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

, probably a relation of the preceding, was born in the parish of St. Giles, Reading, in 1610, and was a great enthusiast in astrological studies. He published “An introduction to Astrology,” 1682, 8vo, to which is prefixed an engraving of him mentioned by Granger. He was the author of a large supplement to Culpepper’s Herbal; to which is added “An account of all the Drugs that were sold in the druggists and apothecaries shops, with their dangers and connexions.” To this book is subjoined “A new tract of Chirurgery,” 8vo. He was also author of “The Astrological practise of Physick, discovering the true method of curing all kinds of diseases, by such herbs and plants as grow in our nation,” 8vo. In the Biographia Britannica, is an account of a manuscript which had been seen by Dr. Campbell, the author of that article, and had been bought at the sale of the library of an eminent physician near Covent-garden. In the first leaf it was said to be written by Mr. J. Blagrave, and was dedicated to Mr. B. (Backhouse) of Swallowfield. It appeared, from some mention of the royal society, and its members, to have been written in 1669, or 1670. The title was, “A remonstrance in favour of Ancient Learning against the proud pretensions of the moderns, more especially in respect to the doctrine of the Stars.” From the distribution of the several heads, and the extracts from them, it seems to be the work of an ingenious writer; one far superior to Joseph Blagrave in style and composition; and might, possibly, as Mr. Coates conjectures, be an unpublished work of Mr. John Blagrave, the mathematician, by whose will he inherited an estate in Swallowfield, yet we know not how to reconcile this with the dates respecting the royal society, which certainly did not exist in the mathematician’s time. This Joseph Blagrave died in 1679.

, D.D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born at Edinburgh, April 7, 1718. His father, John Blair, a respectable merchant in that city, was a descendant of the ancient family of Blair, in Ayrshire, and grandson of the famous Mr. Robert Blair, minister of St. Andrew’s, chaplain to Charles I. and one of the most zealous and distinguished clergymen of the peilod in which he lived. Of the two sons who survived him, David, the eldest, was a clergyman of eminence in Edinburgh, and father to Mr. Robert Blair, minister of Athelstanford, the author of the well-known poem entitled “The Grave.” From his youngest son, Hugh, who engaged in business as a merchant, and had the honour to fill a high station in the magistracy of Edinburgh, the object of the present memoir descended.

Dr. Blair was educated for the church, and while he prosecuted his studies at the college of Edinburgh with great success and approbation, a circumstance occurred which determined the bent of his genius towards polite literature. An essay “On the beautiful,” written by him when a student of logic, in the usual course of academical exercises, had the good fortune to attract the notice of professor Stevenson, and with circumstances honourable to the author, was appointed to be read in public, at the conclusion of the session, a mark of distinction which made a deep impression on his mind.

At this time, Dr. Blair commenced a method of study which contributed much to the accuracy and extent of his knowledge, and which he continued to practise occasionally, even after his reputation was fully established. It consisted in making abstracts of the most important works which he read, and in digesting them according to the train of his own thoughts. History, in particular, he resolved to study in this manner; and, in concert with some of his youthful associates, he constructed a very comprehensive scheme of chronological tables, for receiving into its proper place every important fact that should occur. The scheme devised by this young student for his own private use, was afterwards improved, filled up, and given to the public by his learned friend Dr. John Blair, prebendary of Westminster, in his valuable work “The Chronology and History of the World.”

In 1739 Dr. Blair took his degree of A.M. and in 1741 was licensed to preach by the presbytery of Edinburgh, and his first living was the parish of Colessie, in Fife but in 1743 he was recalled to his native city, as second minister of the Canongate church, in which he continued eleven years. In 1754 he was translated from the Canongate to lady Yester’s, one of the city churches, and in 1758 he was promoted to the high church of Edinburgh, the most important ecclesiastical charge in that kingdom.

Hitherto his attention seems to have been devoted almost exclusively to the attainment of professional excellence, and to the regular discharge of his parochial duties. No production of his pen had yet been given to the world by himself, except two occasional sermon*, some translations in verse of passages of Scripture for the psalmody of the church, and a few articles in the Edinburgh Review, a publication begun in 1755, and conducted for a short time by some of the ablest men in that kingdom. But, standing as he now did, at the head of his’ profession, and released by the labour of former years from what his biographer, rather incautiously, calls the drudgery of weekly preparation for the pulpit, he began to think seriously on a plan for teaching to others that art which had contributed so mueh to the establishment of his own fame. With this view he communicated to his friends a scheme of lectures on composition; and having obtained the approbation of the university, he began to read them in the college on the llth of December, 1759. Before this, he had received the degree of D. D. from the university of St. Andrew’s, a literary honour which at that time was very rare in Scotland. His first course of lectures were so much approved, that the patrons of the university, convinced that they would form a valuable addition to the system of education, agreed in the following summer to institute a rhetorical class under his direction, as a permanent part of their academical establishment; and on the 7th of April, 1762, his majesty was graciously pleased “To erect and endow a professorship of rhetoric and belles lettres in the university of Edinburgh, and to appoint Dr. Blair, in consideration of his approved qualifications, regius professor thereof, with a salary of 70l.” These lectures he published in 1783, when he retired from the labours of the office; and the general voice of the public has pronounced them to be a most judicious, elegant, and comprehensive system of rules for forming the style, and cultivating the taste of youth.

About this time he was employed in “rescuing from oblivion the poems of Ossian.” The controversy respecting the authenticity of these poems is well known. The biographer of Dr. Blair asserts that it was by the solicitation of Dr. Blair and Mr. John Home (the author of Douglas), that Mr. Macpherson was induced to publish his “Fragments of Ancient Poetry,” and that their patronage was of essential service in procuring the subscription which enabled him to undertake his tour through the Highlands for collecting the materials of Fingal, and of those other productions which bear the name of Ossian. To these, in 1763, Dr. Blair prefixed a “Dissertation” of the critical kind, which procured him much reputation, whatever may be thought of the subject. The great objects of his literary ambition being now attained, his talents were for many years consecrated solely to the important and peculiar employments of his station. But his chief fame was yet to rest upon the publication of his sermons, and the fate of them furnishes a singular instance of the vicissitudes of literary history. His biographer, however, relates this without any of the circumstances that are most interesting. He contents himself with saying that "It was not till the year 1777 that he could be induced to favour the world with a volume of the sermons which had so long furnished instruction and delight to his own congregation. But this volume being well received, the public approbation encouraged him to proceed three other volumes followed at different intervals; and all of them experienced a degree of success of which few publications can boast. They circulated rapidly and widely wherever the English tongue extends they were soon translated into almost all the languages of Europe and his present majesty, with that wise attention to the interests of religion and literature which distinguishes his reign, was graciously pleased to judge them worthy of a public reward. By a royal mandate to the exchequer in Scotland, dated July 25th, 1780, a pension of 200l. a year was conferred on their author, which continued unaltered till his death.

Mr. Boswell, in his “Life of Dr. Johnson,” informs us that Dr. Blair transmitted the manuscript of his first volume of sermons to Mr. Strahan, the king’s printer, who, after keeping it for some time, wrote a letter to him, discouraging the publication. Such at first was the unpropitious state of one of the most successful theological books that has ever appeared. Mr. Strahan, however, had sent one of the sermons to Dr, Johnson, for his opinion and after his unfavourable letter to Dr. Blair had been sent off, he received from Johnson on Christmas-eve, 1776, a note in which was the following paragraph “I have read over Dr. Blair’s first sermon with more than approbation to say it is good, is to say too little.” Mr. Strahan had very soon after this time, a conversation with Dr, Johnson concerning them and then he very candidly wrote again to Dr. Blair, enclosing Johnson’s note, and agreeing to purchase the volume, for which he and Mr. Cadell gave one hundred pounds. The sale was so rapid and extensive, and the approbation of the public so high, that, to their honour be it recorded, the proprietors made Dr. Blair a present, first of one sum, and afterwards of another, of fifty pounds; thus voluntarily doubling the stipulated price and when he prepared another volume, they gave him at once three hundred pounds and, we believe, for the others he had six hundred pounds each. A fifth volume was prepared by him for the press, and published after his death, 1801, to which is added a “Short account of his Life” by James Finlayson, D. D. of which we have availed ourselves in the preceding account. The sermons contained in this last volume were composed at very different periods of his life, but were all written out anew in his own hand, and in many parts re-composed, during the course of the summer 1800, after he had completed his eighty-second year.

Dr. Blair had been naturally of a feeble constitution of body, but, as he grew up, it acquired greater firmness and vigour. Though liable to occasional attacks from some of the sharpest and most painful diseases that afflict the human frame, he enjoyed a general state of good health and, through habitual cheerfulness, temperance, and care, survived the usual term of human life. For some years he felt himself unequal to the fatigue of instructing his very large congregations from the pulpit; and under the impression which this feeling produced, he was heard at times to say, “that he was left almost the last of his contemporaries.” Yet he continued to the end in the regular discharge of all his other official duties, and particularly in giving advice to the afflicted, who, from different quarters of the kingdom, solicited his correspondence. His last summer was devoted to the preparation of the fifth volume of his sermons; and, in the course of it, he exhibited a vigour of understanding, and capacity of exertion, equal to that of his best days. He began the winter pleased with himself, on account of the completion of this work; and his friends were flattered with the hope that he might live to enjoy the accession of emolument and fame which he expected it would bring. But the seeds of a mortal disease were lurking unperceived within him. On the 24th of December 1800, he complained of a pain in his bowels, which, during that and the following day, gave him but little uneasiness; and he received as usual the visits of his friends. On the afternoon of the 26th, the symptoms became violent and alarming he felt that he was approaching the end of his appointed course; and, retaining to the last moment the full possession of his mental faculties, he expired on the morning of the 27th, universally lamented through the city which he had so long instructed and adorned.

Although the popularity of Dr. Blair’s “Sermons” exceeds all that we read of in the history of literature, yet it does not appear to us to be of that species arising from judgment as well as taste, which leads to permanent reputation. They happened to hit the taste of the age, to whom compositions so highly polished, were somewhat new and they were introduced by that fashionable patronage which common readers find irresistible. They differ from all other compositions under the same title, in being equally adapted to readers of every class; and they were recommended to the perusal of the young of every religious persuasion, as containing nothing that could interfere with their opinions. Their character is that of moral discourses, but as such they never could have attained their popularity without that high polish of style which was the author’s peculiar object. Under this are concealed all the defects which attach to them as sermons, a name which they can never deserve when compared with the works of the most eminent English and Scotch divines. It may be doubted, therefore, whether his “Lectures” will not prolong his fame to a much later period. Although he possessed a sound judgment rather than a vigorous mind, and had more taste than genius, yet, perhaps, on the former account his lectures may always be recommended as an useful introduction to polite literature. “They contain,” says an excellent critic, “an accurate analysis of the principles of literary composition, in all the various species of writing a happy illustration of those principles by the most beautiful and apposite examples, drawn from the best authors both ancient and modern; and an admirable digest of the rules of eiocution, as applicable to the oratory of the pulpit, the bar, and the popular assembly. They do not aim at the character of a work purely original for this, as the author justly considered, would have been to circumscribe their utility; neither in point of style are they polished with the same degree of care that the author has bestowed on some of his other works, as for example, his” Sermons.“Yet, so useful is the object of these lectures, so comprehensive their plan, and such the excellence of the matter they contain, that, if not the most splendid, they will, perhaps, prove the most durable monument of their author’s reputation.”

was born and bred in Scotland, and ordained and beneficed in the episcopal church there but meeting with some discouragements under an unsettled state of affairs, and having a prospect of discharging his ministerial function more usefully elsewhere, he quitted his preferments, and came into England near the end of Charles the Second’s reign. It was not long before he was taken notice of by Compton, bishop of London, who prevailed with him to go as missionary to Virginia, about 1685 where, by exemplary conduct, and unwearied labours in the work of the ministry, he did good service to religion, and gained to himself a good report amongst all: so that bishop Compton being well apprised of his worth, made choice of him, about 1689, as his commissary for Virginia, the highest office in the church there; which, however, did not take him off from his pastoral care, but only rendered him the more shining example of it to the rest of the clergy.

While his thoughts were intent upon doing good in his office, he observed with concern that the want of schools, and proper seminaries for religion and learning, so impeded all attempts for the propagation of the gospel, that little could be hoped for, without first removing that obstacle. He therefore formed a vast design of erecting and endowing a college in Virginia, at Williamsburgh, the capital of that country, for professors and students in academical learning: in order to which, he had himself set on foot a voluntary subscription, amounting to a great sum and, not content with that, came over into England in 1693, to solicit the affair at court. Queen Mary was so well pleased with the noble design, that she espoused it with a particular zeal and king William also very readily concurred with her in it. Accordingly a patent passed for erecting and endowing a college, by the name of the William and Mary college; and Mr. Blair, who had the principal hand in laying, soliciting, and concerting the design, was appointed president of the college. He was besides rector of Williamsburgh in Virginia, and president of the council in that colony. He continued president of the college near fifty, and a minister of the gospel above sixty years. He was a faithful labourer in God’s vineyard, an ornament to his profession, and his several offices and in a good old age went to enjoy the high prize of his calling, in the year 1743. His works are “Our Saviour’s divine sermon on the mount, explained and the pi-actice of it recommended in divers sermons and discourses,” Lond. 1742, 4vols. 8vo. The executors of Dr. Bray (to whom the author had previously transferred his copy-right) afterwards published a new impression, revised and corrected. Dr. Waterland, who wrote a preface to the new edition, calls these sermons a “valuable treasure of sound divinity and practical Christianity.”

, a monk of the order of St. Benedict, was born in the county of Fife, in Scotland, in the reign of king Alexander III. and educated with the celebrated sir William Wallace, at the school of Dundee. He then went over to France, where he studied for some time in the university of Paris, and became a monk of the order of St. Benedict. On his return to Scotland, he found his country in great confusion, owing to the death of Alexander III. without issue, and the contests of various competitors for the throne. At first, therefore, he retired to the house of the Benedictines at Dumfermline but when, sir William Wallace was made governor or viceroy of the kingdom in 1294, Blair became his chaplain, and being by this means an eye-witness of most of his actions, he composed the history of his life in Latin verse. Of this a, fragment only is left, which was copied by sir James BaU four out of the Cottonian library, and published in 1705, by sir Robert Sibbald, the celebrated botanist. It appears to have been written in 1327 and what remains is translated in Hume’s “History of the Douglasses.” Blair, the exact period of whose death is uncertain, is sometimes called John, and sometimes Arnold, which latter name he is said to have adopted when he retired into his monastery, and which is also used by sir Robert Sibbald in his “Relationes quaedam Arnoldi Blair monachi de Dumfermelem et Capellani D. Willelmi Wallas Militis. Cum Comment.” Edinb. 1705, 8vo.

, was educated at Edinburgh, and was, as already noticed, related to Dr. Hugh Blair. He came to London in company with Andrew Henderson, a voluminous writer, who, in his title-pages styled himself A. M. and for some years kept a bookseller’s shop in Westminster-hall. Henderson’s first employment was that of an usher at a school in Hedge-lane, in which he was succeeded by his friend Blair, who, in 1754, obliged' the world with a valuable publication under the title of “The chronology and history of the world, from the creation to the year of Christ 1753. Illustrated in fifty-six tables; of which four are introductory, and contain the centuries prior to the first olympiad; and each of the remaining fifty-two contain in one expanded view fifty years, or half a century. By the rev. John Blair, LL. D.” This volume, which is dedicated to lord chancellor Hardwicke, was published by subscription, on account of the great expence of the plates, for which the author apologized in his preface, where he acknowledged great obligations to the earl of Bath, and announced some chronological dissertations, in which he proposed to illustrate the disputed points, to explain the prevailing systems of chronology, and to establish the authorities upon which some of the particular seras depend. In Dr. Hugh Blair’s life, it has been noticed that this work was partly projected by him. In January 1755, Dr. John Blair was elected F. R. S. and in 1761, F. A. S. In 1756 he published a second edition of his Chronological Tables. In Sept. 1757, he was appointed chaplain to the princess dowager of Wales, and mathematical tutor to the duke of York; and, on Dr. Townshend’s promotion to the deanry of Norwich, the services of Dr. Blair were rewarded, March 10, 1761, with a prebendal stall at Westminster. The vicarage of Hinckley happening to fall vacant six days after, by the death of Dr. Moires, Dr. Blair was presented to it by the dean and chapter of Westminster and in August that year he obtained a dispensation to hold with it the rectory of Burton Goggles, in Lincolnshire. In September 1763, he attended his royal pupil the duke of York in a tour to the continent; had the satisfaction of visiting Lisbon, Gibraltar, Minorca, most of the principal cities in Italy, and several parts of France and returned with the duke in August 1764. In 1768 he published an improved edition of his Chronological Tables, which he dedicated to the princess of Wales, who had expressed her early approbation of the former edition. To the edition were annexed fourteen maps of ancient and modern geography, for illustrating the tables of chronology and history. To which is prefixed a dissertation on the progress of geography. In March 1771 he was presented by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the vicarage of St. Bride’s, in the city of London which made it necessary for him to resign Hinckley, where he had never resided for any length of time. On the death of Mr. Sims, in April 1776, he resigned St. Bride’s, and was presented to the rectorjr of St. John the Evangelist in Westminster and in June that year obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of St. John with that of Horton, near Colebrooke, Bucks. His brother, captain Blair *, falling gloriously in the service of his country in the memorable sea-fight of April 12, 1782, the shock accelerated the doctor’s death. He had at the same time the influenza in a severe degree, which put a period to his life June 24, 1782. His library was sold by auction December 1113, 1781; and a course of his “Lectures on the canons of the Old Testament,” has since appeared.

, an ingenious Scotch botanist, was a practitioner of physic and surgery at Dundee, where he made himself first known as an anatomist, by the dissection of an elephant, which died near that place, in 1706. He was a nonjuror, and for his attachment to the exiled family of Stuart, was imprisoned, in the rebellion in 1715, as a suspected person. He afterwards removed to London,

Dogger Bank, August 5, 1781, was whom their country, by its rapresentapromoted to the command of the An- tives, voted a monument, on, a new ship of 64 guns. By bravely where he recommended himself to the royal society by some discourses on the sexes of flowers. His stay in London was not long, and after leaving it, he settled at Boston, in Lincolnshire, where Dr. Pulteney conjectures that he practised physic during the remainder of his life. The time of his decease is not known, but it is supposed to have taken place soon after the publication of the seventh Decad of his “Pharmaco-Botanologia,” in 1728. Dr. Blair’s first publication was entitled “Miscellaneous observations in Physic, Anatomy, Surgery, and Botanies,” 1718, 8vo. In the botanical part of this work he insinuates some doubts relating to the method suggested by Petiver, and others, of deducing the qualities of vegetables from the agreement in natural characters, and instances the Cynoglossum, as tending to prove the fallacy of this rule. But the work by which he rendered the greatest service to botany, originated with his “Discourse on the Sexes of Plants,” read before the royal society, and afterwards greatly amplified, and published at the request of several members of that body, under the title of “Botanic Essays,” 1720, 8vo, in which he strengthened the arguments in proof of the sexes of plants, by sound reasoning, and some new experiments. He published also, “Pharmaco-botanologia, or an alphabetical and classical dissertation on all the British indigenous and garden plants of the new dispensatory,” Lond. 1723 28, 4to, but this work extends only to the letter H. Dr. Blair wrote some papers in the Philosophical Transactions, particularly his anatomy and osteology of the elephant, &c.

