiration of those commissions: the materials, as he tells us, were in his custody, but the work was never executed.

Soon after the accession of George I. he was appointed surveyor of the royal stables at Hampton-court, and governor of the royal company of comedians; and was put into the commission of the peace for Middlesex; and, April 1715, was knighted upon the presenting of an address to Ins majesty by the lieutenancy*. In the first parliament, he was chosen member for Boroughbrigg in Yorkshire; and, after the suppression of the rebellion in the North, was appointed one of the commissioners of the forfeited estates in Scotland. The same year, 1715, he published in 8vo, “An Account of the state of the Roman Catholic Religion throughout the world. Written for the use of pope Innocent XI. and now translated from the Italian. To which is added, a Discourse concerning the state of Religion in England: written in French in the time of king Charles I. and now first translated. With a large dedication to the present pope, giving him a very particular account of the state of religion among protestants, and of several other matters of importance relating to Great Britain,” 12mo. The dedication is supposed to have been written by Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. The same year still, he published “A Letter from the earl of Mar to the king before his majesty’s arrival in England;” and the year following, a second volume of “The Englishman.” In 1718, came out “An Account of his Fish pool:” he had obtained a patent for bringing fish to market alive; for, Steele was a projector, and that was one circumstance, among many, xvhich kept him always poor. In 1719, he published “The Spinster,” a pamphlet; and “A Letter to the earl of Oxford, concerning the bill of peerage,” which bill he opposed in the House of Commons. In 1720, he wrote two pieces against the South Sea scheme; one called “The Crisis of Property,” the other “A Nation a Family.”

In Jan. 1720, he began a paper under the name of sir John Edgar, called “The Theatre;” which he continued every Tuesday and Saturday, till the 5th of April following. During the course of this paper, viz. on the 23d of January, his patent of governor of the roynl company of comedians was revoked by the king: upon which, he drew up and published, " A State of the Case between the lord

away, to make room for the company 28, 17tJ. chamberlain of his majesty’s household and the governor of the royal company of comedians.“He tells us, in this pamphlet, that a noble lord, without any cause assigned, sends a message, directed to sir Richard Steele, Mr. Wilks, and Mr. Booth, to dismiss Mr. Gibber, who for some time submitted to a disability of appearing on the stage, during the pleasure of one who had nothing to do 'with it; and that, when this lawless will and pleasure was changed, a very frank declaration was made, that all the mortification put upon Mr. Gibber was intended only as a prelude to remote evils, by which the patentee was to be affected. Upon this, sir Richard wrote to two of the ministers of state, and likewise delivered a petition to the king, in the presence of the lord chamberlain: but these had no effect, for his patent was revoked, though it does not appear for what reason; and the loss he sustained upon this occasion is computed by himself at almost 10,000l. In 1722, his comedy, called” The Conscious Lovers," was acted with great success; and published with a dedication to the king, for which his majesty made him a present of 500l.

“The characters of living or dead commentators,” says Mr. Steevens in his present real or assumed humility, “shall not be wantonly traduced, and no greater freedom of language be made use of, than is necessary to convince, without any attempts to render those ridiculous, whose assertions may seem to demand a confutation. An error in a quotation, or accidental misrepresentation of a fact, shall not be treated with the severity due to a moral crime, nor as the breach of any other laws than those of literature, lest the reputation of the critic should be obtained at the expence of humanity, justice, and good manners; and by multiplying notes on notes we should be reduced at last, * to fight for a spot whereon the numbers cannot try the cause.' The ostentation of bringing in the commentaries of others, merely to declare their futility, shall be avoided; and none be introduced here, but such as tend to the illustration of the author.” He concludes with signing his name, and requesting that letters may be addressed to him at Mr. Tonson’s. About the same time he opened a kind of correspondence in the St. James’s Chronicle, then the principal literary newspaper, the object of which was to obtain hints and remarks on any passages of Shakspeare which individuals might think themselves able to illustrate. What returns were made to these applications, we know not, but it appears that he became acquainted about this time with Dr. Johnson, and in 1770 they were both employed in that edition of the whole of Shakspeare’s plays which was first called “Johnson and Steevens’s edition,” and which was published in 1773, 10 vols. 8vo. In 1778 it was again reprinted, with the same names, but entirely under the care and with the improvements of Mr. Steevens; and again in 1785, when he availed himself of the assistance of Mr. Isaac Reed, although merely as superintendant of the press. It was a work of which Mr. Steevens would never surrender the entire care to any one, and his jealousy, as an editor of Shakspeare, was the cause of those many splenetic effusions for which he has been so justly blamed, and his character disgraced. This kind of hostility, in which Mr. Steevens unfortunately delighted, was not confined to the commentators on Shakspeare. He had from the earliest period that can be remembered a disposition to display his talents for ridicule at the expence of those who were, or whom he thought, inferior to himself. He was never more gratified than when he could irritate their feelings by anonymous attacks in the public journals, which he would, in their presence, affect to lament with all the ardour of friendship. Nor was he content to amuse himself with the sufferings of those who were candidates for literary fame, a species of inhumanity in which he had some contemporaries, and has had many successors, but would even intrude into the privacies of domestic life, and has been often, we fear too justly, accused of disturbing the happiness of families, by secret written insinuations, the consequences of which he could not always know, and must therefore have enjoyed only in imagination. But as such artifices long practised could not escape detection, his character for mischievous duplicity became known, and not long after the publication of the second edition of his Shakspeare, in conjunction with Dr. Johnson, he lived, in the language of that great man, “the life of an outlaw.” He was scarcely respected even by those who tasted his bounty (for he could at times be bountiful), and was dreaded as a man of great talents and great powers both of pen and tongue, with whom nevertheless it was more dangerous to live in friendship than in hostility.

In preparing this edition, it is said "he gave an instance of editorial activity and perseverance which is without example. To this work he devoted solely, and exclusively of all other attentions, a period of eighteen months; and during that time, he left his house every morning at one o'clock with the Hampstead patrole, and proceeding without any consideration of the weather or the season, called up the compositor and woke all his devils:

, called The Old, was born at Steenwyck, in 1550, and was the disciple of John de Vries, who excelled in painting architecture and perspective. In imitation of the style of his master, Stenwyck chose the same subjects; but surpassed him and all his contemporaries, in the truth, neatness, transparence, and delicacy, of his pictures. His subjects were the insides of superb churches and convents, of Gothic architecture, and generally views of them by night, when they were illuminated by flambeaux, tapers, or a number of candles fixed in magnificent lustres, or sconces. He was a thorough master of the true principles of the chiaroscuro, and distributed his lights and shadows with such judgment, as to produce the most astonishing effects; but as he was not expert at designing figures, those that appear in any of his compositions were inserted by Brueghel, Van Tulden, and other eminent artists. The genuine pictures of this master, who died in 1603, aged fifty -three, are extremely scarce, and very highly prized in ev ry part of Europe.

Among the finest editions from the press of Robert are, 1. His Hebrew Bibles, 4 vols. 4to, and 8 vols. 16mo. 2. The Latin Bible, 1538 — 40, fol. of which the large paper copies are principally valued. 3. The Greek New Testament, 1530, fol. one of the most beautiful books ever printed; to which may be added the small editions of 1546 and 1549, usually called the O mirifcam, the first two words of the preface. That of 1549 is the most correct. 4. “Historiae ecclesiastics scriptores, Eusebii preparatio et demonstratio evangelica,” Gr. 1544, 2 vols. fol: this is the first work published with Garamond’s new Greek types. 5. The works of Cicero, Terence, Plautus, &c. &,c. Besides the prefaces and notes with which Robert introduced or illustrated various works, he is deemed the author of the following: 1. “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,” before mentioned, which has been often reprinted. One of the best of the modern editions is that of London, 1734 5, 4 vols. fol. and the last is Gessner’s, Leipsic, 1749, 4 vols, fol. 2. “Dictionarium Latino-Gallicum,” Paris, 1543, 2 vols. fol. He published an abridgment of this for young people. 3. “Ad censuras Theologorum Parisiensium quibus Biblia a Roberto Stephano excusa calumniose notarunr, responsio,” Geneva, 1552, 8vo. The same year a French edition of this was published; it forms a very able answer to the calumnies of his enemies the Sorbonnists. 4. “Gallicae grammatices libellus,” ibid. 1558, 8vo, and a “Grammaire Frangaise,” 1558, 8vo. He intended to have published a commentary on the Bible, and had engaged the assistance of the celebrated divine Marlorat; he also had projected a Greek Thesaurus, but the honour of that work was reserved for his son Henry, to whom he gave what materials he had collected. Robert had several sons, of whom Henry, Robert, and Francis, will be noticed hereafter, and a daughter, Catherine, who was married to Jacquelin, a royal notary of Paris.

, an eminent antiquary, was the fourth sou of Richard Stephens, esq. of the elder house of that name atEastington in Gloucestershire, by Anne the eldest daughter of sir Hugh Cholmeley, of Whitby, in Yorkshire, baronet. His first education was at Wotton school, whence he removed to Lincoln-college, Oxford, May 19, 681. He was entered very young in the Middle Temple, applied himself to the study of the common law, and was called to the bar. As he was master of a sufficient fortune, it may be presumed that the temper of his mind, which was naturally modest, detained him from the public exercise of his profession, and led him to the politer studies, and an acquaintance with the best authors, ancient and modern: yet he was thought by all who knew him to have made a great proficience in the law, though history and antiquities seem to have been his favourite study. When he was about twenty years old, being at a relation’s house, he accidentally met with some original letters of the lord chancellor Bacon; and finding that they would greatly contribute to our knowledge of matters relating to king James’s reign, he immediately set himself to search for whatever might elucidate the obscure passages, and published a complete edition of them in 1702, with useful notes, and an excellent historical introduction. He intended to have presented his work to king William but that monarch dying before it was published, the dedication was omitted. In the preface, he requested the communication of unpublished pieces of his noble author, to make his collection more complete; and obtained in consequence as many letters as formed the second collection, published in 1734, two years after his death. Being a relation of Robert Harley earl of Oxford (whose mother Abigail, was daughter of Nathaniel Stephens of Eastington), he was preferred by him to be chief solicitor of the customs, in which employment he continued with unblemished reputation till 172C, when he declined that troublesome office, and was appointed to succeed Mr. Madox in the place of historiographer royal. He then formed a design of writing a history of king James the first, a reign which he thought to be more misrepresented than almost any other since the conquest: and, if we may judge by the good impression which he seems to have had of these times, his exactness and care never to advance any thing but from unquestionable authorities, besides his great candour and integrity, it could not but have proved a judicious and valuable performance. He married Mary the daughter of sir Hugh Cholmeley, a lady of great worth, and died at Gravesend, near Thornbury, in Gloucestershire, Nov. 12, 1732; and was buried at Eastington, the seat of his ancestors, where is an inscription to his memory.

, an English poet and statesman, was descended from a family at Pendigrast in Pembrokeshire, but born at London in 1663. It has been conjectured that he was either son or grandson of Charles third son of sir John Stepney, the first baronet of that family: Mr. Cole says his father was a grocer. He received his education at Westminster-school, and was removed thence to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1682; where he took his degree of A.B. in 1685, and that of M.A. in 1689. Being of the same standing with Charles Montague, esq. afterwards earl of Halifax, a strict friendship grew up between them, and they came to London together, and are said to have been introduced into public life by the duke of Dorset. To this fortunate incident was owing all the preferment Stepney afterwards enjoyed, who is supposed not to have had parts sufficient to have risen to any distinction, without such patronage. When Stepney first set out in life, he seems to have been attached to the tory interest; for one of the first poems he wrote was an address to James II. upon his accession to the throne. Soon after, when Monmouth’s rebellion broke out, the Cambridge men, to shew their zeal for the king, thought proper to burn the picture of that prince, who had formerly been chancellor of the university, and on this occasion Stepney wrote some good verses in his praise. Upon the Revolution, he embraced another interest, and procured himself to be nominated to several foreign embassies. In 1692 he went to the elector of Brandenburg’s court, in quality of envoy; in 1693, to the Imperial court, in the same character; in 1694, to the elector of Saxony; and, two years after, to the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and the congress at Francfort; in 1698, a second time to Brandenburg; in 1699, to the king of Poland; in 1701, again to the emperor; and in 1706, to the States General; and in all his negotiations, is said to have been successful. In 1697 he was made one of the commissioners of trade. He died at Chelsea in 1707, and was buried in Westminster-abbey; where a fine monument was erected over him, with a pompous inscription. At his leisure hours he composed poetical pieces, which are republished in the general collection of English poets. He likewise wrote some political pieces in prose, particularly, “An Essay on the present interest of England, in 1701: to which are added, the proceedings of the House of Commons in 1677, upon the French king’s progress in Flanders.” This is reprinted in the collection of tracts, called “Lord Somers’s collection.”

His leisure time, during the whole of his life, he dedicated to study, to intercourse with learned men, and to the duties of benevolence and devotion. His reading was extensive, and his taste may be understood from the plan of his studies. He was well versed in the writings of the fathers of the church of the first three centuries, generally called the Apostolic fathers; he had twice read through Dr. Thomas Jackson’s Body of Divinity, in three large folios; a divine for whose writings bishop Home always expressed the highest respect. The works of bishops Andrews, Jeremy Taylor, and dean Hickes, were quite familiar to Mr. Stevens; and there was hardiy a writer of modern days, at all celebrated for orthodox opinions, who was unknown to him. Such was the esteem in which he was held, as a theologian, that Dr. Douglas, bishop of Salisbury, once said of him, “Here is a man, who, though not a bishop, yet would have been thought worthy of that character in the first and purest ages of the Christian church;” and the late bishop Horsley, who was not given to flattery, when on one occasion Mr. Stevens paid him a compliment on account of his sermon, said, “Mr. Stevens, a compliment from you upon such a subject is of no inconsiderable value.” Mr. Stevens was also, like bishop Home, a great admirer of the works of Mr. John Hutchinson.

The last literary work in which Mr. Stevens was engaged, was an uniform edition of the works of Mr. Jones, in 12 vols 8vo, to which he prefixed a life of that excellent man, composed in a style of artless and pathetic religious eloquence, which his biographer has very aptly compared to that of Isaac Walton, between whom and Mr. Stevens he states otner similarities. “Both were tradesmen; they were both men of reading, and personally acquired learning; of considerable theological knowledge well versed in that book which is the only legitimate source of all theology, the Bible. Both were companions and friends of the most eminent prelates and divines that adorned the church of England; both were profound masters in the art of k(>ly living, and of the same cheerfulness of disposition, &c. &c.” But though Mr. Stevens never published any other work that can be called his own, yet he was always considering how the world might be benefited by the labours of others, and therefore he was a great encourager of his learned friend Mr. Jones, in the publication of his various works; and alter the death of bishop Home, the most severe loss he ever met with, he superintended the publication of some of the volumes of his sermons. It was he also who suggested to the bishop the “Letters on Infidelity,” in answer to Ur. Adam Smith’s exaggerated character of Hume; and to him the bishop addressed them under the initials of W. S. esq.

A few months after his marriage a vacancy took place in the representation in parliament fur the county of Edinburgh, when sir James took an active part in opposition to the interest of Robert Dunclas, esq. of Arniston, one of the senators of the college of justice, who happened to preside at the meeting of the electors for the county of Edinburgh, and omitted to call over sir James’s name, on the roll of the electors, on account of an alleged insufficiency of right to vote on that occasion. On ibis account Mr. Dunclas became the object of a legal prosecution by sir James, as having disobeyed the act of parliament relating to the rolls of electors of members of parliament for counties in Scotland. When, in the course of litigation, tliis cause came to be heard before the college of justice, sir J. mes pleaded his own cause with so much eloquence, and in so masterly a manner, that Mr. Dunclas (commonly called lord Arniston), though a judge, came down from the bench and defended himself at the bar; an appearance very uncommon, and demonstrative of the high sense he had of the abilities of his opponent. This extraordinary appearance of our author gave the greatest hopes of his professional abilities, and inspired all his friends with fresh zeal for his continuance at the bar; but the sentiments and engagements formerly mentioned in all probability prevented sir James from availing himself of so brilliant an introduction. After this struggle he passed near two years at his seat in the country, surrounded at all times by the most learned and accomplished of his countrymen, and rendering himself continually the delight of all his guests and companions, by the charms and variety of his conversation, and the polite animation of his manners and address. Amoncr those were many of the illustrious persons who afterwards engaged in the attempt to piace the Pretender on the throne in 1745. As he was by far the ablest man of that party, the Jacobites engaged him to write prince CharlesEdward’s manifesto, and to assist in his councils. Information having been given of his share in these affairs, he thought it prudent, on the failure of the attempt, to leave Britain, and was excepted afterwards from the bill of indemnity, and thus rendered an exile from his country. He chose France for his residence during the first ten years of his banishment, and was chiefly at Angoule^me, where he applied himself to the study of those subjects which are treated in his works, particularly finance, and collected that vast magazine of facts relating to the revenue which laid the foundation for some of the most curious and interesting chapters of his “Principles of Political CEconomy.” From the information on these subjects which he obtained in France, he was enabled to compare the state of the two nations, as well as to give that very clear and succinct account of the then state of the French finances which composes the sixth chapter of the fourth part of the fourth book of his great work. In 1757, sir James published at Frankfort on the Maine, his “Apologiedu sentiment de Monsieur de chevalier Newton, sur Pancienne chronologie des Grecs, contenant des reponses a toutes les objections qui y ont ete faites jusqu'a present.” This apology was written in the beginning of 1755; but the printing of it was at that time prevented by his other engagements. It is said to be a work of great merit.