, a Scotch divine and poet, was the eldest son of the rev. David Blair, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and chaplain to the king. His grandfather was the rev. Robert Blair, sometime minister of the gospel at Bangor, in Ireland, and afterward at St. Andrew’s, in Scotland. Of this gentleman, some “Memoirs,” partly taken from his manuscript diaries, were published at Edinburgh, in 1754. He was celebrated for his piety, and by those of his persuasion, for his inflexible adherence to presbyterianism, in opposition to the endeavours made in his time to establish episcopacy in Scotland. It is recorded also that he wrote some poems. His grandson, the object of the present article, was born in the year 1699, and after the usual preparatory studies, was ordained minister of Athelstaneford, in the county of East Lothian, where he resided until his death, Feb. 4, 1747. The late right hon. Robert Blair, president of the court of session in. Scotland, who died in 1811, was one of his sons, and the late celebrated Dr. Hugh Blair, professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres, was his cousin.

Such are the only particulars handed down to us respecting the writer of “the Grave.” It is but lately that the poem was honoured with much attention, and appears to have made its way very slowly into general notice. The pious and congenial Hervey was among the first who praised it. Mr. Pinkerton in his “Letters of Literature,” published under the name of Heron, endeavoured to raise it far above the level of common productions, and it has of late years been frequently reprinted but it may be questioned whether it will bear a critical examination. It has no regular plan, nor are the reflections on mortality embellished bj any superior graces. It is perhaps a stronger objection that they are interrupted by strokes of feeble satire at the expence of physicians and undertakers. His expressions are often mean, and his epithets ill-chosen and degrading, “supernumerary horror;” “new-made widow;” “sooty blackbird;” “strong-lunged cherub;” “lame kindness,” c. &c. “solder of society” “by stronger arm belaboured” “great gluts of people,” &c. are vulgarisms which cannot be pardoned in so short a production.

“The Grave” is said to have been first printed at Edinburgh in 1747, but this is a mistake. It was printed in 1743 at London, for M. Cooper. The author had previously submitted it to Dr. Watts, who informed him that two booksellers had declined the risk of publication. He had likewise corresponded with Dr. Doddridge on the subject, and in a letter to that divine, says, that “in order to make it more generally liked, he was obliged sometimes to go cross to his own inclination, well knowing that whatever poem is written upon a serious argument, must upon that very account lie under peculiar disadvantages; and therefore proper arts must be used to make such a piece go down with a licentious age which cares for none of those things.” In what respect he crossed his inclination, and by what arts he endeavoured to make his poem more acceptable to a licentious age, we know not. In defence of the present age, it may be said with justice that the poem owes its popularity to its subject, and that notwithstanding its defects, it will probably be a lasting favourite with persons of a serious turn.

, a gentleman who was cut off early in life, but whose progress and improvements in natural knowledge were so great, that the editors of the second edition of the Biographia Britannica have thought him entitled to an honourable place in their work, was the son of John Blake, esq. and born in London, Nov. 4, 1745; educated at Westminster school; afterwards instructed in mathematics, chemistry, and drawing: but botany was his favourite object, in which he made a great progress. With these advantages he set out in life, and in 1766 was sent as one of the East India company’s supercargoes at Canton in China where he was no sooner fixed, than he resolved to employ every moment of his time, which could be spared from the duties of his station, to the advancement of natural science for the benefit of his countrymen. His plan was, to procure the seeds of all the vegetables found in China, which are used in medicine, manufactures, and food; and to send into Europe not only such seeds, but the plants by which they were produced, that they might be propagated either in Great Britain and Ireland, or in those colonies of America, the soil and climate of which might suit them best. But it was not to botanic subjects alone, that Mr. Blake’s genius was confined he had begun to collect fossils and ores and he now attended as much to mineralogy, as he had done to botany.

, a celebrated English admiral, was born August 1599, at Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, where he was educated at the grammar-school. He went from, thence to Oxford, and was entered at St. Alban’s hall, but removed to Wadham college, and in 1617 took the degree of B. A. In 1623 he wrote a copy of verses on the death of Camden, and soon after left the university. He was tinctured pretty early with republican principles and disliking that severity with which Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells, pressed uniformity in his diocese, he began to fall into the puritanical opinions. The natural bluntness and sincerity of his disposition led him to speak freely upon all occasions, insomuch that, his sentiments being generally known, the puritan party got him elected member for Bridgewater in 1640. When the civil war broke out, he declared for the parliament. In 1643 he was at Bristol, under the command of col. Fiennes, who intrusted him with a little fort on the line and, when prince Rupert attacked Bristol, and the governor had agreed to surrender it upon, articles, Blake nevertheless for some time held out his fort, and killed several of the king’s forces: which exasperated prince Rupert to such a degree, that he talked of hanging him, had not some friends interposed, and excused him on account of his want of experience in war. He served afterwards in Somersetshire, under the command of Popham, governor of Lyme; and, being much beloved in those parts, he had such good intelligence there, that in conjunction with sir Robert Pye, he surprised Taunton for the parliament. In 1644 he was appointed governor of this place, w; ich was of the utmost importance, being the only garrison the parliament had in the west. The works about it were not strong, nor was the garrison numerous; yet, by his strict discipline, and kind behaviour to the townsmen, he found means to keep the place, though not properly furnished with supplies, and sometimes besieged, and even blocked up by the king’s forces. At length Goring made a breach, and actually took part of the town; while Blake still held out the other part and the castle, till relief came. For this service the parliament ordered the garrison a bounty of 2000l. and the governor a present of 500l. When the parliament had voted that no farther addresses should be made to the king, Blake joined in an address from the borough of Taunton, expressing their gratefulness for this step taken by the house of commons. However, when the king came to be tried, Blake disapproved of that measure, as illegal; and was frequently heard to say, he would as freely venture his life to save the king’s, as ever he did to serve the parliament. But this is thought to have been chiefly owing to the humanity of his temper; since after the death of the king he entered into all the measures of the republican party, and, next to Cromwell, was the ablest officer the parliament had.

February 12, 1649, he was appointed to command the fleet, in conjunction with col. Deane and col. Popham, and soon after was ordered to sail, with a squadron of men of war, in pursuit of prince Rupert. Blake came before Kinsale in June 1649, where prince Rupert lay in harbour. He kept him in the harbour till the beginning of October; when the prince, despairing of relief by sea, and Cromwell being ready to take the town by land, provisions of all sorts falling short, he resolved to force his way through Blake’s squadron, which he effected with the loss of three of his ships. The prince’s fleet steered their course to Lisbon, where they were protected by the king of Portugal. Blake sent to the king for leave to enter, and coming near with his ships, the castle shot at him; upon which he dropped anchor, and sent a boat to know the reason of this hostility. The captain of the castle answered, he had no orders from the king to let his ships pass: however, the king commanded one of the lords of the court to wait upon Blake, and to desire him not to come in except the weather proved bad, lest some quarrel should happen between him and prince Rupert; the king sent him, at the same time, a large present of fresh provisions. The weather proving bad, Blake sailed up the river into the bay of Wyers, but two miles from the place where prince Rupert’s ships lay; and thence he sent capt. Moulton, to inform the king of the falsities in the prince’s declaration. The king, however, still refusing to allow the admiral to attack prince Rupert, Blake took five of the Brazil fleet richly laden, and at the same time sent notice to him, that unless he ordered the prince’s ships out from his river, he would seize the rest of the Portuguese fleet from America. Sept. 1650 the prince endeavoured to get out of the harbour, but was soon driven in again by Blake, who sent to England nine Portuguese ships bound for Brazil. October following, he and Popham met with a fleet of 23 sail from Brazil for Lisbon, of whom, they sunk the admiral, took the vice-admiral, and 11 other ships, having 10,000 chests of sugar on board. Jn his return home, he met with two ships in search of the prince, whom he followed up the Streights when he took a French man of war, the captain of which had committed hostilities. He sent this prize, reported to be worth a million, into Calais, and followed the prince to the pore of Carthagena, where he lay with the remainder of his fleet. As soon as Blake came to anchor before the fort, he sent a messenger to the Spanish governor, informing him, that an enemy to the state of England was in his port, that the parliament had commanded him to pursue him, and the king of Spain being in amity with the parliament, he desired leave to take all advantages against their enemy. The governor replied, he could not take notice of the difference of any nations or persons amongst themselves, only such as were declared enemies to the king his master; that they came in thither for safety, therefore he could not refuse them protection, and that he would do the like for the admiral. Blake still pressed the governor to permit him to attack the prince, and the Spaniard put him off till he could have orders from Madrid. While the admiral was cruizing in the Mediteranean, prince Rupert got out of Carthagena, and sailed to Malaga. Blake, having notice of his destroying many English ships, followed him and attacking him in the port, burnt and destroyed his whole fleet, two ships only excepted this was in January 1651. In February, Blake took a French man of war of 40 guns, and sent it, with other prizes, to England. Soon after 'he came with his squadron to Plymouth, when he received the thanks of the parliament, and was made warden of the cinque ports. March following, an act passed, whereby colonel Blake, colonel Popham, and colonel Deane, or any two of them, were appointed admirals and generals of the fleet, for the year ensuing. The next service he was put upon, was the reducing the isles of Scilly,- which were held for the king. He sailed in May, with a body of Boo land troops on board. Sir John Grenville, who commanded in those parts for the king, after some small resistance, submitted. He sailed next for Guernsey, which was held for the king, by sir George Carteret. He arrived there in October, and landing what forces he had the very next day, he did every thing in his power in order to make a speedy conquest of the island, which was not completed that year. In the beginning of the next, however, the governor, finding all hopes of relief vain, thought proper to make the best terms he could. For this service Blake had thanks from the parliament, and was elected one of the council of state. March 25, 1652, he was appointed sole admiral for nine months, on the prospect of a Dutch war. The states sent Van Trump with forty-five sail of men of war into the Downs, to insult the English Blake, however, though he had but twentv-three ships, and could expect no succour but from major Bourne, who commanded eight more, yet, being attacked by Van Trump, fought him bravely, and forced him to retreat. This was on the 19th of May, 1652. After this engagement the states seemed inclined to peace but the commonwealth of England demanded such terms as could not be complied with, and therefore both sides prepared to carry on the war with greater vigour. Blake now harassed the enemy by taking their merchant ships, in which he had great success. On the 10th of June, a detachment from his fleet fell upon twenty-six sail of Dutch merchantmen, and took them every one and by the end of June he had sent into port forty prizes. On the 2d of July he sailed, with a strong squadron, northwards. In his course he took a Dutch man of war; and about the latter end of the month, he fell on twelve men of war, convoy to their herring busses, took the whole convoy, 100 of their busses, and dispersed the rest. August 12, he returned into the Downs, with six of the Dutch men of war, and 900 prisoners. Thence he stood over to the coast of Holland, and on Sept. 28th, having discovered the Dutch about noon, though he had only three of his own squadron with him, vice-admiral Penii with his squadron at some distance, and the rest a league or two astern, he bore in among the Dutch fleet, being bravely seconded by Penn and Bourne when three of the enemy’s ships were wholly disabled at the first brunt, and another as she was towing oft* The rear-admiral was taken by captain Mildmay and had not night intervened, it was thought not a single ship of the Dutch fleet would have escaped. On the 29th, about day-break, the English espied the Dutch fleet N.E. two leagues off; the admiral bore up to them, but the enemy having the wind of him, he could not reach them however, he commanded his light frigates to ply as near as they could, and keep firing while the rest bore up after them upon which the Dutch hoisted their sails, and run for it. The English being in want of provisions, returned to the Downs. Blake having been obliged to make large detachments from his fleet Van Trump, who had again the command of the Dutch navy, consisting of eighty men of war, resolved to take this opportunity of attacking him in the Downs, knowing he had not above half his number of ships. He accordingly sailed away to the back of the Goodwin. Blake having intelligence of this, called a council of war, wherein it was resolved to fight, though at so great a disadvantage. The engagement began November 29, about two in the morning, and lasted till near six in the evening. Blake was aboard the Triumph; this ship, the Victory, and the Vanguard, suffered most, having been engaged at one time with twenty of the enemy’s best ships. The admiral finding his ships much disabled, and that the Dutch had the advantage of the wind, drew off his fleet in the night into the Thames, having lost the Garland and Bonaventure, which were taken by the Dutch a small frigate was also burnt, and three sunk and his remaining ships much shattered and disabled Van Trump, however, bought this victory dear, x one of his flag-ships being blown up, all the men drowned, and his own ship and De Kuyter’s both unfit for service till they were repaired. This success invigorated the spirits of the Dutch exceedingly; Van Trump sailed through the channel with a broom at his main-top-mast, to signify that he had swept the seas of English ships. In the mean time, Blake having repaired his fleet, and Monk and Deane being now joined in commission with him, sailed Feb. 8, 1653, from Queensborough, with sixty men of war, which were soon after joined with twenty more from Portsmouth. On the 18th they discovered Van Trump with seventy men of war, and 300 merchant ships under his convoy. Blake, with twelve ships, came up with and engaged the Dutch fleet, and, though grievously wounded in the thigh, continued the fight till night, when the Dutch, who had six men of war sunk and taken, retired. After having put ashore his wounded men at Portsmouth, he followed the enemy, whom he came up with next day, when the fight was renewed, to the loss of the Dutch, who continued retreating towards Boulogne. All the night following Blake continued the pursuit, and, in the morning of the 20th, the two fleets fought again till four in the afternoon, when the wind blowing favourably for the Dutch, they secured themselves on the flats of Dunkirk and Calais. In these three engagements the Dutch lost eleven men of war, thirty merchant ships, and had fifteen hundred men slain. The English lost only one ship, but not fewer men than the enemy. In April Cromwell turned out the parliament, and shortly after assumed the supreme power. The states hoped great advantages from this, but were disappointed Blake said on this occasion to his officers, “It is not for us to mind state affairs, but to keep foreigners from fooling us.” Towards the end of the month Blake and his colleagues, with a fleet of an hundred sail, stood over to the Dutch coast, and forced their fleet to take shelter in the Texel, where, for some time, they were kept by Monk and Deane, while Blake sailed Northward at last Van Trump got out, and drew together a fleet of an hundred and twenty men of war. June 3d, Deane and Monk engaged him off the North Foreland. On the 4th Blake came to their assistance with eighteen fresh ships, by which means a complete victory was gained; and if the Dutch had not again saved themselves on Calais sands, their whole fleet had been sunk or taken. Cromwell having called the parliament, styled the Little Parliament, Blake, Oct. 10, took his seat in the house, where he received their solemn thanks for his many and faithful services. The protector afterwards called a new parliament, consisting of four hundred, 'where Blake sat also, being the representative for his native town of Bridgewater. Dec. 6th he was appointed one of the commissioners of the admiralty. Nov. 1654, Cromwell sent him with a strong fleet into the Mediterranean, with instructions to support the honour of the English flag, and to procure satisfaction for any injuries that might have been done to our merchants. In December Blake came into the road of Cadiz, where he was treated with great respect; a Dutch admiral would not hoist his flag while he was there. The Algerines were so much afraid of him, that they stopped their Sallee rovers, obliged them to deliver up what English prisoners they had on board, and sent them to Blake, in, order to procure his favour. Nevertheless, he came before Algiers on the 10th of March, when he sent an officer on shore to the dey to tell him he had orders to demand satisfaction for the piracies committed on the English, and to insist on the release of all such English captives as were then in the place. To this the dey made answer, that the captures belonging to particular men he could not restore; but, if Mr. Blake pleased, he might redeem what English captives were there at a reasonable price; and, if he thought proper, the Algerines would conclude a peace with him, and for the future offer no acts of hostility to the English. This answer was accompanied with a present of fresh provisions. Blake sailed to Tunis on the same errand. The dey of Tunis sent him a haughty answer. “Here,” said he, “are our castles of Goletta and Porto Ferino, do your worst! do you think we fear your fleet?” On the hearing this, Blake, as his custom was when in a passion, began to curl his whiskers; and, after a short consultation with his officers, bore into the bay of Porto Ferino with his great ships when, coming within musket-shot of the castle, he fired on it so briskly, that in two hours it was rendered defenceless, and the guns on the works along the shore were dismounted, though sixty of them played at a time upon the English. He found nine ships in the road, and ordered every captain, even of his own ship, to man his long boat with choice men, and these to enter the harbour and tire the Tuniseens, while he and his fleet covered them from the castle, by playing continually on it with their cannon. The seamen in their boats boldly assaulted the pirates, and burnt all their ships, with the loss of twenty-five men killed, and forty-eight wounded. This daring action spread the terror of his name throughout Africa and Asia, which had for a long time before been formidable in Europe. He also struck such terror into the piratical state of Tripoly, that he made them glad to strike up a peace with England. These and other exploits raised the glory of the English name so high, that most of the princes and states in Italy thought fit to pay their compliments to the protector, particularly the grand duke of Tuscany, and the republic of Venice, who sent magnificent embassies for that purpose. The war in the mean time was grown pretty hot with Spain and Blake used his utmost efforts to ruin their maritime force in Europe, as Penn had done in the West Indies. But finding himself now in a declining state of health, and fearing the ill consequences which might ensue in case he should die without any colleague to take charge of the fleet, he wrote letters into England, desiring some proper person to be named in commission with him; upon which general Montague sent joint-admiral, with a strong squadron to assist him. Soon after his arrival in the Mediterranean, the two admirals sailed with their whole fleet to block up a Spanish squadron in the bay of Cadiz. At length, in September, being in great want of water, Blake and Montague stood away for the coast of Portugal, leaving captain Stayner with seven ships to look after the enemy. Soon after they were gone, the Spanish plate fleet appeared, but were intercepted by Stayner, who took the vice-admiral and another galleon, which were afterwards burnt by accident, the rear-admiral, with two millions of plate on board, and another ship richly laden. These prizes, together with all the prisoners, were seat into England under general Montague, and Blake alone remained in the Mediterranean till, being informed that another plate fleet had put into Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, he sailed thither in April 1657, with a fleet of twenty-five men of war. On the 20th he came into the road of Santa Cruz; and though the Spanish governor had timely notice, was a man of courage and conduct, and had disposed all things in the most proper manner, so that he looked upon an attack as what no wise admiral would think practicable yet Blake having summoned him, and received a short answer, was determined to force the place, and to burn the fleet therein; and he performed it in such a manner as appears next to incredible. It is allowed to be one of the most remarkable actions that ever happened at sea. As soon as the news arrived of this extraordinary action, the protector sent to acquaint his second parliament, then sitting, therewith upon which they ordered a public thanksgiving, and directed a diamond ring worth 500l. to be sent to Blake and the thanks of the house was ordered to all the officers and seamen, and to be given them by their admiral. Upon his return to the Mediterranean he cruised some time before Cadiz but finding himself declining fast, resolved to return home. He accordingly sailed for England, but lived not to see again his native land for he died as the fleet was entering Plymouth, the 17th of August 1657, aged 58.His body was conveyed to Westminster abbey, and interred with great pomp in Henry the Seventh’s chapel but removed from thence in 1661, and re-interred in St. Margaret’s church-yard. He was a man of a low stature but of a quick, lively eye, and of a good soldier-like countenance. He was in his person brave beyond example, yet cool in action, and shewed a great deal of military conduct; in the disposition of those desperate attacks which men of a cooler composition have judged rather fortunate thun expedient. He certainly* loved his country with extraordinary ardour, and, as he never meddled with intrigues of state, so whatever government he served, he was solicitous to do his duty. He was upright to a supreme degree, for, notwithstanding the vast sums which passed through his hands, he scarcely left five hundred pounds behind him of his own acquiring. In fine, he was altogether disinterested and unambitious, exposing himseii on all occasions for the benefit of the public and the g-ory of the nation, and not wkh any view to his own private profit or fame. In respect to his personal character, he was pious without affectation, strictly just, and liberal to the utmost extent of his fortune. His officers he treated with the familiarity of friends, and to his sailors he was truly a parent. The state buried him as it was fit: at the public expence a grave was given him, but no tomb; and though he still wants an epitaph, writers of all parties have shewn an eagerness to do his memorv justice. We find it very positively asserted, that captain Benjamin Blake, brother to the general, suffered so many hardships for being a dissenter, in the latter end of the reign of king Charles II. that he found himself under the necessity of selling his patrimony, and transporting himself and his family to Carolina. Another author (though some indeed think it is the same) relates this story of Mr. Humphry Blake, the general’s brother, and tells us, that the family estate was worth tsvo hundred pounds a year, which he was obliged to dispose of, to pay the fines laid upon him for his nonconformity. It is jiowever strange, that every one of the general’s nephevfs an,d nieces, by his sister Susannah, who married a gentleman at Mineheacl, in Somersetshire, should be totally unacquainted with this transaction, and that none of the family should be able to give any account of that matter; and therefore it seems to be justly doubted whether there be any truth in the story, or whether it is only grounded on there being a considerable family of his name settled in that province, one of whom, when it was in private hands, was a lord proprietor.