The historians of the drama are of opinion, that in his younger days he was the author of an old play called “Gammer Gurtun’s Needle,” 1575, 4to. From the books of the stationers’ company, it mi^ht seem as though it had been composed some years before publication. It was republished among Dodsley’s Old Plays, and is frequently referred to by the commentators on Shakspeare.

At Sutton, while he performed all the duties of a diligent and faithful pastor, he adhered closely to his studies, and in 1662, produced his “Origines Sacræ; or a rational account of the Christian Faith, as to the truth and divine authority of the Scriptures, and the matters therein contained,” 4to. The highest compliment paid him in consequence of this very learned work, was at a visitation, when bishop Sanderson, his diocesan, hearing his name called over, asked him if he was any relation to the great Stillingfleet, author of the Origines Sacræ? When modestly informed that he was the very man, the bishop welcomed him with great cordiality, and said, that “he expected rather to have seen one as considerable for his years as he had already shewn himself for his learning.” This work has indeed been always justly esteemed one of the ablest defences of revealed religion that had then appeared in any language. It was republished by Dr. Bentley in 1709, with “Part of another book upon the same subject, written in 1697, from the author’s own manuscript,” folio. Bishop Sanderson, as a special mark of his respect, granted the author a licence to preach throughout his diocese; and Henchman, bishop of London, conceived so high an opinion of his talents, that he employed him to write a vindication of archbishop Laud’s conference with Fisher, the Jesuit. Laud’s conference had been attacked in a publication entitled “Labyrinthus Cantuariensis, or, Dr. Laud’s Labyrinth, by T. C.” said to have been printed at Paris, in 1658, but which did not appear till 1663. Stillingfleet’s answer was entitled “A rational account of the grounds of the Protestant Religion; being a vindication of the lord archbishop of Canterbury’s relation of a conference,” &c. Lond. 1664, fol. Such was his readiness in composition, that he is reported to have sent to the press six or seven sheets a week of this volume, which Dr. Tillotson said he “found in every part answerable to its title, a rational account.”

In the summer of 1780, sir Adam Gordon, who had the living of Hincworth in Hertfordshire, offered Mr. Stockdale the curacy of that place. He accepted it with gratitude, and there wrote fifteen sermons. At this period at the distance of twenty-three years from his first ordination, he took priest’s orders. In 1782, he wrote his “Treatise on Education;” and in the autumn of the succeeding year, lord Thurlow (the then lord Chancellor), in consequence, as we are gravely told, “of having read a volume of Mr. Stockdale’s sermons, and without any other recommendation,” presented him with the living of Lesbury, in Northumberland. To this the duke of Northumberland added that of Long-Houghton, in the same county. Here he wrote a tragedy called “Ximenes,” which was never acted or printed; but still, in a restless pursuit of some imaginary happu.ess, he fancied that the bleakness of the climate injured his health; and accepted an invitation in 1787, from his friend Mr. Matra, British Consul at Tangier, to pass some time with him, under its more genial sky.

, an eminent, though self-taught mathematician, was a native of Scotland, and son of a gardener in the service of the duke of Argyle. Neither the time nor place of his birth is exactly known, but from a ms memorandum in our possession it appears that he died in March or April 1768. The chief account of him that is extant is contained in a letter written by the celebrated chevalier Ramsay to father Castel, a Jesuit at Paris, and published in the Journal de Trevoux, p. 109. From this it appears, that when he was about eighteen years of age, his singular talents were discovered accidentally by the duke of Argyle, who found that he had been reading Newton’s Principia. The duke was surprised, entered into conversation with him, and was astonished at the force, accuracy, and candour of his answers. The instructions he had received amounted to no more than having been taught to read by a servant of the duke’s, about ten years before. “I first learned to read,” said Stone; “the masons were then at work upon your house: I went near them one day, and I saw that the architect used a rule and compasses, and that he made calculations. I inquired what might be the use of these things; and I was informed, that there was a science called arithmetic: I purchased a book of arithmetic, and I learned it. I was told there was another science called geometry: I bought the books, and I learned geometry. By reading I found that there were good books in these two sciences in Latin: I bought a dictionary, and 1 learnt Latin. I understood that there were good books of the same kind in French: I bought a dictionary, and I learned French. And this, my lord, is what I have done. It seems to me that we may learn every thing, when we know the twenty-four letters of the aipiuibet.” Delighted with this account, the duke drew him from obscurity, and placed him in a situation which enabled him to pursue his favourite objects. Stone was author and translator of several useful works 1 “A new Mathematical Dictionary, 1726, 8vo. 2.” Fluxions,“1730, 8vo. The direct method is a translation of L' Hospital’s Analyse des infiniment petits, from the French; and the inverse method was supplied by Stone himself. 3.” The Elements of Euclid," 1731, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a neat and useful edition of the Elements of Euclid, with an account of the life and writings of that mathematician, and a defence of his elements against modern objectors. 4. ' A paper in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. xli. p. 218, containing an account of two species of lines of the third order, not mentioned by sir Isaac Newton, or Mr. Sterling; and some other small productions.

, a poet of the Elizabethan period, was the son of John Storer, a native of London, and was elected student of Christ-clmrcn, Oxford, about 1587. He took his degree of master of aits, and had the fame of excellent poetical talents, which were exhibited, not only in verses before the books of many members of the university, but in his poem entitled “The Life and De^th of Thomas Wolsey, cardinal: divided into three pans: his aspiring; triumph; and death,” Lond. 1599, 4to. He obtained also great credit for some pastoral airs and madrigals, which were published in the collection called “England’s Helicon.” He died in the parish of St. Michael Bassishaw, London, in Nov. 1604, and had his memory celebrated by many copies of verses. His poem on Wolsey is far from despicable, and contains many curious historical particulars. It is of the greatest rarity; but there is a copy in the Bodleian, and another in the British Museum.

Mr. Stow’s success, however, in the Affair probably ani­* This curate, called Sir Stephen, one c<>mii>- n I e/\p bumr them. Mr. became so contemptible by his furious Slow heat <J 'his sermon, an I saw the zeal, that he was forced to leave the effec’s of it. Another rmrk of the city, and retire tosome unknown place curate’s imprudent zeal w.< his takin the country. “Mr. Stow has re- ing; /ccasion from that church’s name corded some things of him, which Un ^rshaft., as superstitions^ ^iv>n it, though not attended with such fata! to i!<-r are his judgment that thr titles consequences as that already men- of cnurches should be altered, and that tioned, were evidences of his exclusive even the names of the days of the week big‘ try. In a sermon, which he ought to be changed from those ht;apreached before a areat auditory at St. then ones which had been given them; Paul’s Cross, he inveighed bitterly nud that Fridays and Saturdays should against a long may-pole, called -haft, be no more fish-days, but others subin the next parish to his own, which stituted for such in thei>- place from thence was named *r. Andrew that Lent should he kept ai>nv Undershaft. This he insisted upon time than between Shrove-ti e and being an idol; and so warmly did he Raster. Another t.’id ).ia<-tice of this declare against it, that the zeal of many cut ate was, to go out of the pulpi> into of his hearers being excited thereby, the church- yard, and II.Oum' nu h gh they wt-nt in the afternoon of the same elm that grew there and p ea; h from day, and pulled the may-pole do MI tbttnce to his audience, and then return from the place where it hung upon to the church, and say or-ire the hooks, and then sawed it ii to divers English service, not at th,- a^tar. as pieces, each housekeeper taking as w. is usual, but upon a tomb, whit much of it as hung over his door or placed northward of it.” Strype’s Life stall, and then casting the pieces into of Stow. mated him in his antiquarian researches, as he had now demonstrated the practical benefit arising from them. It was about 1560, that he turned his thoughts to the compiling an English chronicle, and he spent the greater part of his future life in collecting such materials relating to the kingdom at large, as he esteemed worthy to be handed down to posterity. But after he had been eagerly employed for a while in these studies, perceiving how little profit he was likely to reap from them, he was on the point of diverting his industry into the channel of the occupation he had been bred to; and the expensiveness of purchasing manuscripts was an additional motive to this resolution. Archbishop Parker, however, himself an excellent antiquary, and a bountiful patron of all who had the same turn, persuaded him to goon, and liberally contributed to lessen his expences, while his grace lived.

In 1633, there appeared an edition of it in folio, by the same A. M. together with H. D. C. J. and some others. It was dedicated, as all the preceding editions had been, to the lord-mayor, aldermen, and recorder for the time being, with the citizens. In this was a continuation of the names of the mayors and sheriffs to that year, with the coats of arms of all the mayors, the companies of London, merchants and others; and a brief imperfect account of the incorporation of the said companies’, and the dates of their several charters; with some other articles. But by this time the book began to abound with verbal errors and deviations from the author’s edition and sense, which called for "some abler and more judicious hand than had been hitherto employed to correct and rectify.

Having safely reached London, Mr. Strange completed his intention of visiting France; and after remaining a considerable time at Rouen, respected and beloved by all the companions in exile whom he found there, and obtaining an honorary prize given by the academy of that place, where his competitors were very numerous, proceeded to Paris, and prosecuted his studies with infinite assiduity, chiefly under the direction of the celebrated Le Bas. It was from this master that he had the first hint of the use of the instrument commonly called the dry needle, which he afterwards greatly improved by his own genius, and by which he added such superior beauties to his engravings.

Among these engravings, it will be observed, there is only one from the painting of any native artist of this country; and that is from Mr. West’s apotheosis of the king’s children. This painting he solicited his majesty’s permission to engrave, which was granted with the utmost readiness; and every accommodation which the palace could give was liberally furnished to him, while engaged in the undertaking; in the progress of which he was often visited both by the king and the royal family. Before the work could be completed his avocations called him to Paris, and he expected to have been forced to leave the engraving unfinished till his return; but his majesty, in a manner peculiarly flattering, consented to let him take it with him. In return for so much condescension, when a few copies of this engraving had been struck off, the plate itself was destroyed, by cutting out the principal figure, which, after being gilt, was presented to his majesty.

, a German Luthe-an divine and mathematician, but in this country known only as a chronologist, was born in 1632, at Wittemberg. He studied at Leipsic, and was afterwards professor of theology at Wittemberg, and at Dantzick. He was frequently involved in theological disputes, both with the Roman catholics and the Calvinists, from his intemperate zeal in favour of Lutheranism. He died at Wittemberg in 1682. He published some mathematical works; but was chiefly distinguished for his chronological and historical disquisitions, of which he published a considerable number from 1652 to 1680. One of the best and most useful, his “Breviarium Chronologicum,” was long known in this country by three editions (with improvements in each) of an English translation, by Richard Sault, called in the title F. R. S. but his name does not occur in Dr. Thomson’s list of the members of the Royal Society. Locke’s high commendation of this work probably introduced it as a useful manual of chronology. The edition of 1745, which, we believe, was the last, received many improvements and corrections, but it has since given way to lesser chronological systems.

, an ingenious artist, and the author of some valuable works on subjects of antiquity, was bora at Springfield, in Essex, Oct. 27, 1749, where his father, a man of some property, was a miller, but died when this son was only a year and a half old. His mother, however, took a tender care of his education, and placed him at Chelmsford school. At the age of fourteen he was apprenticed to the unfortunate William Wynne Ryland (See Ryland), and in 1770 became a student at the royal academy, where he had the gold and silver medals adjudged to him, the former for a painting in oil, his first effort, and the latter for the best academy-figure. The subject of his oil-painting was from the Æneid and it was no small triumph that his competitor was the celebrated Hamilton. After his apprenticeship had expired, he took up his residence in the family of his friend Mr. Thane; and in 1771 was first introduced to the British Museum, where he was employed to make some drawings. The rich stores of science and of art in that valuable repository, gave a new bias to his pursuits, and he now conceived some of those literary labours connected with his profession, which he afterwards executed; and such was his industry, that two years afterwards (1773) he published his first work, “The regal and ecclesiastical Antiquities of England,” 4to, and in June 1774, the first volume of what he then called “Jjopba TCngel-Cynnan -” or, complete views of the manners, customs, arms, habits, &.c. of the inhabitants of England, from the arrival of the Saxons to the time of Henry VIII.“A second volume appeared in 1775, and both were reprinted in 1797. This was a work of great research and labour, both in the preparation of the letter- press, and of the engravings, and he justly derived considerable reputation, on the score of accuracy and judgment. In 1777 and 1778 he published his” Chronicle of England,“in 2 vols. 4to, which he meant to have extended to six, but want of encouragement compelled him to relinquish his design. The work, however, is complete as far as it goes, and contains much valuable information, but is rather heavy, and not what is called a very readable book. In 1785 Mr. Strutt published the first volume of his” Dictionary of Engravers," and the second in 1786. In this he received considerable assistance from the late eminent sculptor, John Bacon, esq. As the first work of the kind executed in this country, it is deserving of high praise, and although far from being free of defects, still remains the only work of the kind on which reliance can be placed. The introductory history of engraving is particularly creditable to his judgment and industry.

, a German scholar, was born at Magdebourg, Sept. 27, 1619. He became professor of jurisprudence at Jena, and was called to the council of the dukes of Saxony. He gave to the public some strong proofs of his learning at Helmstadt, before the year 1653; but in that year he published a greater work, entitled “Syntagma Juris Feudulis;' 1 and, ten years after, a similar compilation of civil law, under the title of” Syntagma Juris Civilis.“He was twice married, and had in all twenty-six children. He lived to the age of seventythree, and died on the 15th of December, 1692. He had a frankness of manners that gained universal attachment. His form was robust, and his diligence so indefatigable, that he applied to every magistrate the expression of a Roman emperor,” Oportet stantem mori;" and so completely acted up to his own principle, that he made the report of a lawsuit a very short time before his death.

, a Scottish historian, was born at Edinburgh, in 1742. His father, Mr. George Stuart, who died in 17>3, was professor of humanity in that university, and a man of considerable eminence for classical taste and literature. Gilbert Stuart, having made the usual prepa' rations in the grammar-school and the university, applied himself to the study of jurisprudence. For thr-.t profession, however, he is said to have been disqualified by indolence: and he early began to indulge his passion for general literature, and boundless dissipation. Yt t his youth was not wasted altogether in idleness, for before he had completed his twenty-second year, he published “An Historical Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the British Constitution,” which had so much merit as to obtain for him the degree of doctor of laws, from the university of Edinburgh. After an interval of some years, in which he could not have neglected his studies, he produced, 2. “A View of Society in Europe, in its progress from rudeness to refinement; or inquiries concerning the history of laws, government, and manners.” This is a valuable work, and proves that he had meditated with much attention on the most important monuments of the middle ages. About the time when the first edition of this book appeared, Dr. Stuart applied for the professorship of public law in the university of Edinburgh; but being disappointed, removed soon after to London. He there became from 1768 to 1773, one of the writers of the Monthly Review. He then returned to Edinburgh, where he began a magazine and review, called from the name of that city, the first number of which appeared in October 1773. In this he was assisted by William Smellie (See Smellie); but owing to the virulent spirit displayed by the writers, it was obliged to be discontinued in 1776. In 1778 his View of Society' was republished. In 1782 he again visited London, and engaged in the Political Herald, and the English Review; but being attacked by two formidable disorders, the jaundice and the dropsy, he returned by sea to his native country, where he died, in his father’s house, August 13, 1786.

In 1649, he was elected student of Christ-church in Oxford; where, shewing himself too forward, saucy, and conceited, he was, as Mr. Wood relates, often kicked and beaten. However, through the interest of his patron, he was certainly of no small consequence; for the oath, called the Engagement, being framed by the parliament that same year, was some time after sent down to the university by him; and he procured some to be turned out, and others to be spared, according as he was influenced by affection or dislike. While he continued an under-graduate, it was usual with him to discourse in the public schools very fluently in Greek, which conveys no small idea of his learning. After he had taken a bachelor of arts degree, he went into Scotland, and served in the parliament army there from 1653 to 1655: then he returned to Oxford, and took a master’s degree in 1656; and, at the motion of Dr. Owen, was in 1657 made second-keeper of the Bodleian library, under Dr. Barlow. He made great use and advantage of this post for the assistance of his studies, and held it till 1659; when he was removed from it, as well as from his place of student of Christ church; for he published the same year, “A Vindication” of his patron sir Henry Vane; “An Essay on the good Old Cause;” and a piece, entitled “Light shining out of Darkness, with an Apology for the Quakers,” in which he reflected upon the clergy and the universities.