In a life of him, written by Dr. Johnson, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. X. there is a circumstance recorded that we have not found elsewhere, nor do we know the authority on which it is grounded. It is said, that while Blake was cruising in the Mediterranean, in February 1650-51, he met with a French ship of considerable force, and commanded the captain to come on board, there being then no war declared between the two nations. The captain, when he came, was asked whether “he was willling to lay down his sword and yield.” This he gallantly refused, though in his enemy’s power. Blake, scorning to take the advantage of an artifice, and detesting the appearance of treachery, told him, “That he x was at liberty to go back to his ship, and defend it as long as he could.” The captain willingly accepted the offer, and after a fight of two hours, confessed himself conquered, kissed his sword, and surrendered it.

In the same author there are some remarks concerning Blake’s conduct, in the battle which he fought with the Dutch, on the 29th of November, 1652, that appear worthy of atter.tion. “There are,” says he, “sometimes observations and enquiries, which all historians seem to decline by agreement, of which this action may alford us an example. Nothing appears at the first view more to demand our curiosity, or afford matter for examination, than this wild encounter of twenty-two ships, with a force, according to their accounts who favour the Dutch, three times superior. Nothing can justify a commander in fighting under such disadvantages, but the impossibility of retreating. But what hindered Blake from retiring as well before the fight as after it To say he was ignorant of the strength of the Dutch fleet, is to impute to him a very criminal degree of negligence; and at least it must be confessed, that, from the time he saw them, he could not but know that they were too powerful to be opposed by him, and even then there was time for retreat. To urge the ardour of his sailors, is to divest him of the authority of a commander, and to charge him with the most reproachful weakness that can enter into the character of a general. To mention the impetuosity of his own courage, is to make the blame of his temerity equal to the praise of tils valour; which seems, indeed, to be the most gentle censure that the truth of history will allow. We must then admit, amidst our eulogies and applauses, that the great, the wise, and the valiant Blake, was once betrayed to an inconsiderate and desperate enterprize, by the resistless ardour of his own spirit, and a noble jealousy of ttie honour of his country.” This quotation we reta n for the purpose of ad din", that if the author had lived in the times of a St, Vincent and a Nelson, he would have probably viewed Blake’s temerity in a different light.

Mr. Hume’s character of our greatadmiral is drawn up with that historian’s usual elegance and spirit. “Never man, so zealous for a faction, was so much respected and esteemed even by the opposite factions. He was, by principle, an inflexible republican and the late usurpations, amidst all the trust and caresses which he received from the puling powers, were thought to be very little grateful to him. ‘It is still our duty,’ he said to the seamen, ‘to fight for our country, into whatever hands the government may fall.’ Disinterested, generous, liberal ambitious only of true glory, dreadful only to his avowed enemies he forms one of the most perfect characters of that age, and the least stained with those errors and violences, which were then so predominant. The protector ordered him a pompous funeral at the public charge but the tears of his countrymen were the most honourable panegyric on his memory.”

, an English puritan divine, was born in Staffordshire in 1597, and in 1616 was entered of Christ Church, Oxford, where he took his degrees, and went into the church. In 1648 he sided with the ruling party, subscribed the covenant, and became pastor of St. Alcmond’s in Shrewsbury, and afterwards of Tamworth in Staffordshire, where he was also one of the committee for the ejection of those who were accounted “ignorant and scandalous ministers and schoolmasters.” He died in June, 1657, and was buried in Tamworth church, after a funeral sermon preached by the famous Mr. Anthony Burgess, of Sutton Colfield.

He wrote, besides some controversial tracts on Infant Baptism, 1. “Vindiciae Foederis, a treatise of the covenant of God with mankind, &c.” Lond. 1653, 4to. 2. “The Covenant sealed,” ibid. 4to, 1655 and several single sermons, and meditations entitled “Living Truths in dying times,” 1665, 12mo. Burgess’s Funeral Sermon for him. was printed. Lond. 1658, 4to, but became so scarce, that Wood informs us he -could never see a copy, otherwise he would have enlarged his account from it. There is but little in it, however, of personal character. The funeral oration printed along with it, and spoken by one Shaw, a schoolmaster, is a curious specimen of pedantic imagery.

, a classical editor, was born at Leyden, of a noble family, Dec. 11, 1625, and was educated under Boxhorn and Golius. He had scarcely arrived at his twentieth year, when he was invited to become professor of history at Steinfurth. This he resigned in 1650 for the chair of history and antiquities at Middleburgh,but this school falling into decay, Blancard removed to Heeren-veen in Friseland, where he practised physic. In November 1669, he was appointed Greek professor at Franeker. At these different places he published, 1. an edition of “Quintus Curtius,” with notes, Leyden, 1649, 8vo. 2. “Florus,” with his own added to the Variorum,“ibid. 1650, 8vo; Franeker, 1690, 4-to. 3.” Arrian’s Alexander,“not in much estimation, Amsterdam, 1668, 8vo. 4.” Arriani Tactica, Periplus, de Venatione Epicteti Enchiridion,“&c. Amst. 1683, 8vo. 5.” Harpoerationis Lexicon,'“' Leyden, 1683, 4to. 6.” Ptiilippi CypriiChronicon ecclesiae Grseciae,“Franc.1679, 4to, the first edition, which Blancard copied from a manuscript brought from Constantinople, and translated it into Latin. 7.” Thomoe Magistri dictionum Atticarum. eclogae,“Fran. 1690, 8vo, reprinted 1698, with notes by Lambert Bos. In the fine edition of Thomas-published by Bernard in 1757, this text of Blancard is adopted as well as Bos’s notes. In Burmann’s” Sylloge," are three letters of Blancard’s. He had begun to prepare an edition of Thucydides, but owing to his age and infirmities was obliged, about the year 1690, to give up his literary labours. He died May 15, 1703.

, son to the preceding, was an, eminent physician at Franeker, and one of the most voluminous compilers of his time. He published large works on every branch of medicine and surgery, taken from all preceding and even contemporary authors, without either judgment or honesty; for while he took every thing good and bad which he could find, he in general published all as his own. His “Anatomia practica rationalis,” 1688, would have been a useful work, had it not partaken too much of indiscriminate borrowing but, perhaps, that for which he is best known is his “Lexicon medicum GraecoLatinum,” which has gone through a great many editions, some of which have been improved by more able scholars. The best, we believe, is that printed at Louvain, 1754, 2 vols. 8vo. An English translation, under the title of the “Physical Dictionary,” printed first in 1693, 8vo, was for some time a popular book, until supplanted, if we mistake not, by Quiucey’s. Haller and Man get have given lists of Blancard’s numerous works, but neither gives much of his personal history. There was a collection of what probably were esteemed the best of his pieces, printed at Leyden, 4to, 1701, under the title of " Opera meclica, theoretica, practica et chirurgica.

, an eminent painter, called the French Titian, was born at Paris in 1600. He learned the rudiments of his profession under his uncle Nicholas Bellori, but left him at twen'y years of age with an intention to travel to Italy. He stopped at Lyons in his way thither, where he staid for son e time; and during his residence here reaped both profit and amusement. He passed onto Rome, where he continued about two years. From thence he went to Venice, where he was so much pleased with the works of Titian, Tintoret, and Paul Veronese, that he resolved to follow their manner; and in this he succeeded so far, that at his return to Paris he soon got into high employment being generally esteemed for the novelty, beauty, and force of his pencil. He painted two galleries at Paris, one belonging to the first president, Perrault, and the other to monsieur de Bullion, superintendant of the finances. But his capital pieces are those in the church of Notre Dame, St. Andrew kneeling before the cross, and the Holy Ghost descending. Blanchard was in a likely way of making his fortune; but a fever and an imposthume in the lungs carried him off in his thirty-eighth year. Of all the French painters Blanchard was esteemed the best colourist, having studied this branch with great care in the Venetian school. There are few grand compositions of his; but what he has left of this kind shew him to have had great genius. He was mostly taken up with Madonnas, half-lengths, which prevented his employing himself in subjects of greater extent.

, a French abbé of considerable talents and amiable character, was born at Angerville, near Chartres, Jan. 26, 1707, of poor parents, who were, however, enabled to give him an education, to complete which he came to Paris. In 1724 he entered among the Jesuits as a noviciate, but did not remain long among them: yet he was highly esteemed by his masters, and preserved the friendship of the eminent Jesuits Brumoy, Bougeant, and Castel. He then employed himself in education, and taught, with much reputation, rhetoric and the classics in two provincial colleges, until the weak state of his health obliged him to restrict his labours to the office of private tutor, an office which he rescued from the contempt into which it had fallen, by taking equal care of the morals and learning of his pupils, all of whom did him, credit in both respects. Being a lover of independence, he resigned his canonry in the cathedral of Boulogne, and when appointed one of the interpreters of the king’s library, the same scruples induced him to decline it, until M.Bignon assured him that the place was given him as the reward of his merit, and required no sacrifices. Soon after he was appointed censor, but upon condition that he should have nothing to censure, and he accordingly accepted the title, but refused the salary and his friends, having thus far overcome his repugnance to offices of this description, procured him the farther appointment of keeper of the books in the king’s cabinet at Versailles. Yet this courtly situation was not at all to his mind, and he resigned in order to go and live in obscurity at St. Germain-en- laye, where he died Jan. 29, 1781, at about eighty. His disposition was amiable in society, where, however, he seldom appeared; but he became gloomy and melancholy in the solitude to which he condemned himself. Premature infirmities had considerably altered his temper. He was oppressed with vapours, from which he suffered alone, and by which he was afraid of making others suffer. It was this that made him seek retirement. “Such as I am,” said he, “I must bear with myself; but are o.hers obliged to bear with me I really think, if I had not the support and consolations of religion, I should lose my senses.” By nature disinterested, he constantly refused favours and benefits, and it was with great difficulty he could be made to accept of any thing. The advancement of his friends, however, was not so indifferent to him as his own; and he was delighted when they were promoted to any lucrative or useful place. Living in this retired manner, he was scarcely known to the public till after his death. Of his writing are the “Varietes morales et amusantes,” 1784, 2 vols. 12mo, and “Apologues et contes orientaux,” 1785, 8vo in both which he shews himself a man of much reading, and who has the talent of writing with sentiment, philosophy, and taste. There are likewise by him several little pieces of poetry, of the light and agreeable kind, of which the greater part were attributed to the best poets of the time, who did not shew any vehement disdain at the imputation which made the abbé Blanchet say, “I am. delighted that the rich adopt my children.” These he would lend to his friends on the most solemn promises to return them without copying, or suffering them to be copied, and would often be extremely anxious if they were not retunted within the time specified, when he immediately consigned them to the flames. One of his poems, however, appears to have escaped this fate, an ode on the existence of God, which was published in 1784, with his “Vues sur Teducation d'un prince,” 12mo. Dusaulx, his relation, wrote an amusing life of the abbé, which is prefixed to the “Apologues.”

, a painter, born at Paris in 1617, the disciple and friend of Poussin and Albano, was appointed professor of painting by the academy of Paris, though absent, and therefore contrary to established custom; but Blanchet was accounted deserving of this departure from the rules. Le Brun presented his picture for reception, representing Cadmus killing a dragon. He spent a part of his life at Lyons, and there died in 1689. A ceiling at the town-house of that place, in which Blanchet displayed the whole force of his talents, was burnt by fire in 1674, and the rest of his works perished in the revolutionary destruction to which that city was doomed in 1793. This painter excelled in history and portraits. His touches are bold, agreeable, and easy, his drawing correct, and his colouring excellent. Several of his pictures were formerly at Paris.

, a lady remarkable both for her knowledge of the Hebrew language, and for a peculiar skilfulness in writing it, was born about the time of the restoration, and was daughter and heir of Mr. Robert Fisher of Long-acre. April 26, 1681, she married Mr. Nathanael Bland (then a linen-draper in London, afterwards lord of the manor of Beeston in Yorkshire), by whom she had six children, who all died in their infancy, excepting one son named Joseph, and a daughter called Martha, who was married to Mr. George Moore of Beeston. She was instructed in the Hebrew language by the lord Van Helmont, which she understood to such a degree of perfection, that she taught it to her son and daughter.

Among the curiosities of the Royal Society is preserved of her writing, a phylactery in Hebrew, of which Dr. Grew has given us a description in his “Account of rarities preserved at Gresham college,” London, 1681, folio. It was written by her at the request of Mr. Thoresby, and she it to that repository. By the two pedigrees of the family, printed in Mr. Thoresby’s Ducatus Leodiensis, pages 209 and 587, it seems that she was living in 1712. This is all the account we have been able to procure either of her or her writings, which probably were considerable, as her attainments in this one branch of learning were so uncommon.

, a man who acquired some fame in the sixteenth century by the shallow pretence of free inquiry, was born in the marquisate of Saluzzo in Italy. He appears to have studied medicine, and for some time practised with reputation, but the various opinions which arose out of the reformation from popery in the beginning of the sixteenth century, having excited his curiosity in no common degree, he determined to try them all, and began with abandoning the principles of popery in which he had been educated, for those of Luther, which he quitted soon after for those of Calvin. Not satisfied with this, he wished to retrace more ancient opinions, embraced those of Arius, then inclined to the doctrines of Paul of Samosata, and finally struck out of his creed all belief in the incarnation and the Trinity, maintaining that Jesus Christ was a mere man, and no more deserving of religious worship than any other man. Stocked with these notions, as well as with his professional knowledge, he had the ambition to propagate the one and practise the other in Germany, Poland, and Transylvania. In Polandhe became physician to the queen of Sigismund Augustus, and having insinuated himself into the good graces of that prince, began to communicate to him his religious opinions, and after some time returned to Italy, where the freedom he took in divulging these occasioned his being shut up in the prison of the inquisition at Pavia. Having, however, contrived to make his escape, he went to Geneva, and became a warm admirer of the opinions of Servetus, who had recently been put to death for oppugning the doctrine of the Trinity. On this, Calvin, after having in vain endeavoured to reclaim him by conference and correspondence, gave him up to justice, which Blandrata escaped by making profession of Calvinism, to which he adhered long enough to reach Poland, where the imposition was detected. At this time, John Sigismund, prince of Trausylvania, appointed him his physician and being a man of skill he found means to insinuate his principles in the families which employed him. In 1566, at Alba Julia, in the presence of the court, he held a public conference against the Lutherans, which lasted ten days, and ended in bringing over the prince and the nobles of Transylvania to unitarianism. An account of this conference was printed in 1568, 4to, entitled “Brevis enarratio disputationis Albanæ de Deo trino et Christo duplici.” On the death of Sigismund, he came a third time into Poland, and was appointed physician and counsellor to king Stephen Battori; but as he found this monarch unfriendly to his religious tenets, he withdrew himself from the unitarians, for which he was severely censured by Socinus, who hoped to have found him an able assistant, and had invited him to Poland with that view. This was the last of his many changes of opinion; for soon after, a nephew whom he had threatened to disinherit, on account of his attachment to popery, put him to death in a violent quarrel, which perhaps he had provoked for the purpose. This appears to have taken place some time between 1585 and 1592. He gave so little satisfaction to any party, that all considered his death as a judgment on his apostacy. Blandrata’s works are in Sandius’s Anti-Trinitarian library.

, a German writer of some note, was born at Colberg in Pomerania, Jan. 24, 1744, and entered into the Prussian service at the age of fourteen, where he distinguished himself during the seven years war. After having been in the army for twenty-one years, the bad state of his health obliged him to solicit his discharge, which was granted him with the rank of captain, and from that time he took up his resi-. dence at Leipsic, devoting his time to literary studies and pursuits. He was a man of good taste, as well as judgment, and had a very great memory. His original works were, 1. “An essay on Romance,” Leipsic, 1774, 8vo. 2. “A supplement to Sulzer’s Universal Theory of the Fine Arts,” 1786—87, four parts, 8vo, reprinted at Leipsic, 1792 94. 3. “On the German language and literature,” printed in Adelung’s Magazine for 1784. He was very desirous of introducing English literature into his country, and with this view published German translations, with useful notes, of Dr. Gilbert Stuart’s View of Society, Leipsic, 1779, 8vo Dr. Johnson’s Lives of the Poets, Altenburgh, 1781—1785, 8vo and Dr. Gillies’s History of Greece, Leipsic, 1787, &c. He died May 4, 1796.

, a painter of great abilities, was born at Alkmaar in 1628, and received his earliest instruction from Arent Tierling but afterwards he was successively the disciple of Peter Scheyenburg and Caesar Van Everdingen. When he had spent some years with those masters, he went to Rome, where, during his continuance in that city, he carefully copied the works of the best masters, and was admitted into the society of Flemish painters called Bentvogels, who gave him the name of Jan Maat (which in Dutch signifies mate or companion), and by that name he is most generally known. His subjects were landscapes, with views of rivers or sea-shores, havens or ports, which he executed with a light free pencil; and in the representation of storms and calms (as nature was always his model) he described those subjects with great truth, exactness, and neatness of handling. The pictures of this master which are most commended are the Italian sea-ports, with vessels lying before them. He possessed a lively imagination; nor was his hand less expeditious than his thoughts; and the connoisseurs agreed in opinion, that if he had bestowed more labour on his pictures than he usually did, so as to finish them more highly, he would certainly have destroyed a great deal of their spirit, force, and effect. His most capital performance is a view of the sea-shore, with the waves retiring at ebb tide; which is described by Houbraken as being wonderfully beautiful and natural. He died in 1670.