, an antiquary of much celebrity, descended from an antient family in Lincolnshire, was born at Holbech in that county, November 7, 1687. After having had the first part of his education at the free-school of that place, under the care of Mr. Edward Kelsal, he was admitted into Bene't-college in Cambridge, Nov. 7, 1703, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Favvcett, and chosen a scholar there in April following. While an under-graduate, he often indulged a strong propensity for drawing and designing; and began to form a collection of antiquarian books. He made physic, however, his principal study, and with that view took frequent perambulations through the neighbouring country, with the famous Dr. Hales, Dr. John Gray of Canterbury, and others, in search of plants; and made great additions to Ray’s “Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam;” which, with a map of the county, he was solicited to print; but his father’s death, and various domestic avocations, prevented it. He studied anatomy under Mr. Rolfe the surgeon attended the chemical lectures of signor Vigani and taking the degree of M. B. in 1709, made himself acquainted with the practical part of medicine under the great Dr. Mead at St. Thomas’s hospital. He first began to practise at Boston in his native county, where he strongly recommended the chalybeate waters of Stanfield near Folkingham. In 1717 he removed to London, where, on the recommendation of his friend Dr. Mead, he was soon after elected F. R. S. and was one of the first who revived that of the Antiquaries in 1718, to which last he was secretary for many years during his residence in town. He was also one of the earliest members of the Spalding society. He took the degree of M. D. at Cambridge in 1719, and was admitted a fellow of the College of Physicians in the year following, about which time (1720) he published an account of “Arthur’s Oon” in Scotland, and of “Graham’s dyke,” with plates, 4to. In the year 1722, he was appointed to read the Gulstonian Lecture, in which he gave a description and history of the spleen, and printed it in folio, 1723, together with some anatomical observations on the dissection of an elephant, and many plates coloured in imitation of nature. Conceiving that there were some remains of the Eleusinian mysteries in free-masonry, he gratified his curiosity, and was constituted master of a lodge (1723), to which he presented an account of a Roman amphitheatre at Dorchester, in 4to. After having been one of the censors of the College of Physicians, of the council of the Royal Society, and of the committee to examine into the condition of the astronomical instruments of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, he left London in 1726, and retired to Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he soon came into great request. The dukes of Ancaster and Rutland, the families of Tyrconnel, Gust, &c. &c. and most of the principal families in the country, were glad to take his advice. During his residence here, he declined an invitation from Algernon earl of Hertford, to settle as a physician at Marlborough, and another to succeed Dr. Hunter at Newark. In 1728 he married Frances daughter of Robert Williamson, esq. of Allington, near Grantham, a lady of good family and fortune. He was greatly afflicted with the gout, which used generally to confine him during the winter months. On this account, for the recovery of his health, it was customary with him to take several journeys in the spring, in which he indulged his innate love of antiquities, by tracing out the footsteps of Caesar’s expedition in this island, his camps, stations, &c. The fruit of his more distant travels was his “Itinerarium Curiosum; or, an Account of the Antiquities and Curiosities in his Travels through Great Britain, Centuria I.” adorned with one hundred copper-plates, and published in folio, London, 1724. This was reprinted after his death, in 1776, with two additional plates; as was also published the second volume, (consisting of his description of the Brill, or Caesar’s camp at Pancras,“IterBoreale,” 1725, and his edition of Richard of Cirencester , with his own notes, and those of Mr. Bertram of Copenhagen, with whom he corresponded, illustrated with 103 copper-plates engraved in the doctor’s lifetime. Overpowered with the fatigue of his profession, and repeated attacks of the gout, he turned his thoughts to the church; and, being encouraged in that pursuit hy archbishop Wake, was ordained at Croydon, July 20, 1720; and in October following was presented by lord-chancellor King to the living of All-Saints in Stamford . At the time of his entering on his parochial cure (1730), Dr. Rogers of that place had just invented his Oleum Artbriticum; which Dr. Stukeley seeing oihers use with admirable success, he was induced to do the like, and with equal advantage for it not only saved his joints, but, with the addition of a proper regimen, and leaving off the use of fermented liquors, he recovered his health and limbs to a surprising degree, ind ever after enjoyed a firm and active state of body, beyond any example in the like circumstances, to a good old age. This occasioned him to publish an account of the success of the external application of this oil in innumerable instances, in a letter to sir Hans Sloane, 1733; and the year after he published also, “A Treatise on the Cause and Cure of the Gout, from a new Rationale;” which, with an abstract of it, has passed through several editions. He collected some remarkable particulars at Stamford in relation to his predecessor bishop Cumberland; and, in 1736, printed an explanation, with an engraving, of a curious silver plate of Roman workmanship in basso relievo, found underground at Risley Park in Derbyshire; wherein he traces its journey thither, from the church of Bourges, to which it had been given by Exsuperius, called St. Swithin, bishop of Toulouse, about the year 205. He published also the same yea.- his “Palæographia Sacra, No. I. or, Discourses on the Monuments of Antiquity that relate to Sacred History,” in 4to, which he dedicated to sir Richard Kllys, bart. “from whom he had received many favours.” In this work (uhich was to have been continued in succeeding numbers) he undertakes to shew, how Heathen Mythology is derived from Sacred History, and that the Bacchus in the Poets is no other than the Jehovah in the Scripture, the conductor of the Israelites through the wilderness. In his country retirement he disposed his collection of Greek and Roman coins according to the order of the Scripture History; and cut out a machine in wood (on the plan of an Orrery), which shews the motion of the heavenly bodies, the course of the tide, &c. In 1737 he lost his wife and in 1738, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of Dr. Gale, dean of York, and sister to his intimate friends Roger and Samuel Gale, esquires; and from this time he often spent his winters in London. In 1740, he published an account of Stonehenge, dedicated to the duke of Ancaster, who had made him one of his chaplains, and given him the living of Somerby near Grantham the year before. In 1741, he preached the Thirtieth of January Sermon before the House of Commons; and in that year became one of the founders of the Egyptian society, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt. In 1743 he printed an account of lady Roisia’s sepulchral cell, lately discovered at Royston, in a tract, entitled “Palseographia Britannica, No. I.” to which an answer was published by Mr. Charles Parkin, in 1744. The doctor replied in “Palasographia Britannica, No. II.” 1746, giving an account of the origin of the universities of Cambridge and Stamford, both from Croylandabbey; of the Roman city Granta, on the north-side of the river, of the beginning of Cardike near Waterbeach, &c. To this Mr. Parkin again replied in 1748; but it does not appear that the doctor took any further notice of him. In 1747, the benevolent duke of Montagu (with whom he had become acquainted at the Egyptian society) prevailed on him to vacate his preferments in the country, by giving him the rectory of St. George, Queen-square, whence he frequently retired to Kentish-town, where the following inscription was placed over his door:

In the meantime, while this work was going on, Sturmius filled the office of professor of mathematics at Wolfenbuttel, and it was there he published his “Sciagraphia Templi Hierosolymitani,” in fol. In 1697 he obtained permission of the duke of Wolfenbuttel to travel, and went into the Netherlands and into France: the result of his observations, chiefly on subjects of architecture, he published in 1719, folio, with numerous plates, from his own designs. This work shows great skill in architecture, but, as his eulogist is disposed to allow, a taste somewhat fastidious, and a wish to estimate all merit in the art by certain preconceived opinions of his own. In 1702 he was appointed professor of mathematics in the university of Francfort on the Oder. The king of France having promised a reward to the inventor of a sixth order of architecture, Sturmius, among others, made an attempt, which he called the German order, and which he intended to hold a middle rank between the Ionic and the Corinthian. It is unnecessary to add that no attempt of this kind has succeeded.

, a law-writer, was an esquire’s son, as Wood says, but probably the son of sir Humphrey Style, knt. and bart. whose family are buried in Beckenham in Kent. He was born in 1603, and became a gentlemancommoner of Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1618; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for the law, left the university without a degree, and went to the Inner Temple. He was afterwards called to the bar, but, according to Wood, “pleased himself with a retired and studious condition.” He died in 1679, if he be the William Style buried that year at Beckenham, as Mr. Lysons conjectures with great probability. The most valued of his writings are his “Reports,” published in 1658, folio, from the circumstance of being the only cases extant of the common law courts for several years in the time of the usurpation, during which sir Henry Rolle, and afterwards John Glynn, sat as chief justices of the upper bench. His other works are, “The Practical Register, or the Accomplished Attorney,” 1657, 8vo, and “The Common Law epitomized, with directions how to prosecute and defend personal actions,” 8vo. Wood also mentions a non-professional work, translated from the Latin of John Michael Delher, a name we are unacquainted with, under the title of “Contemplations, Sighs, and Groans of a Christian,” Lond. 1640, 8vo, with a singular engraved title.

, a learned German divine, was born at Zurich June 26, 1619; became professor there of the Greek and Hebrew languages; and died at Heidelberg Nov. 8, 1684, according to Saxius. He was the compiler of a very useful work, called “Lexicon, sive Thesaurus Ecclesiastic us Patrum Graeconm):” the best edition of which is that of Amsterdam, 1728, 2 vols. fol. He had a son, Henry Suicer, distinguished by some literary productions, who was a professor, first at Zurich, then at Heidelberg, and who died in 1705.

At the end of three days, however, a prohibition against murdering and pillaging any more of the Protestants was published at Paris; and then Sully was suffered to quit his cell in the college of Btirgundy. He immediately saw two soldiers of the guard, agents to his father, entering the college, who gave his father a relation of what had happened to him; and, eight days after, he received a letter from him, advising him to continue in Paris, since the prince he served was not at liberty to leave it and adding, that he should follow the prince’s example in going to mass. Though the king of Navarre had saved his life by this submission, yet in other things he was treated very indifferently, and suffered a thousand capricious insults. He was obliged, against his will, to stay some years at the court of France; he knew very well how to dissemble his chagrin 5 and he often diverted it by gallantries, and the lady de Sauves, wife to one of the secretaries of state, became one of his chief mistresses. But still he did not neglect such political measures as seemed practicable, and he had a hand in those that were formed to take away the government from Catharine de Medicis, and to expel the Guises from court which that queen discovering, caused him and the duke of Alengon to be arrested, set guards upon them, and ordered them to be examined upon many heinous allegations. They were set at liberty by Henry III. for Charles IX. died, 1574, in the most exquisite torments and horrors, the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s -day having been always in his mind. Sully employed his leisure in the most advantageous manner he was able. He found it impracticable in a court to pursue the study of the learned languages, or of any thing called learning; but the king of Navarre ordered him to be taught mathematics and history, and all those exercises which give ease and gracefulness to the person; that method of educating youth, with a particular attention to the formation of the manners, being peculiar to Henry, who was himself educated in the same way.

At first the undertaking seemed attended with good omens: prince Henry was a zealous friend to it: the king consented to be deemed the founder, called the college after his own name, “King James’s college at Chelsea,” endowed it with the reversion of certain lands at Chelsea, which were fixed upon for its site, laid the first stone of the building, gave timber out of Windsor forest, issued his royal letters to encourage his subjects throughout the kingdom to contribute towards the completion of the structure; and as a permanent endowment, procured an act of parliament to enable the college to raise an annual rent, by supplying the City of London with water from the river Lea. It appears by the charter of incorporation, dated May 8, 1610, that the college consisted of a provost and twenty fellows, eighteen of whom were required to be in holy orders; the other two, who might be either laymen or divines, were to be employed in writing the annals of their times. Sutcliffe himself was the first provost; Camden and Haywood the first historians; and among the fellows we find the well-known names of Overall, Morton, Field, Ahbot, Howson, Spencer, Boys, &c. When a vacancy happened in any department, the successor was to he nominated and recommended by the vice-chancellor and heads of colleges in the two universities, and approved by the archbishop of Canterbury, the chancellor or' each university, and the bishop of London. The charter granted th college the power of using a common seal; various privileges and immunities, and licence to possess lands in mortmain to the value of 3000l. per ann.

It is uncertain at what time he became steward of the monastery of Sion near Brentford in Middlesex, but he occurs in this office in 1513, and had chambers in the monastery, where he frequently resided. Besides bestowing estates and money on this religions house, he bore the exr pense of publishing a splendid, and now very rare book, in honour of the house, called “The Orcharde of Syon.” In 1512, he was employed in purchasing the manor of Pinchepolles in Farringdon, Berkshire, with lands in Westbrook and Farnham in that county, which were given by Mrs. Morley, and constituted the first permanent benefaction bestowed on Brasen-nose college. He appears to have received the honour of knighthood in 152'J, about two years before his death, but the exact time of the latter event is not known. As an annual commemoration of him is observed by the society on the Sunday after Michaelmas, it may be inferred that he died about that time. His will, drawn up March 16, 1523-4, was proved November 7, 1524; and he is supposed to have been buried, either at Macclesfield, or in the monastery of Sion. His bequests are almost all of the religious or charitable kind. To these scanty memoirs we may add, in the grateful language of his biographer, that, “Unmarried himself, and not anxious to aggrandize his family, which had long ranked among the best in a county justly proud of its ancient gentry, sir Richard Sutton bestowed handsome benefactions and kind remembrances among his kinsmen; but he wedded the public, and made posterity his heir. An active coadjutor from the first to the bishop of Lincoln in laying the foundation of Brasen-nose college, he completed the building, revised the laws, and doubled.the revenues of the growing seminary, leaving it a perpetual monument of the consolidated wisdom and joint munificence of Smyth and of Sutton.”

While thus employed in military affairs, it appears that he made a very considerable accession of fortune, by purchasing of the bishop of Durham the manors of Gateshead and VVickham, with their valuable coal-mines, and in 1570 obtained a lease from the crown for the term of seventynine years: and this speculation was so successful, that in ten years afterwards he was reputed to be worth 50,000l. a very great sum in those days. He was not less successful in 1582, when some time after his return to London, he married Elizabeth, daughter of John Gardiner, esq. of Grove-place in the parish of Chalfont St. Giles in Buckinghamshire, and widow of John Dudley of Stoke Newington in Middlesex, esq. a near relation of the earl of Warwick. By this lady he had a considerable estate, and a moiety of the manor of Stoke Newington, where he resided as his country house. In the city about the same time he purchased a large house near Broken Wharf, Thames-street, where he began the business of merchant, and with such skill and success, that he was soon considered as at the head of his profession, and had vast concerns abroad. These last he contrived to be of importance even to his country, for when the design of the Spanish armada was first discovered by sir Francis Walsingham, Mr. Sutton had a chief hand in so draining the bank of Genoa, as to impede the Spanish monarch’s supplies, until England had time to prepare her defence. Mr. Sutton was likewise one of the chief victuallers of the navy, and is thought to have been master of the bark called Sutton of 70 tons and 3O men, one of the volunteers which attended the English fleet Against the Armada in 1588. He is likewise said to have been a commissioner for prizes under lord Charles Howard, high admiral of England, and going to sea with letters of marque, he took a Spanish ship worth 20,000l.

In August 1762 he was appointed colonel of the regiment of infantry of Astracan, which was in garrison at Petersburgh; and when the ceremonial of her coronation called the empress to Moscow, she ordered him to remain at Petersburgh, where she charged him with the execution of some very important commissions. After her return, his regiment was sent to distant service, and was replaced by the infantry of Susdal, consisting of more than a thousand men, of which he received the command in 1763. In autumn of the following year he went into garrison at Ladoga. In 1768 he was advanced to the rank of brigadier; and as the war was just commenced against the confederates of Poland, he was ordered to repair with all speed to the frontiers of that kingdom in the course of November, and in the most unfavourable season of the year. During the winter he was continually engaged in improving his regiment in their manoeuvres, and habituating them to every action that would be required, and every circumstance that might happen in a state of actual service. In the following summer of 1769 these troops were stationed on the frontiers of Poland, from whence they were sent to Warsaw, a march of eighty German miles, which he completed in twelve days. He overcame Kotelpowski, near Warsaw, and defeated and dispersed the troops commanded by the two Pulavvskis. He afterwards took up his quarters at Lublin; and the Russian army in Poland requiring the establishment of four major-generals, he was advanced to that rank on the 1st of January, 1770.