, a saint and martyr, and according to the Breviary, bishop of Sebasta in Cappadocia, deserves this slight notice, as a person of great note among the vulgar, who in their processions of the wool-trade, always carry an effigies or representation of him, as the inventor or patron of their art of combing it. There was an order of knighthood also instituted in honour of him; and his day, which stands now marked in our Calendar, was Feb. 3. He suffered death in the reign of Dioclesian, about the year 283, according to the Legenda Aurea, but the English version of that book has the year 387, neither of which dates are strictly true, since Dioclesian did not succeed to the empire till the year 2Si, and died before the latter date. Before his death, which was by beheading, he was whipped, and had his flesh tornferreis pectinibiis, with iron combs and this seems to be the only foundation for the respect paid to his memory by wool-combers. Thus far the learned antiquary Dr. Pegge, in a letter on the history of St. Blase but Butler, in his “Lives of the Saints,” fixes his death in the year 316, when he was martyred in the persecution of Licinius, by the command of Agricolaus, governor of Cappadocia and the lesser Armenia.

, D. D. an eminent Hebrew critic, canon of Christ church, regius professor of Hebrew in the university of Oxford, 1787, and rector of Polshot, was first of Worcester college, where he proceeded M. A. 1753; afterwards fellow of Hertford college, where he took the degree of B. D. 1768, and of D. D. 1787 and was installed Hebrew professor Dec. 7. of that year. He was also some time a Whitehall preacher. He distinguished himself greatly as a scriptural commentator and translator. He published, 1. “A dissertation, by way of enquiry into the true import and application of the Vision related Dan. is. 20 to the end, usually called Daniel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks with occasional remarks on Michaelis’s letters to sir John Pringle on the same subject, 1775,” 4to. 2. “Jereiniah and Lamentations, a new translation, with notes critical, philosophical, and explanatory, 1784,” 8vo. 3. “The Sign given to Ahaz, a discourse on Isaiah vii. 14, 15, 16, delivered in the church of St. John, Devizes, at the triennial visitation of Shute, lord bishop of Sarum, July 26, 1786 with a proposed emendation of a passage in his dissertation on Daniel,” 1786, 4to. 4. “Christ the greater glory of the temple, a sermon, preached before the university of Oxford, at Christ church, Nov. 9, 1788,” 4to. J. “Zechariah, a new translation, with notes critical, philosophical, and explanatory and an Appendix, in reply to Dr. Eveleigh’s Sermon on Zechariah i. S 1 1 (to which is added, a new edition, with alterations, of the dissertation on Daniel), 1797,” 4to. In this dissertation on Daniel the study and criticism of this learned divine produced a translation very different from that in the common English Bible, as well as from that of Michaelis. It . is less liable to objection, particularly as it has no recourse to that ingenious but uncertain and unsatisfying method of computation by lunar years; it extends also to those verses of the chapter which Dr. Michaelis seemed to give up as inexplicable, almost in despair of ever attaining a probable solution of the difficulty. The translation of Jeremiah and Lamentations is on the plan of Dr. Lowth’s Isaiah, and does credit to its author both as a translator and a critic. The same may be said respecting the translation of Zechariah and it may be added, that the candour and liberality which Dr. Blayney opposes, in this instance, to the intemperance and acrimony of one of his antagonists, do him great honour. The doctor also took uncommon pains in correcting the text of the edition of the common version of the English Bible, which was printed at the Clarendon press in 1769, 4to. He made a great number of additional references in the margin, and produced the most correct Bible in our language; but, unfortunately, a large part of the impression was soon after burned at the Bible warehouse in Paternoster row, and it is now ranked among the most scarce and valuable editions.

, a French surgeon, or physician, of the seventeenth century, by uniting the quack and the regular, acquired a considerable degree of reputation, and belongs to a class, we fear, pretty numerous in other countries as well as France. He began his career as a trussmaker, and then placed himself at the head of an academy of his own creation for medical discoveries, the memoirs of which were published monthly, and we presume there must have been some papers of consequence among them, as the celebrated Bonnet translated those of the first three years into Latin, and published them under the title of “Zodiacus Medico-Gallicus,” 1680, 4to. The liberties, however, which Blegny took with the characters of some physicians of reputation occasioned the suppression of these memoirs in 1682, yet he continued to write, and sent his papers to one Ganthier, a physician of Niort, who published them at Amsterdam in 1684, under the title of the “Mercure savant.” In the mean time Blegny endeavoured to make himself famous, and that nothing might be wanting to shew his variety of talents he added to surgery and pharmacy a course of lectures on wig-making. For some time he appears to have imposed on the court itself, as we find that in 1678 he was appointed surgeon in ordinary to the queen; in 1633 surgeon in ordinary to the duke of Orleans; and in 1687, physician in ordinary to the king: but in 1693, his real character becoming more apparent, he was stripped of these honours for having attempted to establish an order of knighthood, and sent to prison at the castle of Angers, where he was confined for eight years. After his release, he retired to Avignon, where he died in 1722, aged about seventy. He published various works, now in little estimation.

, a painter of history and landscape, was born at Bovine, near Dinant, in 1480. He acquired his skill in the art merely by the strength of his natural genius, assisted by a diligent study and observation of the works of Patenier, without having any other instructor: and at last rendered himself very eminent, particularly by his landscapes. His best performances were bought up by the emperor Rodolph, and they are still preserved at Vienna. His style of composition in historical subjects resembled the style of the Flemish artists of that age, and exhibited a great number of figures finished with extreme neatness. But he crowded several subjects into one design; as in his picture of the disciples at Emmaus, he represented not only that incident, but in different groupes disposed in the back ground, he represented likewise the different parts of the passion of our Saviour. And yet, notwithstanding the impropriety of that manner of composing, his pictures were so delicately pencilled and finished, and his landscapes in particular so agreeably invented, so full of variety, and well executed, that even in Italy his works were in great request, and were distinguished there by the appellation of the owl-pictures for he fixed an owl, as his peculiar mark, in every picture he painted by which the works of this master are always indisputably known. He died in 1550.

, was born at Rennes, Eeb. 25, 1696, and entered early into the congregation of the oratory, where he was a distinguished professor. The order against wigs, which seems to have raised very serious scruples, occasioned his quitting it; but he retained the friendship and esteem of his former brethren. He then went to Paris, where his talents procured him the professorship of eloquence in the collegeroyal, and a place in the academy of belles lettres. He published several works, which have been well received by the public 1. “The Life of the Emperor Julian,” Paris, 1735, 1746, 12mo, a curious performance, well written, and distinguished at once by impartiality, precision, elegance and judgment, and which was translated into English under the inspection of Mr. Bowyer in 1746. 2. “The History of the Emperor Jovian,” with translations of some works of the emperor Julian, Paris, 1748, 2 vols. 12mo, a book no less valuable than the former, by the art with which the author has selected, arranged and established facts, and by the free and varied turns of the translator. This was abridged by Mr. Duncombe in the “Select Works of the Emperor Julian,” 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. The life of Jovian, however, seems much inferior to that of Julian. But the difference may be owing to the character of those two persons, the one being an object of much more interest than the other. 3. A translation of some works of Tacitus, Paris, 1755, 2 vols. 12mo. The manners of the Germans, and the life of Agricola, are the two pieces comprised in this version, which is equally elegant and faithful. Prefixed is a Life of Tacitus, which is also worthy of this writer, and was admired for strength of sentiment and animation of style. For this historian the abbé cle la jSleterie had an uncommon predilection he spoke of him incessantly to his friends. “To Tacitus,” said he, “I am much indebted I ought therefore in justice to dedicate to his glory the remainder of my life.” 4. “Tiberius, or the six first books of the Annals of Tacitus, translated into French,” Paris, 1768, 3 vols. 12mo. This work was not so popular among his countrymen, who blame the affected style, and say they very seldom discover in it the elegant historian of Julian. It occasioned at the time these two lines

This translation is in other respects sufficiently exact. 5. “Letters occasioned by the account of Quietism given by M. Phelipeaux,” 173';, 12mo. This pamphlet, which is scarce, and very well written, contains a defence of the conduct of madame de Guyon. 6. Some highly esteemed dissertations in the memoirs of the academy of belles lettres. 7. “Most humble Remonstrances of M. de Montempuis;” an obscure and indifferent work, in favour of a pedant, who had made himself ridiculous by an absurd and unlucky adventure. The abbé de la Bleterie died at an advanced age, June 1, 1772. He was a man of learning, attached to religion, and his morals did not belie his principles. His knowledge being solid and diversified, rendered his conversation useful and interesting. With sound rather than brilliant talents, endowed with more judgment than imagination, he had the merit of knowing how to choose his friends, and how to retain them.

Besides the works above-mentioned, Bleterie was editor of Masclef’s Hebrew Grammar when studying that language he took a fancy to Masclef’s method, and in order to support it, published a work enticed “Vindiciae methodi Masclefianse,” in elegant Latin, and afterwards inserted it in his edition of the grammar published in 1731. We have already mentioned that he was a member of the academy of belles-lettres, and was a candidate for the French academy. His rival on this occasion was Racine, the son, but both were rejected as Jansenists. Bleterie submitted to the disappointment, and when his friends were about to interest themselves in the repeal of this sentence of exclusion, he would upon no account co-operate with them, contenting himself with the esteem of the academicians, who, the president Renault says, consitiered him as a colleague of whom they had been deprived.

, an eminent naturalist, and a Jew hy birth, was born at Anspech, in 1723, of very poor parents. He began to study very late at the age of nineteen, he knew neither German or Latin, and had read only some of the writings of the Rabbis, notwithstanding which, he was employed as a tutor in the family of a Jew surgeon at Hamburgh. There he himself was taught German, and a poor Bohemian Catholic gave him some instructions in Latin; he picked up also some knowledge of anatomy. Afterwards he made rapid progress in regaining lost time, and having removed to live with some relations he had at Berlin, he applied himself with eagerness and success to the study of anatomy and natural history, and received a doctor’s degree at Francfort on the Oder, with which he returned to practise as a physician at Berlin. Here the celebrated naturalist Martini procured him to be elected a member of the society of the “Curious in nature,” and he soon became highly distinguished among the scientific men of his time. He died Aug. 6, 1799, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. His principal work was his “Natural history of Fishes, particularly those of the Prussian states,” four parts, Berlin, 1781 and 1782, large 4to. He wrote afterwards a “Natural history of foreign Fishes,” Berlin, 1784, and “The natural history of German Fishes,” 1782. These different works, of which the descriptions are in German, were afterwards united under the title of “Ichthyology, or the natural history of Fishes,” Berlin, 1785, 12 vols. 4to, published by subscription, in seventy-two parts; the text was translated into French by Laveaux, and was published in 12 vols. fol. and reprinted in 1795. This is unquestionably one of the most splendid books in natural history, but the author, who had begun to have his drawings, engravings, and the colouring executed at his own expence, never could have completed it, had not his countrymen considered it as a national work, and princes, nobles, and amateurs, came forward with the most liberal assistance, and enabled him to finish the last six volumes upon the same scale of elegance as the former. The French edition in 12 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 1796, is greatly inferior to the former. Block wrote also, a “Treatise on the generation of worms in the intestines, and on the method of destroying them,” which gained the prize offered by the royal society of Denmark, and was printed at Berlin, 1782, 4to, and a “Treatise on the waters of Pyrmont,” both in German, Hamburgh, 1774, 8vo.

, bishop of Ripen, in Denmark, who was born in 1717, and died in 1773, cultivated the science of botany, particularly with a view to illustrate those passages of Scripture in which plants, &c. are mentioned. In 1767, he published at Copenhagen “Tentamen Phoenicologices sacra, seu dissertatio emblematico-theologica de Palma,” 8vo, a work containing many curious remarks on the palm or date-tree of Palestine and Idumea, which was called the phosnix by the Greeks and most of the eastern nations. It often occurs in the Bible, and the learned author has collected and explained the several passages. This species of palm is the phoenix dactylifera of modern botanists. A third author of the same name, John Erasmus Block, a Danish gardener, published at Copenhagen a treatise on the art of cultivating gardens, under the title “Horticultura Danica,” 1647, 4to.

, a female artist, on whose singular talents Descamps has bestowed a long article, was born at Amsterdam, Nov. 17, 1650. Her genius first showed itself in wax models of fruit, &c. beautifully coloured she then engraved with diamond on crystal and glass, ftodVopied paintings in coloured silks, but at last devoted her whole time to cutting paper, in which she excelled. Whatever others produced in a print by a graver, she effected by a pair of scissars. In this way she executed all kinds of subjects landscapes, sea-pieces, animals, flowers, &c. and even portraits, in which the resemblance was preserved in a striking degree. This new art of expressing representations of objects upon white paper became the object of universal curiosity, and the artist was encouraged by all the courts of Europe. The elector Palatine offered her a thousand florins (about an hundred guineas) for three little pieces, which she refused. The empress of Germany gave her orders for a trophy with the arms of the emperor Leopold I. In this piece were crowns supported by eagles, and round the borders garlands of flowers, and other ornaments relative to the subject, for which she received four thousand florins. She also cut the portrait of the emperor, which in Descamps’ time was preserved in the emperor’s cabinet at Vienna. Her works were all in a correct and beautiful style. She died Dec. 28, 1715.

, painter of landscape, cattle, history, and portrait, was born at Gorcum in. 1564, according to Houbraken but according to Sandrart, whose authority seems to claim the preference, he' was born in 1567, and lived mostly at Utrecht. In his youth he applied himself diligently to design after the works of Francis Floris, and afterwards received instructions from several artists of no great repute; but the power of his own genius proved his principal director in the art of painting. He formed a manner peculiar to himself, making nature his model for many of the objects he painted, particularly his cattle, in which he excelled. He died in 1647. He left four sons, two of them, Henry and Adrian, were artists of considerable merit, but inferior to the youngest, the subject of the following article.

, the youngest son of Abraham, was born in 1603, at Utrecht. The first principles of drawing and painting he learned from his father but his natural inclination for the 'art of engraving was so powerful, that he applied himself wholly to the pursuit of it. He first studied under Crispin de Pass, an engraver much more famous for the neatness than the good taste of his works. Not satisfied with what he learned from this artist, he went to Rome, in order to profit by studying the works of the greatest masters and in that city (where the far greater part of his engravings were made) he died in a very advanced age. “The manner of engraving adopted by this excellent artist, appears to me (says Mr. Strutt) to be not only quite original, but the source from which we may trace that style in which the greatest and best French masters excelled; those, I mean, who worked with the graver only. He covered the lights upon his distances, and the other parts of his piates whicn required tinting, with great care. The lights, whether on the distant hills, trees, buildings, or figures, in the engravings prior to his time, had been left quite clear, and by so many white spots scattered in various parts of the same design, the harmony was destroyed, the subject confused, and the principal figures prevented from relieving with any striking effect. By this judicious improvement, Bloemart gave to his prints a more clear and finished appearance than all the laboured neatness even of Jerome Wierix had been able to produce. He drew correctly but from his style of engraving, which was executed entirely with the graver, the extremities of his figures are heavy, and his heads are not always equally beautiful or expressive. With respect to the mechanical part of the work, few indeed have excelled him, either in clearness or freedom of execution. His great fault, however, is want of variety. The naked parts of his figures, the ch-aperies, and the back-ground, are equally neat, and engraved precisely in the same manner. Hence the effect is flat and the flesh, for want of sufficient distinction, appears cold and silvery. His works are justly held in high estimation. They are very numerous, and many of them difficult to be procured.”

, was an artist of whose life we have very few particulars, till he was known at Rome, in the year 1716, being at that time painter to count Martinetz and his reputation, as a good painter of portrait in miniature, was well established in Italy. By the solicitation of Overbeke, he was induced to go to Amsterdam, and in that city was employed to paint small portraits for bracelets, rings, and snuff-boxes and although they were painted in water-colours, yet the colouring was as lively and as natural as if they had been painted in oil. However, as he found his sight much impaired by the minuteness of his work, he discontinued water-colour painting, and attempted the use of oil, with a reasonable degree of success. After he had resided for some years in the Low Countries, he went to England, and set up a new method of printing mezzotinto plates in colours so as to imitate the pictures of which they were copies. In this manner he executed in England several large plates, from pictures of the greatest masters, and disposed of the prints by lottery. But those who obtained the prizes (Mr. Strutt says) appear not to have held them in any very great estimation. “The prints,” he adds, “certainly possess some merit, exclusive of their novelty; but, in general, the colours are flat and dirty the effect is neither striking nor judiciously managed and the drawing is frequently very incorrect, especially in the extremities of his figures.” Mr. Pilkington speaks of them with greater approbation “The artist,” he says, “imitated his models with so much skill, such exact resemblance, such correctness of outline, such similarity of colour and expression, that at first they amazed every beholder who viewed them at a proper distance and many of those prints are still extant, which are much esteemed by persons of good taste.” And Mr. Wai pole observes, that some heads, coloured progressively, according to their several gradations, bear witness to the success and beauty of his invention. He had another merit to the public, with which few inventors begin; for he communicated his secret in a thin quarto, entitled “Coloritto, or the harmony of colouring in painting reduced to mechanical practice, under easy precepts and infallible rules.” His method was performed by several mezzotinto plates for one piece, each expressing different shades and parts of the piece in different colours. He was not, however, it is said, the original inventor of that manner of managing colours, but took it from Lastman and others, who, with, much greater regularity of morals, equal capacities, and more discreet conduct, had before undertaken it without success. Le Blond, whose head was continually full of schemes, next set on foot a project for copying the cartoons of Raphael in tapestry, and made drawings from the pictures for that purpose. Houses were built and looms erected at the Mulberry Ground at Chelsea but the expences being too great, or the contributions not equal to the first expectations, the scheme was suddenly defeated, and Le Blond disappeared, to the no small dissatisfaction of those who were engaged with him. From hence he went to Paris, where, Basan informs us, he was in the year 1737; and in that city he died, 1740, in an hospital. Le Blond was also author of a treatise, in French, on ideal beauty. It was published in 1732, and has since been translated into English.

, a protestant minister, celebrated for his knowledge in ecclesiastical and civil history, was born at Chalons in Champagne, 1591. He was admitted minister at a synod of the isle of France in 1614. A few years afterwards he began to write in defence of protestantism, for in 1619 he published a treatise entitled “Modeste declaration de la sincerite et verite des Eglises Reformees de France.” This was an answer to several of the catholic writers, especially to the bishop of Lucon, so well known afterwards under the title of cardinal Richelieu. From this time he was considered as a person of great hopes. He was secretary more than twenty times in the synods of the isle of France, and was deputed four times successively to the national synods. That of Castres employed him to write in defence of the Protestants. The national synod of Charenton appointed him honorary professor in 1645, with a handsome salary, which had never been granted to any professor before. He wrote several pieces; but what gained him most favour amongst the Protestants are, his “Explications on the Eucharist” his work entitled “De la primaute d'Eglise” his “Treatise of the Sybils” and his piece “De episcopis et presbyteris.” Some of his party, however, were dissatisfied with him for engaging in disputes relating to civil history; and particularly offended at the book he published to shew that what is related about pope Joan is a ridiculous fable.