, a Swedish enthusiast, and the founder of a well-known, although, we trust, declining sect, was born at Stockholm J.n. 29, 1689. His father was bishop of West Gothia, and it may be supposed that his education was good, since he published a volume of Latin poetry when he was only twenty years old. The title was, “Ludus Heliconius, sive Carmina Miscellanea, quie variis in locis cecinit.” The same year he began his travels; and having visited England, Holland, France, and Germany, returned in 1714 to Stockholm, where two years after, he was appointed by Charles XII. assessor of the metallic college. His studies during this part of his life, were chiefly devoted to mathematics and natural philosophy; and he was essentially useful to his king by enabling him to convey his heavy artillery by water, where they could not go by land. He published about this period, many scientih'cal and philosophical works; and succeeding to the favour of queen Ulrica Kleanora, after the death of Charles XI I. was by her ennobled in 171I>. In pursuance of his duty, as belonging to the metallic college, he travelled to view the mines, and then inspected aiso the manufactures of his country. In consequence of this, he published several tracts on subjects relating to the philosophy of the arts. He returned to Stockholm in 1722,;.nd divided his time between the duties of his ofiice and his private studies. In 1733, he had completed his great work, entitled “Opera Philosophica et Mineralia,” which was printed under his direction in 1734, partly at Dresden, and partly at Leipsic. It forms 3 vols. folio, is illustrated hy plates, and is written with great strength of judgment. In 1720, he had been admitted into the society of sciences at Upsal; and between that and 1724, had received a similar honour from the royal academy at Stockholm, and that of Petersburgh. He corresponded also with many learned foreigners. But the time was now approaching when all the desire of baron Swedenborg, for literary or other worldly distinction, was to be absorbed in feelings of a sublimer nature. Whether too intense an application to study had disordered, or a natural tendency to enthusiasm had inflamed his mind, he conceived himself miraculously called to the office of revealing the most hidden arcana. “In the year 1743,” he says, in one of his works, “the Lord was graciously pleased to manifest himself to me, in a personal appearance; to open in me a sight of the spiritual world, and to enable me to converse with spirits and angels; and this privilege has continued with me to this day.” From this time, he devoted his very able pen to such subjects as this most extraordinary state of mind suggested. He published, “De cultu et Amore Dei,” Lond. 1745, 4to; “De telluribus in mundo nostro solari,” 1758 “De Equo albo in Apocalypsi,” 1758 “De nova Hierosolyma” “De Ccelo et Inferno” “Sapientia angelica de Divina Providentia,” Amsterdam, 1764 “Vera Christiana religio,” Amst. 1771 and many other books. He particularly visited Amsterdam and London, where these extravagant works were published, and where they have since been translated by his admirers. One of his fancies about the spiritual world is, that it admits not of space: yet he tells us, that a man is so little changed after death, that he does not even know that he is not living in the present world; that he eats and drinks, and even enjoys conjugal delights, as in the present world; that the resemblance between the two worlds is so great, that in the spiritual there are cities, palaces, houses, books, merchandise, &c. &c. Universal Theology, vol. J. p. 734. This extraordinary man died in London, March 29, 1772; his remains lay in state, and were afterwards deposited in a vault in the Swedish church near Radcliff-highway.

, an illustrious English wit, and justly celebrated also for his political knowledge, was descended from a very ancient family, and born Nov. 30, 1667. His grandfather, Mr. Thomas Swift, was vicar of Goodrich in Herefordshire, and married Mrs. Elizabeth Dryden, aunt of Dryden the poet; by whom he had six sons, Godwin, Thomas, Dryden, William, Jonathan, and Adam. Thomas was bred at Oxford, but died young; Godwin was a barrister of Gray’s-inn; and William, Dryden, Jonathan, and Adam, were attornies. Godwin having married a relation of the old marchioness of Ormond, the old duke of Ormond made him attorney-general in the palatinate of Tipperary in Ireland. Ireland was at this time almost without lawyers, the rebellion having converted men of all conditions into soldiers. Godwin, therefore, determined to attempt the acquisition of a fortune in that kingdom, and the same motive induced his four brothers tO'go with him. Jonathan, at the age of about twenty-three, and before he went to Ireland, married Mrs. Abigail Erick, a gentlewoman of Leicestershire; and about two years after left her a widow with one child, a daughter, and pregnant with another, having no means of subsistence but an annuity of 20l. which her husband had purchased for her in England, immediately after his marriage. In this distress she was taken into the family of Godwin, her husband’s eldest brother; and there, about seven months after his death, delivered of a son, whom she called Jonathan, in remembrance of his father, and who was afterwards the celebrated dean of St. Patrick’s.

During all this time he received no gratuity or reward till 1713; and then he accepted the deanery of St. Patrick’s, Dublin. A bishopric had been some “time before intended for him by the queen; but archbishop Sharpe having represented him to her majesty as a man whose Christianity was very questionable, and being supported in this by a certain very great lady, it was given to another. He immediately crossed the channel, to take possession of his new dignity but did not stay in Ireland more than a fortnight, being urged by an hundred letters to hasten back, and reconcile the lords Oxford and Bolingbroke. When he returned, he found their animosity increased; and, having predicted their ruin from this very cause, he laboured to bring about a reconciliation, as that upon which the whole interest of their party depended. Havin<* attempted this by various methods in vain, he went to a friend’s house in Berkshire, where he continued till the queen’s death; and, while he was at this place, wrote a discourse called” Free thoughts on the present state of affairs," which, however, was not published till some time after.

Before we attend Swift to Ireland, it is necessary to give a little history of his Vanessa, because his connections with her were made in England. Among other persons with whom he was intimately acquainted during the gay part of his life, was Mrs. Vanhomrigh. She was a lady of good family in Ireland, and became the wife of Mr. Vanhomrigh, first a merchant of Amsterdam, then of Dublin, where he was raised by king William, upon his expedition into Ireland, to very great places. Dying in 1703, he left two sons and two daughters; but the sons soon after dying, his whole fortune, which was considerable, fell to the daughters. In 1709, the widow and the two young ladies came to England, where they were visited by persons of the first quality; and Swift, lodging near them, used to be much there, coming and going without any ceremony, as if he had been one of the family. During this familiarity, he became insensibly a kind of preceptor to the young ladies, particularly the eldest, who was then about twenty years old, was much addicted to reading, and a great admirer of poetry. Hence admiring, as was natural, such a character as that of Swift, she soon passed from admiration to love; and, urged a little perhaps by vanity, which would have been highly gratified by an alliance with the first wit of the age, she ventured to make the doctor a proposal of marriage. He affected at fust to believe her 'in jest, then to rally her on so whimsical a choice, and at last to put her off without absolute refusal; and, while he was in this situation, he wrote the poem called “Cadenus and Vanessa.” It was written in 1713, a short time before he left Vanessa and the rest of his friends in England, and returned to the place of his exile, as he used frequently to call it. In 1714, Mrs. Vanhomrigh died and, having lived very expensively, left some debts, which it not being convenient for her daughters, who had also debts of their own, to pay at present, to avoid an arrest they followed the dean into Ireland.

As he lived much in solitude, he frequently amused himself with writing; and it is very remarkable, that although his mind was greatly depressed, and his principal enjoyment was at an end when Mrs. Johnson died, yet there is aji air of levity and trifling in some of the pieces he wrote afterwards, that is not to be found in any other: such in particular are his “Directions to Servants,” and several of his letters to his friend Dr. Sheridan. In 1733, when the attempt was made to repeal the test act in Ireland, the Dissenters often affected to call themselves brother-protestants, and fellow-christians, with the members of the established church. Upon this occasion the dean wrote a short copy of verses, which so provoked one Bettesworth, a lawyer, and member of the Irish parliament, that he swore, in the hearing of many persons, to revenge himself either by murdering or maiming the author; and, for this purpose, he engaged his footman, with two ruffians, to secure the dean wherever he could be found. This being known, thirty of the nobility and gentry within the liberty of St. Patrick’s waited upon the dean in form, and presented a paper subscribed with their names, in which they solemnly engaged, in behalf of themselves and the rest of the liberty, to defend his person and fortune, as the friend and benefactor of his country. When this paper was delivered, Swift was in bed, deaf and giddy, yet made a shift to dictate a proper answer. These fits of deafness and giddiness, which were the effects of his surfeit before he was twenty years old, became more frequent and violent in proportion as he grew into years: and in 1736, while he was writing a satire on the Irish parliament, which he called “The Legion Club,” he was seized with one of these fits, the effect of which was so dreadful, that he left the poem unfinished, and never afterwards attempted a composition, either in verse or prose, that required a course of thinking, or perhaps more than one sitting to finish.

From this time his memory was perceived gradually to decline, and his passions to pervert his understanding; and in 1741, he was so very bad as to be utterly incapable of conversation. Strangers were not permitted to approach him, and his friends found it necessary to have guardians appointed of his person and estate. Early in 1742, his reason was subverted, and his rage became absolute madness. In October his left eye swelled to the size of an egg, and several large boils broke out on his arms and body; the extreme pain of which kept him awake near a month, and during one week it was with difficulty that five persons restrained him, by mere force, from pulling out his eyes. Upon the subsiding of these tumours, he knew those about him; and appears so far to have recovered his understanding and temper, that there were hopes he might once more enjoy society. These hopes, however, were but of short duration; for, a few days afterwards, he sunk into a state of total insensibility, and could not, without great difficulty, be prevailed on to walk across the room. This was the effect of another bodily disease, his brain being loaded with water. Mr. Stevens, an ingenious clergyman lin, pronounced this to be the case during his illness; and, upon opening his body, it appeared that he was not mistaken. After the dean had continued silent a whole year in this state of helpless idiotism, his housekeeper went into his room on the 30th of November in the morning, and told him, “it was his birth-day, and that bonfires and illuminations were preparing to celebrate it as usual:” to which he immediately replied, “It is all folly; they had better let it alone.” Some other instances of short intervals of sensibility and reason, after his madness ended in stupor, seem to prove, that his disorder, whatever it was, had not destroyed, but only suspended, the powers of his mind. In 1744, he now and then called his servant by name; and once attempting to speak to him, but not being able to express his meaning, he shewed signs of much uneasiness, and at last said, “I am a fool.” Once afterwards, as his servant was taking away his watch, he said, “Bring it here:” and when the same servant was breaking a large hard coal, he said, “That is a stone, you blockhead.” From this time he was perfectly silent till the latter end of October 1745, and then died, without the least pang or conYu4sion, in the seventy-eighth year of his age.