Upon the death of Vossius he was invited to succeed him in the history professorship in the college of Amsterdam. He accordingly went thither in 1650, where he continued his studies with great assiduity, but intense application, and the air of the country not agreeing with him, greatly impaired his health, and deprived him of his sight. In this condition he is said to have dictated two volumes in folio, on the genealogy of the kings of France, against Chifflet, a work which we are told he undertook at the desire of chancellor Seguier. He had, likewise, some

, a celebrated French mathematician and military engineer, was born at Ribemond in Picardy, in 1617. While he was yet but young, he was chosen regius professor of mathematics and architecture at Paris. Not long after, he was appointed governor to Lewis-Henry de Lomenix, count de Brienne, whom he accompanied in his travels from 1652 to 1655, of which he published an account. He enjoyed many honourable employments, both in the navy and army; and was entrusted with the management of several negociations with foreign princes. He arrived at the dignity of marshal de camp, and counsellor of state, and had the honour to be appointed mathematical preceptor to the Dauphin. He was a member of the royal academy of sciences, director of the academy of architecture, and lecturer to the royal college in all which he supported his character with dignity and applause. Blondel was no less versed in the knowledge of the belles lettres than in the mathematical sciences, as appears by the comparison he published between Pindar and Horace, 1675, 12mo, and afterwards reprinted in Rapin’s miscellaneous works. He died at Paris, the 22d of February, 1686, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. His chief mathematical works were 1. “Cours d' Architecture,” Paris, 1675, folio. 2. “Resolution des quatre principaux problemes d' Architecture,” Paris, 1676, fol. 3. “Histoire du Calendrier Romain,” Paris, 1682, 4to. 4. “Cours de Mathematiques,” Paris, 1683, 4to. 5. “L'Art de jetter des Bombes,” La Haye, 1685, 4to. Besides a “New method of fortifying places,” and other works. Blondel had also many ingenious pieces inserted in the memoirs of the French academy of sciences, particularly in the year 1666.

, nephew of the preceding, and a man of abilities, although not equal to his uncle, was born Jan. 8, 1705, and consequently could not have been educated by his uncle, as some biographers have asserted. Removing from Rouen to Paris in his thirty-fourth year, he opened there a public school for architecture, and acquired so much reputation as to be elected into the academy in 1755. Appointed afterwards professor, he carried on his public lectures and private tuition for thirty years, during which his instructions produced a new sera in architecture. He likewise wrote all the articles on this subject in the Encyclopaedia. When attacked with the disease which proved fatal, he caused himself to be removed to his school in the Louvre, that he might breathe his last in the place where he had acquired his fame, and died there, January 9, 1774. His principal buildings are to be seen at Metx and Strasburgh. His printed works are, 1. “Architecture Francaise,” 1772, 2 vols. fol. 2. “Cours d' Architecture civile,” 9 vols. 8vo, three of which consist o? plates only but this work, the second part of which appeared in 1773, is unfortunately imperfect, owing to his death. 3. “Architecture moderne,” 1728, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “De la distribution des maisons de plaisance,” Paris, 1737, 2 vols. 4to. Blondel was a good engraver, and executed many of the plates for his “Course of Architecture.”

, who was born at Paris in 1671, and died at Evreux, July 23, 1740, possessed a most extensive knowledge of books of every kind, but particularly what related to liturgies, monastic rules, and other branches of ecclesiastical history, which he communicated liberally to the literati of his time. For seventeen years he was corrector of Desprez’s press, and published there, in 1772, “Vie de Saints,” fol. which have gone through several editions. At the end of this volume are subjoined the lives of various other persons eminent for their piety. His own works were chiefly of the religious cast, but he was frequently employed as editor of the works of others, which he illustrated with notes.

, an English physician, born in England, of a French family, and a licentiate of the college of physicians, about the beginning of the last century, published in 1727, “The strength of imagination in pregnant women examined, &c.” This excited a controversy with Dr. Turner, who, in his work on the diseases of the skin, was a strong advocate for the power of imagination in producing marks and deformities. Blondel answered him; and by his humour, as well as argument, contributed much to remove the common prejudices on that popular subject.

, generally known by the appellation of colonel Blood, was a disbanded officer of Oliver Cromwell’s army, famous for his daring crimes and his good fortune. He was first distinguished by engaging in a conspiracy to surprise the castle of Dublin, which was defeated by the vigilance of the duke of Ormond; and some of his accomplices were executed. Escaping to England, he meditated revenge against Ormond and actually seized him one night in his coach in St. James’s-street, where he might have finished his purpose if he had not studied refinements in his vengeance. He bound him on horseback behind one of his associates, resolving to- hang him at Tyburn, with a paper pinned to his breast but when they got into the fields, the duke, in his efforts for liberty, threw himself and the assassin, to whom he was fastened, to the ground and while they were struggling in the mire, he was rescued by his servants; but the authors of this attempt were not then discovered. A little after, in 1671, Blood formed a design of carrying off the crown and regalia from the tower; a design, to which he was prompted, as well by the surprising boldness of the enterprize, as by the views of profit. He was very near succeeding. He had bound and wounded Edwards, the keeper of the jewel-office, and had got out of the tower with his prey but was overtaken and seized, with some of his associates. One of them was known to have been concerned in the attempt upon Ormond and Blood was immediately concluded to be the ringleader. When questioned, he frankly avowed the enterprize but refused to discover his accomplices. “The fear of death (he said) should never induce him either to deny a guilt or betray a friend.” All these extraordinary circumstances made him the general subject of conversation and the king was moved with an idle curiosity to see and speak with a person so noted for his courage and his crimes. Blood might now esteem himself secure of pardon and he wanted not address to improve the opportunity. He told Charles, that he had been engaged with others, in a design to kill him with a carabine above Battersea, where his majesty often went to bathe that the cause of this resolution was the severity exercised over the consciences of the godly, in restraining the liberty of their religious assemblies: that when he had taken his stand among the reeds, full of these bloody resolutions, he found his heart checked with an awe of majesty; and he not only relented himself, but diverted his associates from their purpose: that he had long ago brought himself to an entire indifference about life, which he now gave for lost; yet he could not forbear warning the king of the danger which might attend his execution; that his associates had bound themselves, by the strictest oaths, to revenge the death of any of their confederacy; and that no precaution nor power could secure any one from the effects of their desperate resolutions. Whether these considerations excited fear or admiration in the king, they confirmed his resolution of granting a pardon to Blood and what is yet more extraordinary? Charles carried his kindness so far as to grant him an estate of 500l. a-year. He also showed him great countenance and while old Edwards, who had been wounded, in defending the crown and regalia, was neglected, this man, who deserved only to be stared at and detested as a monster, became a kind of favourite. Blood enjoyed his pension about ten years, till, being charged with fixing an imputation of a scandalous nature on the duke of Buckingham, he was thrown into prison, where he died August 24, 1680.

, was a Flemish painter, whose works are not frequently seen in these kingdoms nor are they easily purchased in Holland, being carefully preserved in private collections, and very highly esteemed. The subjects he chose to paint were always taken from the lowest life such as boors drinking, feasting, dancing, or quarrelling shepherds piping, and sometimes the marriages of villagers. He was a faithful and indeed too servile an imitator of nature never departing from the actions, attitudes, or draperies of his models. He showed a good knowledge of the chiaro-scuro, and perspective he had a delicate manner of pencilling, and his colouring was mellow but he had no idea of elegance yet his pictures had in many respects great merit, and his defects seem rather imputable to the taste of his country than to his own genius some of his works being, for the lightness of the touch, the neatness of handling, and transparence of colour, equal to the best of his time. He died in 1667.

, younger son of sir Henry Blount, and brother to sir Thomas Pope Blount hereafter mentioned, an eminent writer in the last century, was born at his grandfather’s seat at Upper Holloway, in the county of Middlesex, April 27, 1654. He was endowed by nature with a great capacity, and with a strong propensity to learning; which excellent qualities were properly cultivated by the assiduous care of his father, and under so able an instructor, he quickly acquired an extraordinary skill in the arts and sciences, without any thing of that pedantry, which is too frequently the consequence of young men’s application to study in the common course. His pregnant parts and polite behaviour brought him early into the world, so that his father, who was a true judge of men, thought fit, when he was about eighteen, to marry him to Eleanora, daughter of sir Timothy Tyrrel, of Shotover in the county of Oxford, and gave him a very handsome estate, having always respected him as a friend, as well as loved him with the affection of a father. The year after his marriage, he wrote a little treatise, which he published without his name, in defence of Dryden, whose “Conquest of Granada” was attacked by Richard Leigh, a player. In 1678, or perhaps in 1679, he published his “Anima Mnndi,” in which it is said, and with great probability, that he had the assistance of his father. It had been long before handed about in manuscript among the acquaintance of its author, with several passages in it much stronger than in that which was transmitted to the press, and licensed by sir Roger L'Estrange. This, however, did not hinder its giving great offence, insomuch that complaint was made to Dr. Compton, then Lord Bishop of London, who, upon perusal, signified that he expected it should be suppressed, and intimating, that he would thereupon rest satisfied. But afterwards, when the Bishop was out of town, an opportunity was taken by some zealous person to burn the book, which however has been reprinted since. The same year he published a broad sheet under the title of “Mr. Hobbes’s last Words and dying Legacy.” It was extracted from the “Leviathan,” and was intended to weaken and expose his doctrine yet he could be no very warm antagonist, since there is still extant a letter of his to Mr. Hobbes, wherein he professes himself a great admirer of his parts, and one who would readily receive his instructions. He afterwards gave a strong testimony in favour of liberty, in a pamphlet on the Popish Plot, and the fearof a Popish successor, entitled, “An Appeal from the country to the city for the preservation of his majesty’s person, liberty, property, and the Protestant religion.” This treatise is subscribed Junius Brutus, and is the strongest invective against Popery and Papists that was published even in that age, when almost all the wit of the nation was pointed that way. There are in it likewise such express recommendations of the Duke of Monmouth, as might well hinder the author from owning it, and give it, in the eyes of the lawyers of those times, an air of sedition at least, if not of treason. In 1680, he printed that work which made him most known to the world, “The Life of Apollonius Tyaneus,” which was soon after suppressed, and only a few copies sent abroad. It was held to be the most dangerous attempt, that had been ever made against revealed religion in this country, and was justly thought so, as bringing to the eye of every English reader a multitude of facts and reasonings, plausible in themselves, and of the fallacy of which, none but men of parts and learning can be proper judges. For this reason it is still much in esteem with the Deists, and the few copies that came abroad contributed to raise its reputation, by placing it in the lists of those that are extremely rare. In the same year he published his “Diana of the Ephesians,” which, as the author foresaw, raised a new clamour, many suggesting that, under colour of exposing superstition, he struck at all Revelation, and while he avowed only a contempt of the Heathen, seemed to intimate no great affection for the Christian priesthood. The wit, learning, and zeal of our author, had, by this time, raised him to be the chief of his sect; and he took a great deal of pains to propagate and defend his opinions in his discourses and familiar letters, as well as by his books, but he had the usual inconsistency of the infidel, and we find him owning, in a letter to Dr. Sydenham, that in point of practice, Deism was less satisfactory than the Christian scheme. The noise his former pieces had made, induced him to conceal, industriously, his being the author of a book, entitled, “Religio Laici,” published in 1683, but which is little more than a translation of Lord Herbert’s treatise under the same title and one may reasonably suppose, that the same motives prevailed on him to drop a design, in which it appears he was once engaged, of writing the Life of Mahomet, the Turkish prophet, which however has been since executed, in his manner, by a French author, Boulanvilliers. That the world might perceive Mr. Blount was capable of turning his thoughts to subjects very different from those he had hitherto handled, he, in 16S4, published a kind of introduction to polite literature, which shewed the extent of his knowledge, and the acquaintance he had in the several branches of philosophy and science. This was entitled “Janus Scientiarum or an Introduction to Geography, Chronology, Government, History, philosophy, and all genteel sorts of Learning,” London, 8vo. He concurred heartily in the Revolution, and seems to have had very honest intentions of punishing those who were king James’s evil counsellors, after the government was re-settled, by declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen. He gave another strong testimony of his sincere attachment to his principles, and inviolable love to freedom, by a nervous defence of the liberty of the press wherein he shews that all restraints on it can have no other tendency than to establish superstition and tyranny, by abasing the spirits of mankind, and injuring the human understanding. This little piece, therefore, has been always esteemed one of the best he ever wrote; and has furnished their strongest arguments to many succeeding writers. The warmth of Mr. Blount’s temper, his great affection for king William, and his earnest desire to see certain favourite projects brought about, led him to write a pamphlet, in which, he asserted king William and queen Mary to be conquerors, which was not well relished by the house of commons. The title of this very singular and remarkable piece at large, runs thus: “King William and queen Mary conquerors; or, a discourse endeavouring to prove that their majesties have on their side, against the late king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good title; shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of parliament, king James abdicated the government, &c. Written with an especial regard to such as have hitherto refused the oath, and yet allow of the title of conquest, when consequent to a just war,” 1693, 4to.

We now draw near to his death, which corresponded more closely with his principles than his friends and admirers will probably allow. After the death of his wife, he became enamoured of her sister, who, we are told, was a lady of great beauty, wit, good humour, virtue, and discretion, and who is said not to have been insensible on her side, but scrupulous only as to the lawfulness of the thing he proposed, viz. marrying her after her sister. Our author wrote a letter on this subject, in which he states the case as of a third person, and treats it with some ingenuity. It is also said that he applied himself to the archbishop of Canterbury, and other divines, who having decided against his opinion, and the lady consequently becoming inflexible, it threw him into a fit of despair, which ended in a frenzy, so that he shot himself in the head. The wound, however, did not prove inured lately mortal he lived after it some clays and retaining still his passion for that lady, he would receive nothing hut from her hands during that period. He died in the month of August, 1693, and was interred with his family in the church of Ridge, in Hertfordshire. After Mr. Blount’s decease, abundance of his private letters were published in a work called “The Oracles of Reason,” compiled by Mr. Gildon, who in his preface gives seme account of our author, in a letter addressed to a ladv, in which he defends Mr. Blount’s manner of dying, and threatens to follow his example but he lived to change his opinions afterwards. These “Oracles of Reason” were afterwards printed with several of our author’s pieces, under the title of “The miscellaneous works of Charles Blount, esq.” 1695, including all we have mentioned, except the pamphlet respecting king William and queen Mary, which is now extremely scarce. As to his character, he was certainly a man of sense and learning, and could write with much seeming strength, where his arguments were not very cogent. His early dislike to superstition hurried him into dangerous mistakes, and inclined him to believe all revealed religion priestcraft, because some priests made a trade of religion. However, if any credit be due to his writings (and sincerity seems to have been rooted in his temper) he was certainly a Deist; foreigners have classed him among Atheists, which Dr. Campbell, in his life in the Biog. Brit, has taken more pains than necessary to contradict.

, father to the preceding, and a considerable writer in the last century, was descended from a very ancient and honourable family, and born December 15, 1602, at his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount’s, seat at Tittenhanger, in Hertfordshire. He received the first tincture of letters in the free-school of St. Alban’s, where he manifested an unusual quickness of parts, and having qualified himself for the university, was removed to Trinity-college, in Oxford, and entered a gentleman commoner there in 1616, before he was full fourteen years of age. Some years he spent in that learned society, with great reputation and universal respect, not so much on account of his family, by which he was nearly related to the founder, sir Thomas Pope, as from his personal merit. For in his youth he was of a cheerful disposition, a sprightly wit, an easy address, and frank and entertaining in conversation, charmed all who were of his acquaintance, and was justly esteemed as promising a genius as any in the university. In the year 1618 he took the degree of B.A. and soon after left Oxford for Gray’s-inn, where for some time he applied himself to the study of the law, and set out on his travels in the spring of the year 1634, being then lately become of age. He made first the tour of France, part of Spain and Italy, and then passing to Venice, he there contracted an acquaintance with a Janizary, with whom he resolved to pass into the Turkish dominions. With this view he embarked on the 7th of May, 1634, on board a Venetian galley, in which he sailed to Spalatro, and thence continued his journey by land to Constantinople. There he was very kindly received by sir Peter Wich, then our ambassador at the Port. His stay at Constantinople was short, because, having an earnest desire to see Grand Cairo, and meeting with a sudden opportunity, he readily embraced it, and after a peregrination of near two years, returned safely into England, where, in 1636, he printed an account of his travels, London, 1636, 4to, which soon after came to a second edition, and in 1638 to a third, in the same size. It was then printed in 12mo, and reached many editions the title of the eighth runs thus “A Voyage into the Levant, being a brief relation of a Journey lately performed from England by the way of Venice, into Dalmatia, Sclavonia, Bosnia, Hungary, Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, Rhodes, and Egypt, unto Grand Cairo; with particular observations concerning the modern condition of the Turks, and other people under that empire. By sir Henry Blount, knight.” This book made him known to the world, and so much noticed, that shortly after, king Charles I. who desired to fill his court with men of parts, appointed him one of the band of pensioners, then composed of gentlemen of the first families in the kingdom. In 1638, his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount, died, and left him the ancient seat of Blount’s hall, in Staffordshire, and a very considerable fortune. On the 21st of March in the succeeding year, the king conferred on him the honour of knighthood. At the first breaking out of the civil war, he, following the example of the elder branches of his illustrious family, who were eminently loyal, attended the king at York, at Oxford, and other places, was present at the battle of Edgehill, and had there (according to a tradition in the family) the honour of taking care of the young princes. Afterwards he quitted his majesty’s service, and returned to London, where he was questioned for his adhering to the king but he being now grown a very wary and dexterous speaker, so well excused himself, by alleging his duty on account of his post, that he escaped all censure, and was thenceforward well received. It appears, however, that he had not the courage to be faithful, or that Ije had seriously repented his loyalty to the king, for he complied with the usurping government so implicitly, that in 1651 he was named on a committee of twenty persons, for inspecting the practice of the law, and remedying its abuses. He declared himself very warmly against tithes, and would willingly have reduced the income of parish ministers to one hundred pounds a year. A man of this opinion must have been very acceptable at that time. His next appearance, however, was more to his credit. He sat with Dr. Hichard Zouch, Dr. William Clarke, Dr. William Turner, civilians, and with several other eminent persons in the court of king’s (then called the upper) bench, in Westminster hall, on the 5th of July, 1654, by virtue of a commission from Oliver Cromwell, for trying Don Pantalion Saa, brother to the Portuguese ambassador, for murder, of which, being found guilty, he was, much to the honour of the justice of this nation, by sentence of that court, adjudged to suffer death, and was executed accordingly, Jn, the same year, by the death of his elder brother Thomas Pope Blount, esq. the estate of Tittenhanger descended to him. His great reputation for general knowledge and uncommon sagacity was the reason that his name was inserted in the list of twenty-one commissioners appointed, November 1, 1655, to consider of the trade and navigation of the commonwealth, and how it might be best encouraged and promoted, in which station he did his country eminent service. But whatever his compliances with the forms of government set up between 1650 and 1660, he was received into favour and confidence on the ling’s restoration, and appointed high sheriff of the county of Hertford, in 1661. He lived after that as an English gentleman, satisfied with the honours he had acquired, and the large estate he possessed, and having passed upwards uf twenty years in this independent state, be died on the 9th of October, 1682, when he wanted but four months of four-score, and was two days afterwards interred in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. As to what appears from his writings, he seems to have had strong parts, a lively imagination, and, in consequence of these, some very singular opinions. His style was manly, flowing, and less affected than could be expected, considering the times in, and the subjects on, which he wrote. A Latin fragment, published by his son, in his “Oracles of Reason,” better explains his sentiments than all the rest of his works, and demonstrates that he was a man of an irregular way of thinking.