, deserves a fuller account than can now be given of a learned and diligent man, unfortunately altogether un patronized, who undertook, and in part executed, a translation of the works of Plato. His proposals for this great undertaking were published in a quarto tract in 1759; and he produced successively, between that time and 1767, translation of the “lo, a discourse on poetry,” of “The Greater Hippias,” “The Lesser Hippias,” “The Banquet, Part I.” and “The Banquet, Part II.” He is said to have lived for some years, and finally to have died, in great indigence. The Gentleman’s Magazine places his death on April the 1st, 1787, and adds, that he was born in 1710, and educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. April 30, 1734. In an account published by the society called the Literary Fund, the following narrative of his death is given: “During the summer recess of the year 1788, an event took place, which tarnished the character of English opulence and humanity, and afflicted the votaries of knowledge. Floyer Sydenham, the well-known translator of Plato, one of the most useful, if not one of the most competent Greek scholars of his age; a man revered for his knowledge, and beloved for the candour of his temper and the gentleness of his manners, died in consequence of having been arrested, and detained, for a debt to a victualler, who had, for some time, furnished his frugal dinner. At the news of that event, every friend of literature felt a mixture of sorrow and shame; and one of the members of a club at the prince of Wales’s coffeehouse proposed, that it should adopt, as its object and purpose, some means to prevent similar afflictions, and to assist deserving authors and their families in distress.” Whether the account reported to these gentlemen, of the time and manner of Sydenham’s death was accurate or not, the friends of literature and humanity will feel great consolation in finding that it gave occasion to a society so benevolent in its designs; which arose 3 after a few changes and modifications, out of the proposal above-mentioned. The society is now in a flourishing and improving state, and has given very timely and important assistance to many deserving authors.

His works have been collected and frequently printed at London in one volume 8vo. The last edition is that by John Swan, M. D. of Newcastle in Staffordshire, 1742. To this is prefixed a life of Dr. Sydenham, by Dr. Johnson, which we have chiefly followed in the preceding account. His works were also printed at Leipsic in J 711, at Geneva in 1716, in 2 vols. 4to, and at Leyden in 8vo. They were written by himself in English, but translated afterwards into Latin, of which it is our opinion he was fully capable, although these translations, as already noticed, have been attributed to Dr. Mapletoft and others. The last English edition is that by Dr. George Wallis, 1788, 2 vols. 8vo, with notes and opinions of subsequent medical writers. Sydenham has frequently been called the father of physic among the moderns. He tells us, in the preface to his works, that “the increase and perfection of the medical art is to be advanced by these two means: by composing an history of distempers, or a natural and exact description of distempers and their symptoms; and by deducing and establishing a method of cure from thence.” This is the way which that great delineator of the right road to real knowledge in all its various branches, lord Bacon, had pointed out; and its being more closely pursued by Sydenham than by any modern physician before him, is what has justly entitled him to those high encomiums which have ever been paid him. Sir Richard Blackmore allows, and all are now convinced, that Sydenham, “who built all his maxims and rules of practice upon repeated observations on the nature and properties of diseases, and the power of remedies, has compiled so good an history of distempers, and so prevalent a method of cure, that he has improved and advanced the healing art much more than Dr. Willis with all his curious speculations and fanciful hypotheses.” He relates of himself, in his dedication to Dr. Mapletoft, that ever since he had applied himself to the practice of physic, he had been of opinion, and the opinion had been every day more and more confirmed in him, that the medical art could not be learned so surely as by use and experience; and that he, who should pay the nicest and most accurate attention to the symptoms of distempers, would infallibly succeed best in searching out the true means of cure. “For this reason,” says he, “I gave myself up entirely to thjs method of proceeding, perfectly secure and confident, that, while 1 followed nature as my guide, I could never err.” He tells him afterwards, that Mr. Locke approved his method, which he considered as no small sanction to it; and what he says upon this occasion of Mr. Locke is worth transcribing: “Nosti prseterea, quern huic meiE methodo suffragantem habeam, qui earn intimius per omnia perspexerat, utrique nostrum conjunctissimum dominum Joannem Locke; quo quidem viro, sive ingenio judicioque acri & subacto, sive etiam antiquis, hoc est, optimis moribus, vix superiorem quenquam, inter eos qui nunc.sunt homines repertum in confido; paucissimns rertci pares.” There are some Latin elegiac verses by Mr. Locke, addressed to Sydenham, prefixed to his 4< Treatise upon Severs." Mr. Granger has remarked that Sydenham received higher honours from foreign physicians than from his countrymen. This, however, applies only to his contemporaries, for no modern English physician has ever mentioned Sydenham unless in terms of high veneration. The encomiums of Boerhaave and Haller are well known to medical readers. His great merit consists in the accurate descriptions which he has left us of several diseases which first became conspicuous in his time. His account of the smallpox, and of his medical treatment of that disease, is admirable, and contributed in no small degree to establish his celebrity. He was the first person who introduced the cooling regimen in fevers, a method of treatment frequently attended with the happiest effects, though it must be acknowledged that he did not sufficiently distinguish between the typhus and the inflammatory fever, and on that account he sometimes carried his bleedings to an excess. He contributed also essentially to introduce the Peruvian bark as a cure for intermittents.

, an ancient fathei: and bishop of the Christian church, flourished at the beginning of the fifth century. He was born at Cyrene in Africa, a town situated upon the borders of Egypt, and afterwards travelled to th neighbouring country for improvement, where he happily succeeded in his studies under the celebrated female philo-r sopher Hypatia, who presided at that time over the Platonic school at Alexandria, where also the eminent mathematicians Theon, Pappus, and Hero taught. Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who wrote annotations on a piece of Synesius, called “De insomniis,” represents him as a man of prodigious parts and learning and says, that “there was nothing he did not know, no science wherein he did not excel, no mystery in which he was not initiated and deeply versed.” His works are in high esteem with the curious; and his epistles, in Suidas’s opinion, are admirable, and in that of Photius, as well as Evagrius, “elegant, agreeable, sententious, and learned.' 1 Synesius was a man of noble birth, which added no less weight to his learning, than that reflected lustre on his quality; and both together procured him great credit and authority. He went, about the year 400, upon an embassy, which lasted three years, to the emperor Arcadius at Constantinople, on the behalf of his country, which was miserably harassed by the auxiliary Goths and other barbarians; and it was then, as he himself tells \is, that” with greater boldness than any of the Greeks, he pronounced before the emperor an oration concerning government.“About the year 410, when the citizens of Ptolemais applied to Theophilus of Alexandria for a bishop, Synesius was appointed and consecrated, though he took all imaginable pains to decline the honour. He declared himself not at all convinced of the truth of some of the most important articles of Christianity. He was verily persuaded of the existence of the soul before its union with the body; he could not^ conceive the resurrection of the body; nor did he believe that the world should ever be destroyed. He also owned himself to have such an affection for his wife, that he would not consent, either to be separated from her, or to Jive in a clandestine manner with her; and told Theophilus, that, if he did insist upon making him a bishop, he must leave him in possession of his wife and all his notions. Theophilus at length submitted to these singular terms,” upon a presumption,“it is said,” that a man, whose life and manners were in every respect so exemplary, could not possibly be long a bishop without being enlightened with heavenly truth. Nor,“continues Cave,” was Theophilus deceived; for Synesius was no sooner seated in hit bishopric, than he easily acquiesced in the doctrine of the resurrection.“Baronius says in his Annals,” that he does not believe these singularities of Synesius to have been his real sentiments; but only that he pretended them, with a view of putting a stop to the importunities of Theophilus, and of warding off this advancement to a bishopric, which was highly disagreeable to him." That the advancement was highly disagreeable to Synesius, is very certain; but it is likewise as certain, that Baronius’s supposition is without all foundation. There is extant a letter of Synesius to his brother, of which an extract may be given, as illustrative of his character and opinions.