Mr. Warton, in the life of his great ancestor, says very justly, that his “Voyage into the Levant” is the voyage of a sceptic it has more of the philosopher than the traveller, and would, probably, never have been written, but for the purpose of insinuating his religious sentiments. Yet his reflections are so striking and original, and so artfully interwoven with the thread of his adventures, that they enliven, instead of embarrassing the narrative. He had the art of colouring his paradoxes with the resemblance of truth, and so little penetration had the orthodox court of Charles I. that merely on the merit of this book, he was appointed one of the band of pensioners. For the first forty years of his life he was a boon companion, and much given to raillery; but in the other forty, of a serious temper, and a water drinker. He married in 1647, dame Hester Manwaring, relict of sir William Manwaring, of Cheshire, knight, daughter and coheiress of Christopher Wase, of Upper Holloway, in the county of Middlesex, esq. by whom he left three sons and one daughter.

, called in Latin Blondus, or Blundus, a very eminent divine in the thirteenth century, was educated in the university of Oxford, and went afterwards for his improvement to Paris, where he quickly distinguished himself, among many of his learned contemporaries, by the vivacity of his wit. On his return into England, he again settled himself at Oxford, and read divinity lectures there with universal applause. Wood says he was the first that lectured on Aristotle both in Paris and Oxford. The reputation of his learning obtained him also several other preferments, particularly those of prebendary andhancellor in the church of York. In 1232, the archiepiscopal see of Canterbuiy being vacant by the death of Richard Wethershed, and the rejection of two of his successors, Ralph Nevil, bishop of Chichester and chancellor of England, and John, sub-prior of Canterbury, by the pope, Dr. Blount was, by the chapter of Canterbury, elected archbishop. He did not, however, enjoy that dignity; for the pope immediately objected to him, and after a summary inquiry into the validity of his election, declared it void, for several reasons, of which our historians take notice, though very probably Bale has hit upon the true, although not the ostensible cause, namely, that his abilities rendered him obnoxious to the court of Rome, or, as Bale expresses it, that he was more learned than that court wished an archbishop to be.

Many of our modern writers, and particularly bishop Godwin, fall into frequent inaccuracies concerning this prelate, sometimes mistaking his sirname, and sometimes confounding him with Richard Blount, bishop of Lincoln. After his return from Rome, and being deprived of his high dignity, he retired once again to Oxford, and, as Leland tells us, consoled himself under his misfortunes, by an ardent application to his studies. In this manner he spent sixteen years, during which time he composed several learned works, and amongst them various commentaries on the Holy Scriptures. He was celebrated by his contemporaries for the elegance of his style, and for the extensiveness of his learning. John Ross, of Warwick, no contemptible historian, and who did not live above a century after his time, speaks of him as a prodigy of science. This very learned, though unfortunate person, having attained to a good old age, and to a high reputation for his knowledge, prudence, and piety, died hi 1248, having always shevyn an equanimity of mind, which demonstrated him worthy of the highest station, by enabling him to bear with fortitude his fall from thence.

Leland, in his life of this learned person, owns ingenuously, that he was so unlucky as never to have met with any of those writings which rendered our author’s memory famous, adding a doubt whether any of them were extant. Bale, in the first edition of his work, omitted this life; and when he added it afterwards, he only copied Leland, adding that Blount had written “Summarium Sacrae Facultatis,” lib. 1. “Disceptationes aliquot,”' lib. 1. and several Commentaries on the Scriptures. Pits transcribes Bale, adding the censure mentioned above yet takes no notice of any other works than those which Bale had before noted, and, which is very remarkable, does not give us the beginning of any of them, as his custom always is, wherever he had seen such books, or could meet with any accounts from other people who had seen them. It is therefore more than probable, that he spoke slightingly of his talents, in order to support the credit of the see of Rome, by lessening the reputation of a person whom it had so vehemently persecuted.

, an eminent writer towards the close of the seventeenth century, was the eldest “son of sir Henry Blount before mentioned, and was born at Upper Holloway in the county of Middlesex, Sept. 12, 1649. He was carefully educated under the eye of his father, who took care to acquaint him with the several branches of polite literature most worthy the notice of a person of his rank; and so great was the improvement he made under so able an instructor, that, even in his junior years, he was considered both as a judicious and learned man, and on this account, as well as for other marks of worth and genius, he was, by king Charles II. advanced to the degree of a baronet, by apatent dated Jan. 27,1679, in the thirtieth year of his majesty’s reign, and in the lifetime of sir Henry Blount his father. He was elected burgess for St. Albari’s in Hertfordshire, in the parliaments in the thirtieth and thirty-first of king Charles II. and was knight of the shire in three parliaments after the Revolution, having also the honour to be elected commissioner of accounts for the three last years of his life by the house of commons. He always distinguished himself as a lover of liberty, a sincere friend to his country, and a true patron of learning. His strong attachment for literature and criticism, and his extensive acquaintance with the best writers in all ages and sciences, appearecLfully in the” Censura," which he composed, first for his own use and satisfaction, and then published in the universal language for the benefit of others. His talents for original remark appear from his essays, which, in point of learning, judgment, and freedom of thought, are certainly no way inferior to those of the famous Montaigne. His knowledge and modesty are equally conspicuous in another piece of his, wherein he presents the public with the fruits of his reading on natural history, without depriving those from whom he drew his knowledge, of any part of their reputation. What he has written on poetry was likewise drawn together for his own information, and afterwards sent abroad for public use. Having thus satisfied in his riper years, the great expectations which his friends had of him in his youth, having been steady to one party, without violence towards others, after acquiring honour in his several public characters, esteem in private conversation, and affection in domestic life, he quietly ended his days at his seat at Tktenhanger, June 30, 1697, in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was buried the eighth of July following, in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. He married Jane, daughter of sir Henry Caesar, of Benington Place in the county of Hertford, knight, and by her left issue five sons and nine daughters, but the baronetage is now extinct.

His “Censura Celebrium Authorum” was first printed at London, 1690, fol. and was reprinted at Geneva, 1694, 4to, and 1710, 4to. This compilation, a work of great erudition and labour, is well known to the critic and the literary historian, but cannot be compared, as Niceron has attempted, with Baillet’s “Jugement des Savans,” Baillet reporting the opinions of others in his own words, but Blount transcribes them literally, which adds considerably to their value. His “Essays,” which were published 1697, 8vo, are on the following subjects: popery, learning, education and custom, the ancients, passion, &c. His “Natural History, containing many, not common observations, extracted out of the best modern authors,” was published 1693, 12mo and his “Remarks on Poetry,” 1694, 4to. This is a species of Censura confined to the poetical class, and was honoured with the approbation of lord Mul grave, the most elegant critic of that age. Upon the whole, sir Thomas Pope Blount, as he was the most learned, appears to have been the most useful of the family, and most deserving the veneration of posterity.

, a miscellaneous writer of the seventeenth century, was born 1618, at Bardsley in Worcestershire, the son of Myles Blount, of Orleton in Herefordshire, who was the fifth son of Roger Blount of Monkland in the same county. He appears to have supplied the want of an university education by diligent application, and after studying the classics, entered himself of the Inner Temple, and was in due course admitted to the bar. Being, however, a Roman catholic, he never pleaded, but after some time resided mostly at Orleton. A sedentary life having much impaired his health, and the popish plot breaking out in 1678, he was so hurried from place to place, that the fatigue brought on a palsy, of which he died at Orleton, Dec. 26, 1679. Whether by this mention of the popish plot, his biographer means that he was concerned in it, does not appear. Wood seems to insinuate that he was only alarmed, as he was known to be a zealous Roman catholic. He was, however, a man of general knowledge, and an industrious and useful writer. His works are, 1. “The Academy of Eloquence, or complete English rhetoric,” 1654, 12mo, often reprinted. 2. “Glossographia, or a Dictionary of hard words,” Lond. 1656, 8vo. Of this there have been at least five editions. 3. “The Lamps of the Law, and the Lights of the Gospel,” ibid. 1658, 8vo. 4. “Boscobel; or the history of his majesty’s escape after the battle of Worcester,” ibid. 1660. 5. Boscobel, the second part, with the addition of the “Claustrum regale reseratum,” or the king’s concealment at Trent in Somersetshire, published by Mrs. Anne Windham of Trent,” ibid. 1681. Both these now are among the scarce and high-priced curiosities of the seventeenth century. Extracts are given from them in the Addenda to lord Clarendon’s History. 6. “The Catholic Almanac for 1661-2-3, &c.” 7. “Booker rebuked; or animadversions on Booker’s Almanac.” 8. “A Law Dictionary,” ibid. 1671, fol. reprinted with additions. 9. “Animadversions on sir Richard Baker’s Chronicle,” Oxf. 1672, 8vo. 10. “A World of Errors, discovered in Mr. Edmund Philips’s World of Words,” London, 1673, fol. 11. “Fragmenta Antiquitatis. Ancient tenures of land, and jocular customs of some manors,” ibid. 1679, 8vo of which Josiah Beckwith of York published a new edition in 1784. 12. “Animadversions on Blome’s Britannia,” not published. 13. “The art of making Devises, treating of Hieroglyphics, Symbols, &c.” a translation from the French, 1646, 4to. 14. “A catalogue of the Catholics, who lost their lives in the king’s cause, during the civil war,” printed at the end of lord Castlemain’s “Catholic Apology.” 15. “A Chronicle of England,” left imperfect, and a history of Herefordshire, a ms. left with his heirs, but which was probably lost, or has escaped the researches of Mr. Gough. 16. “A pedigree of the Blounts,” printed in Peacham’s “Complete Gentleman,” edit. 1661.

, an English musician of considerable fame, was born in 1648, at North Collingham in Nottinghamshire, and became one of the first set of children of the chapel royal after the restoration. In 1673, he was sworn one of the gentlemen of the chapel, and in 1674, appointed master of the children. In 1685, he was nominated one of the private music to king James II. and in 1687, was likewise appointed almoner and master of the choristers in the cathedral church of St. Paul but, in 1693, he resigned this last place in favour of his scholar Jeremiah Clerk. Blow had his degree of doctor in music conferred on him by the special grace of archbishop Sancroft, without performing an exercise for it at either of the universities. On the death of Purcell, in 1695, he was elected organist of St. Margaret’s, Westminster; and in 1699, appointed composer to the chapel of their majesties king AYilliam and queen Mary, at the salary of 40l. a year, which afterwards was augmented to 73l. A second composer, with the like appointment, was added in 1715, at which time it was required that each should produce a new anthem on the first Sunday of his month in waiting. Dr. Blow died in 1708 and though he did not arrive at great longevity, yet by beginning his course, and mounting to the summit of his profession so early, he enjoyed a prosperous and eventful life. His compositions for the church, and his scholars who arrived at eminence, have rendered his name venerable among the musicians of our country. In his person he was handsome, and remarkable for a gravity and decency in his deportment suited to his station, though he seems by some of his compositions to have been not altogether insensible to the delights of a convivial hour. He was a man of blameless morals, and of a benevolent temper; but was not so insensible to his own worth, as to be totally free from the imputation of pride. Sir John Hawkins furnishes us with an anecdote that shews likewise that he had a rough method of silencing criticism. In the reign of James II. an anthem of some Italian composer had been introduced into the chapel royal, which the king liked very much, and asked Blow if he could make one as good Blow answered in the affirmative, and engaged to do it by the next Sunday when he produced “I beheld and lo a great multitude.” When the service was over, the king sent father Petre to acquaint him that he was much pleased with it: “but,” added Petre, “I myself think it too long.” “That,” answered Blow, “is the opinion of but one fool, and I heed it not.” This provoked the Jesuit so much that he prevailed on the king to suspend Blow, and the consequences might perhaps have been more serious, had not the revolution immediately followed.

Though Dr. Blow’s church music was never collected in, a body, yet besides the three services and ten full and verse anthems printed by Boyce, nineteen of his choral productions have been preserved in Dr. Tudway’s ms collection and in Dr. Aldrich’s collection in Christ church, there are five more. He appears to have been a composer of anthems, even while a singing-boy in the chapel royal. His secular compositions were published in a folio volume in 1700, under the title of “Amphion Anglicus,” in imitation of Purcell’s collection, the “Orpheus Britannicus,” but are deemed considerably inferior. Some of his choral productions are in a very bold and grand style, yet he is unequal and frequently unhappy in his attempts at new harmony and composition. Dr. Burney has given a very elaborate criticism on all his works, accompanied by specimens on plates, by which it appears that he was either defective in some of the qualifications of a great composer, or careless and inaccurate.

, a German poet, was born at Rathenau, in the March of Brandenburgh, Nov. 17, 1739. He studied at Brandenburgh, Berlin, and Francfort on the Oder, and appears to have been intended either for the church or the bar, but preferred philosophy and polite literature, which he cultivated with success, under Ramler and Alexander Baumgarten, and afterwards devoted himself to a retired life in his own country. His first publication, “Lyric Poems,” published at Berlin in 1765, procured him very high reputation and was followed, in 1776, by another volume of Idylls and miscellaneous pieces, in a style of poetry, simple, pure, original, and elegant. In 1785 appeared an additional volume, which contributed to support the character he had acquired. In prose he published what were called “Walks,” moral and critical, and a “Dictionary of German proverbs,” Leipsic, 1782, with their explanations and origin. He died at Rathenau, Aug. 28, 1790, leaving the character of an amiable and virtuous man, beloved by all who knew him, and esteemed by his countrymen as one of the best of their modern poets, although perhaps not belonging to the first class.

, a Theatine, was born at London of French parents, Dec. 4, 1638, and became celebrated for his acquirements both in sacred and profane learning. Having gone to Portugal, he learned the language of that country in six months, and preached several times before the king and queen. He was also admitted into the academy, and appointed to an office in the inquisition. His biographers tell us that when in England he had been chaplain or preacher to Henrietta Maria queen to Charles I. forgetting that he could not be ten years old when that unhappy princess was expatriated. He died at Lisbon, Feb. 13, 1734, in the ninety-fifth year of his age. On the 28th of the same month his eloge was pronounced in the academy, and two learned doctors gravely discussed the question, “whether England was most honoured in. his birth, or Portugal in his death r” On the same occasion various pieces both in Latin and Portuguese were recited to his memory. His works, which must justify this high panegyric, are, 1. “A Vocabulary or Dictionary, Portuguese and Latin,” Coimbra, 1712 1728, 10 vols. folio, including a supplement in 2 vols. Moraes de Silva compiled from this voluminous work a good Portuguese Dictionary, printed at Lisbon, 1789, 2 vols. 4to. 2. “Oraculum utriusque Testament!, musseum Bluteavianum.” 3. “A List of all Dictionaries, Portuguese, Castilian, Italian, French, and Latin,” with the dates, &c. Lisbon, 1728, and printed in the supplement to his Dictionary. 4. Sermons and panegyrics, under the title “Primicias Evangelicas,” 1685, 4to.

, Boudicea, or Bonduca, a renowned British queen of the first century, was the wife of Prasatagus, king of the Iceni (the inhabitants of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdonshires), who in order to secure the friendship and protection of Nero to his wife and family, left the emperor and his daughters co-heirs. But as soon as he was dead, the emperor’s officers seized upon his effects in their master’s name. Boadicea, widow of the deceased king, strongly remonstrated against these unjust proceedings but her complaints only exposed her to farther wrongs and injuries, which she resented in such terms, as provoked the officers to treat her in the most barbarous manner; they caused her to be publicly scourged, and her daughters to be ravished.

This story soon spread through the island, and the public indignation was so generally raised, that all, excepting London, agreed to revolt. The Roman historians themselves acknowledge, that the violence and injustice of the emperor’s officers gave the Britons sufficient reason to lay aside their private animosities, and while they aided the queen to revenge her wrongs, to recover their own liberty. Accordingly she put herself at their head, and earnestly exhorted them to take advantage of the absence of the Roman general, then in the isle of Man, by putting these foreign oppressors all to the sword. They readily embraced the proposal and attacking the Romans wherever they found them, massacred all without distinction of age or sex and it is said that seventy thousand perished on this occasion. In the mean time, Suetonius Paulinus, the Roman general, suddenly returning, marched against the revolted Britons, who had an army of 100,000, or, according to Dio CassiuS, 230,000 men, under the conduct of Boadicea. The tine person of Boadicea, fair and dignified, and her undaunted courage, inspired the most ardent hopes. Paulinus, likewise, was in great perplexity the ninth legion had been defeated by the enemy, and Poenius Posthumus, at the head of a large detachment of the second, refused to join him; so that he had the choice but of two expedients, either to march with his army, not exceeding 10,000, into the open field against his numerous enemies, or shut himself up in some town and wait for them. At first he chose the latter, and remained in London, but soon altered his resolution and instead of retiring from the Br.tons, who were now on the march towards him, he resolved to meet them. The field of battle he pitched upon was a narrow tract of ground, facing a large plain, where they encamped, and his rear was secured by a forest. The Britons traversed the plain in large bodies, exulting in their numbers; and, secure of victory, had brought their wives and children in waggons to be spectators of their actions in the battle, placing them round their entrenchments.

Boadicea, in the mean time, was not idle, but mounting her chariot, with her two daughters, rode up and down, through the several squadrons of her army, whom she addressed to the following effect “That it was not the first time the Britons had been victorious, under the conduct of their queen. That, for her part, she came not there as one descended of royal blood, to fight for empire or riches, but as one of the common people, to avenge the loss of their liberty, and the wrongs of herself and children. That the wickedness of the Romans was come to its height and that the gods had already begun to punish them so that, instead of being able to withstand the attack of a victorious army, the very shouts of so many thousands would put them to flight. That if the Britons would but consider the number of their forces, or the motives of the war, they would resolve to vanquish or die. That it was much better to fall honourably in defence of liberty, than. be again exposed to the outrages of the Romans. Such at least was her resolution as for the men, they might, if they pleased, live and be slaves.” At the end of her speech she is said to have let loose a hare, which she had concealed, as an omen of victory.

While Boadicea thus laboured to animate her Britons to behave with their wonted bravery, Paulinus was no less assiduous in preparing his troops for the encounter. The Britons expected his soldiers to be daunted at their number, but when they saw them advance with short steps, sword in hand, without discovering any fear, their hearts began to fail them, and they fell into disorder, which continually increased, it not being in the power of their commanders to lead them back to the charge. The Romans observing their consternation, pushed the advantage with great fury, and threw their army into a confusion past the possibility of recovery. They gave no quarter, and 80,000 of the Britons perished. Boadicea herself escaped falling into the hands of the conquerors but, unable to survive the remembrance of this terrible defeat, either fell a victim to despair or poison. This battle was fought in the year 61.

, a Dutchman, and physician to the state in Ireland, in 1649, desesves some notice here, as being the first inquirer into the natural history of Ireland, of which he published an account. He lived to hold his post of physician to the state only eight months, dying either in 1649 or 1650, but compiled part of it some years before he went over, from materials furnished by sir William and sir Richard Parsons, and his own brother, Dr. Arnold Boate, who practised physic eight years at Dublin, and spent some months with him at London, in his way to Paris, in 1644, instructing him how to improve certain forfeited lands he had purchased in Leinster and Ulster. The title of his book is “Ireland’s Natural History, &c.” published by Samuel Hartlib, esq. “for the common good of Ireland, and more especially for the benefit of the adventurers and planters therein,” Lond. 1652, 12mo. Although some of his accounts are imperfect, and his topographical errors numerous, it is wonderful that a stranger should have accomplished so much, and at least run away with the honour of laying the foundation of the natural history of Ireland. He intended a second and a third book of the vegetables and animals, and a fourth of the natives, their old fashions, laws, and customs, and the attempts of their English conquerors to civilize and improve both them and their country, which his brother, in his letter to Hartlib, promised to publish. What he published was afterwards incorporated into a Natural History of Ireland, by several hands, 1736, reprinted 1755, with a new preface and index of chapters, 4to. Boate’s book was translated into French by Briot, and published at Paris 1666, 12mo. We have no farther account of his history; but Weston, in his catalogue of English writers on husbandry, says that his true name was Beats.

, a German horticulturist, who came to England about the middle of the seventeenth century, was appointed first superintendant of the physic-garden at Oxford, founded in 1632 by Henry earl of Danby. Some writers call him doctor, and some professor of botany, but he was neither, nor was there any professor, properly so called, before Dillenius. The “Catalogus -Plantarum” in this garden, published at Oxford in 1648, 12mo, was drawn up by Bobart, and is a very favourable proof of his zeal and diligence. Under his care and that of his son, the garden at Oxford continued to flourish for many years. The old man, according to Wood, lived in the gardenhouse, and died there Feb. 4, 1679, aged eighty-one. Mr. Granger relates an anecdote that “on rejoicing days old Bobart used to have his beard tagged with silver.” He left two sons, Jacob and Tillemant, who were both employed in the physi-garden. Jacob, who seems to have been a man of some learning, published the second volume of Morison’s “Oxford history of Plants,” 1699, fol. Of him too, an anecdote is told which implies somewhat of a humourous disposition. He had transformed a dead rat into the feigned figure of a dragon, which imposed upon the learned so far, that “several fine copies of verses were wrote on so rare a subject.” Bobart afterwards owned the cheat but it was preserved for some years, as a master-piece of art. Dr. Pulteney thinks Bobart was alive in 1704; but he appears to have lived considerably longer, as Dr. Abel Evans dedicated “Vertumnus,” a poetical epistle, to him in 1713. A descendant of this family, Tillemant Bobart, is still well known to all who wish for civil treatment and a safe carriage on the road to Oxford.

, one of the most eminent Italian poets and scholars, and one of the revivers of literature in Europe, was born in 1313. His father was a merchant of Florence, when to be a merchant was the first of situations, and his family was originally of Certaldo, a village about twenty miles from Florence, which accounts for Boccaccio always adding to his name the words “da Certaldo.” He was not, therefore, the son of a peasant, as reported by some biographers, but it cannot be denied that he was the fruit of an illicit connection which his father formed at Paris, where he happened to be on commercial 'business, and where this son was born, and it appears, likewise, that his father was not very rich. Being, however, brought early to Florence, his education commenced there, and he is said to hav e evinced a decided attachment to poetry before he was ten years old, about which time his father placed him in a merchant’s counting-house, to learn- arithmetic and book-keeping, that he might be the sooner enabled to provide for him among his connections. Some years after, this merchant took him to Paris, where he went to set up in business, and for six years, during which Boccaccio resided in his house, endeavoured to reconcile him to trade; but finding after every experiment, either by persuasion or constraint, that this was impossible, he at length sent him home to his father.

At Florence, as at Paris, Boccaccio’s time was divided between mercantile employment, to which he had a fixed dislike, and his taste for literature, which he contrived to indulge whenever possible. This became more easy at Naples, where his father had sent him in 1333, that he might be detached entirely from his studies, and acquire a zest for commercial pursuits; but here, during a residence of eight years, instead of giving his company only to merchants, he formed an acquaintance with the most eminent men of letters, both Neapolitans and Florentines, who lived there under the liberal patronage of king Robert. There is no reason, however, to suppose that Boccaccio profited by this monarch’s bounty, but he appears to have acquired the good graces of one of the king’s natural daughters, a married lady, for whom he composed several pieces both in prose and verse, and whom, he often mentions un ier the name of Fiammetta. Generally admired for his personal accomplishments, wit, and. spirit, and happy in his attachment to a king’s daughter, it is not very surprising that the fulfilment of his father’s wishes as to trade should become more and more difficult. The taste which his mistress had for poetry, his acquaintance with men of letters, the deep impression made on his mind by an accidental view of Virgil’s tomb, the presence of the celebrated Petrarch, who was received with the highest distinction at the court of Naples, in 1341, and who was about to receive the same honours at Rome, and the acquaintance Boccaccio had formed with him, all contributed, with his natural bent, to decide irrevocably that he should be a scholar and a poet. On his return to Naples, after a residence of two years with his father at Florence, he was favourably received by the queen, who now reigned in the room of her deceased husband, and it is said that it was to please her, as well as his beloved Fiammetta, that he began to write the “Decameron,” which unquestionably places him. in the first rank of Italian prose writers. In the mean time, his father finding it impossible to resist his inclination for literature, ceased to urge him more on the subject of trade, and only conditioned with him that he should study the canon law. Boccaccio endeavoured to please him, but found the Decretals worse than the ledger and the day-book, and returned with fresh ardour to the muses and the classics, studying to acquire a purer Latin style than hitherto, and to add t& his treasures a knowledge of the Greek. This he learned partly in Calabria, where he frequently went, or in Naples, where he had formed an intimacy with Paul of Perugia, an able Greek grammarian, and librarian to king Robert. He studied also mathematics, astronomy, or rather astrology, under a celebrated Genoese, Andelone del Nero, and even paid some attention to the outlines of theology, but it does not appear that he went much farther.

On the death of his father, being entirely at liberty, and with some little property, to pursue his inclination, he first settled at Florence, where his studies were interrupted only by his pleasures, and some very honourable employments confided to him by his fellow citizens. Among others, one must have been peculiarly gratifying to him. This was his being sent to Padua in 1350, to announce to Petrarch the news of his recall, and the restitution of his father’s property, who had formerly been banished from Florence, and died in exile. Such an errand had a natural tendency to cement their friendship, Some years after, when Boccaccio had spent his little property, partly in purchasing books, and partly in gratifying his taste for pleasure, he found in Petrarch a friend, who, besides assisting his wants, gave him such affectionate and judicious advice as produced a very salutary change in his conduct. Before this, while suffering under the reflections of his follies, in 1361, a friar had persuaded him to renounce the world, and all that could be called profane learning. The fact seems to have been, that Boccaccio, in his Decamerone, which first appeared in 1353, had satirized the licentious lives of the monks, and this friar came to him with a story of his having seen a vision, and being commissioned to warn him of his danger, if he did not renounce his sins, and burn his Decamerone: and Boccaccio was so alarmed, that he actually put on the ecclesiastical habit, (for which, as being a natural son, he was obliged to apply to the pope for a dispensation) and resumed the study of theology; but he soon found that this was too late, and too averse from his habits, and he therefore had recourse to Petrarch, who persuaded him to remove to Certaldo, where he had a small estate, and pursue his literary labours in that retirement.

Before this time, all his works, and they only works of amusement, were written in Italian, but now he began to compose on the subjects of literature aud history in Latin, and one of these treatises was the first modern work that gave any account of the mythological notions of the antients. We have already noticed that he was well acquainted with Greek, and brought with him, at his own expense, from Venice to Florence, Leontius Pilatus of Thessalonica, and entertained him in his house for three years. During this time he improved his knowledge of Greek, and Leontius went over the Iliad and Odyssey with him, translating it into Latin. Boccaccio wa_s the first who was at the expence of importing from Greece Mss. of both the Iliad and Odyssey, among many other valuable Mss. both Greek and Latin, by which he endeavoured to introduce a taste for these valuable remains of antiquity, and particularly for the Greek authors, in preference to the scholastic studies, which alone were at this time pursued in the schools.

It must be confessed, however, tuat Boccaccio was not critically skilled in the Greek. For want of lexicons and grammars, he was obliged to content himself with the general sense of what he read, and did not acquire that accurate knowledge, which distinguished the scholars of the two succeeding centuries. Still his acquisitions and his zeal entitle him to high praise, and he was the means of establishing a sort of Greek colony at Florence, at a time when that language was an absolute stranger in all the schools and universities of Europe.

While at Certaldo, he was not forgot. The high character he had already attained induced the republic of Florence to send him on two embassies to pope Urban V. which he accomplished to their satisfaction, but after his return to Certaldo, he experienced a long illness, which left a great degree of langour and dejection. Recovering, however, from this, he took upon him an employment peculiarly gratifying to him in every respect. He had always been a great admirer of Dante, had often copied his works, and inew them almost by heart . The Florentines, who had persecuted and banished that celebrated poet, were now disposed to make some reparation, by instituting, by a decree of the senate, a professorship for lectures on his poems, and Boccaccio was appointed to this new chair. How much he was delighted in an employment, not only highly honourable, but congenial to his habits, may easily be conceived. The pains he took, however, retarded his recovery from his late illness, and the death of Petrarch, of which he was at this time informed, appears tohave'hastened his own. He became more and more weak, and did not survive his illustrious friend and master above a year, dying at Certaldo, Dec. 21, 1375. He was buried there in the church of St. James and St. Philip, and the following inscription, written by himself, was engraven on his tomb

In person he is described, as inclining to corpulence, but his stature was portly, his face round, with a nose a little depressed above the nostrils, his lips somewhat full, but nevertheless handsome and well-formed, his chin dimpled and beautiful when he smiled, his aspect jocund and gay, and his discourse agreeable and polished.

A short time before his death he made his will, bequeathing what property he had to his two nephews, the sons of James, his elder brother. The most valuable legacy, however, was that of his books, which were almost all copies by his own hand, or collected at great expence. These he left to one father Martin, an Augustine, who was his executor, and in this perhaps his adviser, with a view that they might become the property of his convent., They were, however, lost to the world. A celebrated scholar, Niccolo Niccoli, in the succeeding century, built in that convent a library for the express purpose of preserving Boccaccio’s books, but time destroyed them and it. It has been remarked as somewhat singular, that in this will, Boccaccio makes no mention of a natural son he had in his youth, and who was settled at Florence, yet this young man superintended his funeral, and caused the above inscription to be engraven on his tomb. He was universally regretted at Florence, where, in his poverty, he had not met with very liberal attentions. Verses, however, are more easily bestowed than money, and the poets of the time, particularly Sachetti, hastened with their contributions to his memory. Two medals also were struck, and twenty years afterwards, the republic wishing to pay higher honour to him as well as to Dante and Petrarch, deliberated on a magnificent monument to be erected to the three great ornaments of their country in the church of St. Maria del Fiore, but this was never carried into execution.

The predominant passion of Boccaccio, in youth, was the love of pleasure tempered by that of study; as he advanced in age, study became his sole delight. He had no ambition either for rank or fortune. The public employments confided to him came unasked, and when he could lay them down, he did so. He was equally averse to any domestic employments which were likely to take up much of his time, and would accept of no private tutorships, which so often eventually promote a man’s interest. His character was frank and open, but not without a degree of pride, which, however, particularly when he was in low circumstances, kept him from mean compliances. With respect to his talents, it is eviuent that he had always made a false estimate of them he had the fullest confidence in his poetical powers, yet nothing he wrote in verse rises above mediocrity, and many of his prose Italian writings desefve no higher praise. He is superior and inimitable only in his tales, on which he did not pride himself, nor indeed set any value. He fell into the same error with his master Petrarch in supposing that his serious Latin works would be the source of his fame, which he owes entirely to his Tales, as Petrarch owes his to his love-verses. All his Latin writings are crude and hasty. * In them, says Paul Cortesius, “he labours with thought, and struggles to give it utterance but his sentiments find no adequate vehicle, and the lustre of his native talents is obscured by the depraved taste of the times.” In his youth, he was flattered as having obtained the second place in poetry, his admiration for Dante not permitting him to aspire to the first, and the sonnets of Petrarch were not yet known. It is to his honour, however, that as soon us he saw the latter, he threw into the fire the greater part of his lyric compositions, sonnets, canzoni, &e. and seems to have determined to apply himself entirely to the perfection of Italian prose, in which it must be confessed he has succeeded admirably. As a recent event has rendered some of Boccaccio’s writings an object, of research among collectors, we shall enter somewhat more fully than is usual into a detail of their editions. Among his Latin works, we have, 1. “De genealogia Deorum lib. XV. De montium, sylvarum, lucuum, fluviorum, stagnorum, et marium nominibus, liber.” These two were first printed together in folio without date, but supposed to be at Venice, and. anterior to 1472, in which year appeared the second edition, at Venice, with that date. The third was published at the same place in 1473, and followed by others at Reggio, Vincenza, Venice, Paris, and Basle, which last, in 1532, is accompanied with notes and supplements. This account of the genealogy of the Gods, or the heathen mythology, must have been the fruit of immense reading, and as no information on the subject existed then, a high value was placed on it, although it has been since superseded by more recent and accurate works. He has been very unjustly accused of quoting authors no where else to be found, as if he had invented their names, but it is surely more reasonable to think they might be known in his days, although their memory has since perished, or that he might have been himself deceived. This same work, translated into Italian by Joseph Betussi, has gone through twelve or thirteen edi-. tions, the first, of Venice, 1547, 4to. There are -also two French translations, the first anonymous, Paris, 1498, fol. and 1531, also in fol. the second by Claude Wittard, Paris, 1578, 8vo. The lesser book, or Dictionary of the names of mountains, forests, &c. was also translated into Italian by Niccolo Liburnio, and printed in 4to. without date or place, but there is a second edition at Florence, 1598, 8vo. 2. “De casibus Virorum et Foeminarum illustrium libri IX.” Paris, 1535, 1544, fol. and at Vincenza the same year translated into Italian by Betussi, Venice, 1545, 8vo, and often reprinted. But there must have been an edition long previous to the oldest of these, as we find it translated into English in 1494, by John Lydgate, monk of Edmundsbury, at the commandment of Humphrey duke of Gloucester, under the title of “John Boccace of the Fall of Princes and Princesses .” It has likewise been translated and often reprinted in French, Spanish, and German. The first of the Spanish translations is dated Seville, 1495, and the first of the French was printed at Bruges in 1476, folio, then at Paris, 1483, at Lyons the same year, and again at Paris in 1494, 1515, folio, and 1578, 8vo. 3. “De claris Mulieribus.” The first edition of this is without place or date, in the black letter the second is that of Ulm, 1473, fol. followed by those of Louvain and Berne from 1484 to 1539. Of this work the Italians have two translations, one by Vincent Bagli, a Florentine, Venice, 1506, 4to; the other by Betussi, who prefixed a life of Boccaccio, Venice, 1545, and 1547, 8vo. The first edition of the Spanish translation is dated Seville, 1528, fol. That of the German translation is dated Augsburgh, 1471, and was followed by one at Ulm, 1473, 4to. The French have two translations, the oldest 1493, fol. 4. “Eclogae,” sixteen in number, and printed with those of Virgil, Calphurnius, &c. Florence, 1504, 8vo. They are also inserted in the “Bucolicorum auctorcs,” Basil, 1546, 8vo. Like Petrarch, he introduces the events of his time in these eclogues, with the principal personages under fictitious names, but he has furnished us with a key to these in a letter to P. Martin de Signa, his confessor, of which Manni has givdn an extract in his history of the Decameron. His Italian works in verse are, 5. “La Teseide,” the first attempt at an epic in Italian, and written in the ottava rima, or heroic verse, of which Boccaccio is considered as the inventor; printed at Ferrara, 1475, fol. Venice, 1528, 4to, and translated into French, 1597, 12mo. 6. “Amorosa visione,” Milan, 1520 and 1521, 4to, and with grammatical observations and an apology for Boccaccio by Claricio d'Lmola, Venice, 1531, 8vo. This singular poem is divided into fifty cantos or chapters, which contain five triumphs, namely those of wisdom, glory, riches, love, and fortune, written in the terza rima, with a curious contrivance, gratifying to the bad taste of the times, by which the initial letters of each stanza are made to compose an acrostic in praise of the princess Mary, whom elsewhere he celebrates under the name of Fiammetta. 7. “II Filastrato,” a poetical romance in heroic verse, the hero of which is young Troilus, the son of Priam, and the subject, his amours with Chryseis, whom the poet does not make the daughter of Chryses, but of Calchas. Of this there are four editions Bologna, 1498, 4to, Milan, 1499, 4to, Venice 1501 and 1528, 4to. 8. “Nimfale Fiesolano.” It is thought that in this poem Boccaccio has concealed, under the disguise of a pastoral fiction, an amorous adventure which happened in his time in the environs of Florence. The first edition is in 4to. without place or date; the second is of Venice 1477, and was followed by many others at Venice and Florence, and one recently of Paris, 1778, 12mo. It was translated into French by Anthony Guercin du Crest, and printed at Lyons, 1556, 16mo. 9. “Rime,” or miscellaneous poems. We have noticed that he burned the greater part of his minor poems, but those which were dispersed in manuscript in various hands, have been often collected, and the publication of them announced. M. Baldelli, who has since, in 1806, published a good life of Boccaccio, collected all of these poems he could find, and printed them at Leghorn, 1802, 8vo.

Of his Italian works in prose, we may notice, 10. “Il Filocopo, owero amorosa fatica, &c.” a romance written by our author when very young, defective in interest, and altogether so in style, when compared with what he wrote afterwards. The first edition of this romance is without place or date the others, which are all rare, are those of Venice, 1472, Florence, 1472, Milan 1476 and 1478, all in fol. Venice, 1514, 4to, and often reprinted during the same century, and twice translated into French, Paris, 1542, fol. &c. 11. “L'Ammorosa Fiammetta,” another romance not much more valuable than the preceding. Fiammetta, as we have already noticed, is the princess Mary of whom he was enamoured, and Pamphile, whose absence she is made deeply to regret, was himself. Whether this was a real or a poetical amour is not very clear. The romance was first published without date or place, in 4to, but is supposed to have appeared at Padua, with a Latin title, and, at the end of the volume, the date of 1472; the second, which has not the place, is dated 1480, 4to, and was followed by others in the sixteenth century at Florence, Venice, &c. and a French and Spanish translation, often reprinted. 12. “L'Urbano,” Florence, 1598, 8vo, translated into French under the title “Urbain le Mescogneu,” Lyons, without date, 4to, black letter, was a piece which Boccaccio is said to have written to divert his melancholy for the death of his friend Petrarch, but Mazzuchelli and other critics consider it as spurious. 13. “Ameto, or Nimfale d'Ameto,” written with a mixture of prose and verse, is supposed to relate to a real adventure concealed under a poetical allegory. It has gone through a great number of editions, Rome and Venice, 1478, 4to; Trevisa, 1479, 4to Venice, 1503, fol. Rome, 1520, 4to; Florence, 1521, 8vo. 14. “II Corbaccio, o sia Laberinto d'Amore,” a very bitter and indecent satire on a female who had given him some offence after his return to Florence. In spite of the licentiousness of this work, the style has recommended it to the curious, but we doubt whether this was the cause of its passing through so many editions: Florence, 1487, 4to, Venice, 1516, 24mo, &c. &c. and a valuable edition, Paris, 1569, 8vo, by Corbinelli, with a preface and notes. Belleforest translated it into French, Paris, 1571, 1573, and there was a second translation or imitation, by Premont, entitled “Songe de Boccace, ou de Labyrinthe d' Amour,” Paris, 1699, &c. in which the editor has abridged so much, and added so much, that it can scarcely be called Boccaccio’s work. 15. “Origine Vitaet costumi di Dante Alighieri,” Rome, 1544, 8vo, Florence, 1576, 8vo. lit this life of Dante we have many anecdotes not elsewhere to be found, but the author upon, the whole inclines too much to the romantic to attend sufficiently to the strict veracity of the biographer yet the purity of the style recommends it, and the affection and sincerity with which he praises Dante, form, perhaps, a curiosity, from one who had the ambition to be placed so near him. This is naturally connected with 16. “Commento sopra la Commedia di Dante Alighieri,” a valuable work, not only for style, but for the many difficult passages of Dante which are admirably illustrated, although it must be confessed they are at the same time intermixed with much matter that has very little connection with the text. It was an abridgement of the lectures which he gave at Florence, when attacked with the disorder which shortened his days, and was not printed until th;e last century. It extends only to the 17th chapter of the Inferno, and forms the two last volumes of the edition of Boccaccio’s prose works (with the exception of the Decameron) published at Naples (with the false title of Florence), in 1724, 5 vols. 8vo. Lastly, we come to his 17. “II Decamerone,” the work on which his fame is permanently established, and which, of all works, it is difficult to characterize in few words. The assertion, that the greater part of the hundred novels which it contains are taken from the ancient French writers of tales, only shows that those who maintain this opinion are not acquainted either with these writers, or with the Decamerone, of which, at most, ten of the stories only are imitated from the French Fabliaux, or taken from the same remote sources, and it is equally unjust to consider them merely as a collection of amorous and licentious stories. The greater part of the poets, indeed, who have stolen from him have stolen only what is of this obnoxious description, and therefore easily brought a reproach on the whole. Boccaccio, in this work, depicts, as on a vast canvass, men of all conditions, all characters and all ages and events of every kind, comic and serious. He exhibits models of every species of eloquence, and carries the purity and elegance of the Italian language to a degree of perfection unknown before his time. Perhaps few works of the kind have ever been so popular. For more than three centuries it has gone through repeated editions, of which an hundred at least may be mentioned, and his biographer very properly asks, what criticism can stand against this fact

In order to appreciate these editions, it is necessary to advert to the fate of this extraordinary work in the press. For about a century, it was circulated in manuscript, and liberties of every kind were taken at every transcription. At length it was printed for the first time, as has been supposed, in 1470, and run through various editions to the end of the fifteenth, and for more than sixty years of the sixteenth century. During this period it was prohibited by the popqs Paul IV. and Pius IV. who were in this respect more scrupulous than their twenty-five or twenty-six predecessors in the papal chair. Two grand dukes of Tuscany, Cosmo I. and Francis I. applied one after the other to two other popes, Pius V. and Gregory XIII. in consequence of which the academicians were employed to reform the Decameron important corrections were made, and many passages suppressed, and in this state various editions were permitted to be printed. But with respect to the ancient editions, it is now necessary to observe that there are two opinions, which we shall state, without attempting to reconcile. We have already noticed that the first edition has been supposed to have been printed in 1470, without a date but on the other hand, it is contended that the edition of 1471, by Valdarfer, is not only the first with a date (which those who maintain the existence of the edition of 1470 are disposed to allow), but that in fact there was no previous edition. Those who are of this latter opinion very naturally ask their antagonists to produce the edition of 1470, or an edition without date that can be supposed of that period. In England it is certain that no such edition is known but the French bibliographers seem to be of a different opinion. Ginguene 1 to whom we are indebted for the greater part of this life of Boccaccio, who has written the literary history of Italy, and is considered in France, we apprehend justly, as their first critic and bibliographer in Italian literature this writer speaks of the first edition without a date in the following terms “Elle est sans date et sans nom de lieu ni d'imprimeur, in-fol. en caracteres inegaux et mal formes.” (Hist. Litt. d'ltalie, vol. III. p. 129). It remains, therefore, for the reader to determine whether this is the language of a man who has seen the book, and describes what he has seen; and if this be decided in the affirmative, the existence of the edition is proved, as far as his authority goes. But it must be confessed Ginguene goes no fa ther. He says nothing of any library which possesses this treasure, nor of its supposed value but when he comes to speak of Valdarfer’s edition of 1471, he informs us that it- has been valued by bibliomaniacs (bibliomanes) at 3000 francs, or 125l. And this brings us to notice the copy of this edition recently sold from the duke of Roxburgh’s library, to the marquis of Blandford, for the immense (and with respect to the value of books, the unprecedented) sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Pounds. In the catalogue of this library, it is stated that “no other perfect copy is yet known to exist, after all the fruitless researches of more than three hundred years;” but, notwithstanding this, we find that the French bibliographers set a value on the edition, as if copies, however rare, were still occasionally to be found. We cannot suppose that the French booksellers or collectors would fix a price-current on an article which had not been seen, for three hundred years, still less that our authority is speaking of imperfect copies, the value of which can only be estimated by the quantum of imperfection. It remains also to be noticed that the French bibliographers speak precisely with the same familiarity of the Junti edition of Florence, 1527, 4to, which they value at 600 francs, or 25l. and which sold at the Roxburgh sale for 29 1. no great advance upon the French price. They certainly speak both of this edition, and of the 1471, as of rare occurrence, but by no means hint that the latter is of that extreme rarity imputed to it in this country .

The third edition,of Mantua, 1472, fol. Salviati thinks the best of all the early editions, the scarcity of which may now be accounted for by the following extraordinary fact. As soon as they appeared, and became generally read, the monks who felt that much of the satire was directed against them, issued their anathemas and prohibitions and in 1497, Savonarola excited the abhorrence of the Florentines to such a degree, that they collected all the Decamerons, Dantes, and Petrarchs they could find, and burnt them together the last day of the carnival. It is of importance to notice that, of the edition of 1527, a very well executed counterfeit was printed at Venice in 1729, with the date of Florence 1527 at the end. The next valuable edition is that corrected by the academicians of Florence, by order of the grand duke, and with the approbation of pope Gregory XIII. and published at Florence by the Junti, 1573, 4to. Longuerue observes that it is a curious thing to see at the head of this edition a privilege of Gregory XIII. who says, that in this he follows the steps of Pius V. his predecessor of blessed memory, and which threatens with severe punishments, all those who shall dare to give any disturbance to those booksellers to whom this privilege is granted. There is also a decree of the inquisition in favour of this edition. The edition of Salviati, which was also subjected to reform, Venice, 1584, 4to, maybe consulted with the preceding for the sake of the curious corrections and amendments introduced; and perhaps the reader may discover a great difference in the purity of the style between the original and the reformed part. With respect to the translations of the Decameron, they are too numerous, and in general too unimportant, for a particular detail. Every nation has its Decameron, but as the purpose of the translators was mere amusement, they seem to have been little anxious about the author’s reputation. The English editions particularly have conveyed his Tales in a most vulgar and ungraceful style. They were first translated in 1566, by "William Paynter, and have been often reprinted since in various forms the best, we think, was an edition in two volumes, Loud. 1804, 8vo, in which the editor has taken much pains in repressing the licentiousness of our author, and has omitted entirely those tales which could not be rendered proper for general perusal. In a critical view, however, the work must be allowed to be the production of a great genius. The generality of the beaux esprits in. Italy agree that the Decameron is the best book in their language, at least in point of style. It is surely very remarkable that Boccaccio should' carry a barbarous language to its perfection all at once a language left entirely to the people, and which had orly a small part of its rust rubbed off by the immortal Dante.

, an artist who flourished about 1496-, is among the Cremonese, what Griilandajo, Mantegna, Vannucci, Francia, arc in their respective schools the best modern among the ancients, and the best ancient among the moderns. He was the master of Garofalo before his journey to Rome in 1500. The birth of the Madonna with other histories of her life, and that of the Saviour in the frieze of the Dnotno at Cremona, are works of Boccaccino. The style is partly original, partly approaches that of Pietro Perugino less co-ordinate in composition, less agreeable in the airs of the heads, weaker in chiaroscuro hut richer in drapery, more varied in colour, more spirited in attitudes, and perhaps not less harmonious or pleasing in landscape and architecture. His great defect is the short and stumpy appearance which an immoderate load of drapery often gives to his figures. It is probable that he was at Rome, as Vasari pretends that he there reviled the works of Michael Angelo and what followed, as related by the same historian, admits of too much doubt to deserve attention. He died, according to Vasari, in 1518, aged fifty-eight. His son, Ca.Millo Boccaccino, was born at Cremona, in 1511, where he received the first instructions in the art of painting from his father and for some time he was obliged to conform himself to the -style and manner of his instructor. But he determined to quit that hard dry manner of colouring, to which he had been accustomed, and by degrees assumed a style of colour equally remarkable for its suavity and strength. The best remaining specimens of his art are in the church of St. Sigismondo, at Cremona; where, among the Four Evangelists, the figure of St. John, bent upwards in contrast with the arched vault, in boldness of foreshortening and truth of perspective, emulates the style of Correggio. He died very young, at a time when there was a great expectation of his arriving at very high perfection, in 1546.

, an eminent literary lady of France, and a member of the academies of Rome, Bologna, Padua, Lyons, and Rouen, was born at Rouen, Oct. 22, 1710. She was educated at Paris in the convent of the Assumption, where she made a very rapid progress in every branch of education. At a very early age, she studied the English language, that she might be enabled to transfuse the beauties of Pope’s Temple of Fame into French but she concealed her performance for many years, nor did it appear till 1764, in the collection of her works. She had, however, given an ample proof of her poetical talents in 1746, by gaining the first prize givea by the academy of Rouen, which was founded the year preceding by the duke of Luxembourg. This procured her the homage and the society of the most eminent nits and scholars of the day. From this time she published nothing without her name. Having acquired an uncommon relish for the “Paradise Lost” of Milton, she endeavoured to translate a part of it into French, and was highly complimented by Voltaire on her success. She imitated also, but with much more success and more ease, Gesner’s “Death of Abel.” In 1749, her tragedy of “The Amazons” was represented on one of the Paris stages with considerable applause: but her fame rests principally on an epic poem, entitled “The Columbiad, or Discovery of America,” in ten cantos, which procured her the highest reputation at that time from the critics of her own country, although the execution is very far from corresponding with the magnitude of the undertaking.

In 1750, she set out on her travels through England, Holland, and Italy, and published the result of them in “Letters” on her return. Her personal appearance procured her friends and admirers wherever she went, and when she again took up her residence in France, her house became the rendezvous of the most distinguished men of genius of the age, all of whom she survived. She indeed outlived two ages of literature, the latter of which was shortened by the horrors of revolutionary cruelty, from which by some means she was enabled to escape. She died Aug. 1802, at the very advanced age of ninety-two. In early life she was married to a financier, who left her a very young and beautiful widow. Her private character is represented as exceedingly amiable, and her accomplishments, taste, manners, as of the highest order but modern French critics seem not disposed to allot her so high a rank among the votaries of the muses, as her content poraries did and her works, it must be confessed, have not been of late years in much request, there having been, no edition called for since that of 1770, 3 vols. 8vo, A very indifferent translation of her “Letters concerning England, Holland, and Italy,” was published at London in that year, 2 vols. 12ino.

, a satirical wit, was born at Loretto in 1556, the son of an architect of a Roman family, about the beginning of the seventeenth century. The method he took to indulge his turn for satire, or rather plot of his publications, was the idea that Apollo, holding his courts Oh Parnassus, heard the complaints of the wholeworld, and gave judgment as the case required. He was received into the academies of Italy, where he gained great applause by his political discourses, and his elegant criticisms. The cardinals Borghese and Cajetan having declared themselves his patrons, he published his “News from Parnassus/' and” Apollo’s Secretary,“a continuation which being well received, he proceeded further, and printed his” Pietra di Paragone“wherein he attacks the court of Spain, setting forth their designs against the liberty of Italy, and inveighing particularly against themfor the tyranny they exercised in the kingdom of Naples. The Spaniards complained of him in form, and were determined at any rate to be revenged. Boccalini was frightened, and retired to Venice. Some time after he was murdered in a surprising manner. He lodged with one of his friends, who having got up early one morning, left Boccalini in bed; when a minute after four armed men entered his chamber, and gave him so many blows with bags full of sand that they left him for dead so that his friend, upon his return, found him unable to utter one word. Great search was made at Venice for the authors of this murder and though they were never discovered, yet it was universally believed that they were set to work. by the court of Spain. This story, however, has been called in question by Mazzuchelli, and seems indeed highly improbable at least it can by no means stand upon its present foundation. His attacking the court of Spain in his” Pietra di Paragone,“is said to have been the cause of his murder but another cause, if he really was murdered, must be sought, for he died, by whatever means, Nov. 10, 1613, and the” Pietra“was not published until two years after that event. It appears likewise from one of his letters, that he had kept the manuscript a profound secret, communicating it only to one confidential frienc!, to whom the above letter was written. Besides, the register of the parish in which he died, mentions that on Nov. 10, 1613, the signor Trajan Boccalini died at the age of fiftyseven, of a cholic accompanied with a fever. Apostolo Zeno, vrho mentions this circumstance in his notes on Fontanini’s” Italian Library,“adds, that in a speech publicly delivered at Venice in 1<320, in defence of Trissino, whom. Boccalini had attacked, ample mention rs made of him, who had then been dead seven years, and in terms of severe censure; but not a word was said of his assassination, which could not have then been a secret, nor could there be any reason for concealing it. If indeed he suffered in the manner reported, it formed an exact counterpart of what he records to have happened to Euclid the mathematician. Euclid had demonstrated, as a mathematical problem, that all the lines both of princes’” and private men’s thoughts meet in one centre namely, to pick money out of other men’s pockets and put it into their own and for this he was attacked by some of his hearers who beat him with sand-bags and perhaps, as a foundation for the story, some of Boccalini’s readers may have said that he ought to have been punished in the same manner. Boccal'mi’s works are: 1. “Itagguagli di Parnaso, centuria prima,” Venice, 1612, 4to. “Centuria secxinda,” ibid. 1613, 4to, neither published long enough before his death to have excited much general odium. These two parts were afterwards frequently reprinted in one volume. There is unquestionably in this work, much to make it popular, and mnch to excite hostility. His notions on government, liberty, &c. were too free for his age and country and his treatment of literary characters is frequently captious and unjust, yet the work upon the whole is amusing, and original in its plan. A third part was published by Jerome Briani, of Modena, at Venice, 165O, 8vo, and die whole was translated and published in English, tinder the inspection of Hughes the poet, 1705, lol. 2. “Pietra del Paragone politico,” Cosmopoli (Amsterdam), 1615, 4to, and often, reprinted in various sizes; that of Amsterdam, 1653, 24mo, is reckoned the best. It has been translated into Latin, French, and English, first in 1626, 4to, and afterwards in Hughes’s edition and into German. This “political touchstone” bears hard on the Spanish monarchy, and may be considered as a supplement to his “News from Parnassus.” 3. “Commentari sopra Cornelio Tacito,” Geneva, 1669, 4to, Cosmopoli (Amsterdam), 1677, 4to, and afterwards in a collection published under the title “La Bilancia politica di tutte le opere di Trajano Boccalini,” &c. with notes and observations by the chevalier Louis du May, at Castellana, 167S, 3 vols. 4to. The first two volumes of this scarce work contain the Tacitus, on which the annotator, not content with being very free in his religious opinions, takes some extraordinary liberties with the text, and therefore they were soon inserted in the Index Expurgatorius. They contain, however, many curious facts which tend to illustrate the political affairs of the time. The third volume is filled with political and historical letters, collected hy Gregorio Leti but although these are signed with Boccalini’s name, they are supposed to have been written by his son, and by the editor Leti, a man not very scrupulous in impositions of this kind. 6. “La Segretaria d'Apollo,” Amst. 1653, 24mo, a sort of continuation of the “Ragguagli,” very much in Boccalini’s manner, but most probably we owe it to the success of his acknowledged works.

, an eminent musical composer, was born at Lucca, Jan. 14, 1740, where he resided till 1768, when he went to Paris, and where he continued till 1780. He then removed to Madrid, where he died in 1806. His instrument was the violoncello, and he has perhaps supplied the performers on bowed-instruments and lovers of music with more excellent compositions than any master of the present age, except Haydn. His style is at once bold, masterly, and elegant. There are movements in his works, of every style, and in the true genius of the instruments for which he writes, that place him high in rank among the greatest masters who have ever written for the violin or violoncello. There i$ perhaps no instrumental music more ingenious, elegant, and pleasing, than his quintets; in which invention, grace, modulation, and good taste, conspire to render them, when well executed, a treat for the most refined hearers and critical judges of musical composition. The works of this excellent composer would be of use to judicious collectors, as his genius, taste, and judgment were too fertile and refined, to suffer him to commit to paper frivolous or indigested thoughts. His productions of forty years ago have lost nothing of their worth, nor will forty years more wholly deprive them of their bloom. They consist of fifty-eight collections of symphonies, quintets, &c. In the religious cast he has only one piece, a “Stabat mater.”

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Bologna in 1488, of a noble family. In his studies he made uncommon proficiency, and had distinguished himself at the early age of twenty by his very learned work on Plautus. According to the custom of the age, he attached himself to various princes, but at first to the celebrated Albert Pio, count of Carpi. Having become imperial orator at the court of Rome, he obtained by his talents and knowledge of business, the titles of chevalier and count Palatine, and was intrusted with some important functions, such as that of bestowing the degree of doctor, of creating notaries, and even legitimizing natural children. At Bologna he was professor of Greek and Latin, rhetoric and poetry, and was chosen one of the Auziani in 1522. Having acquired a handsome fortune, he built a palace, and in 1546 founded an academy in it, named from himself Academia Bocchiana, or Bocchiale. It was also called Ermatena, agreeable to its device, on which was engraven the two figures of Mercury and Minerva. He also established a printing-office in his house, and he and his academicians employed themselves in correcting the many beautiful editions which they printed. Bocchi was a good Hebrew scholar, and well versed in antiquities and history, particularly that of his own country. The senate of Bologna employed him on writing the history of that city, and bestowed on him the title of Historiographer. Cardinal Sadolet, the two Flaminio’s, John Phil. Achillini, and Lcl. Greg. Giraldi, were among his particular friends, who have all spoken very favourably of him in their works. This last was much attached to him, and it is supposed that he meant to express this attachment by giving him the name of Phileros (loving friend), or Philerote, which is on the title of some of his works. Bocchi died at Bologna, Nov. 6, 1562. He wrote, 1. “Apologia in Plautum, cui accedit vita Ciceronis authore Plutarcho,” Bologn.

, one of the most voluminous writers of Florence, was born in that city in 1548. His education was superintended by his paternal uncle, under whose care he made great progress in learning, and acquired the esteem of Laurence Salviati, the Maecenas of his age. He died at Florence in 1618, leaving a great many works in Latin and Tuscan, among which are “Elogia virorurn Florentinorum,” 1604, 1607, 4to, and other biographical, historical, and literary works, of which a list may he seen in our authority.

, called Clememtone from the vast size of his figure, a distinguished history and portrait painter, was born at Genoa in 1620, and was the disciple of Bernardo Strozzi, an artist of good reputation but he found in himself so strong an ambition to arrive at excellence in his profession, that he left Genoa, and went to Rome and Florence, where he became familiar with Castiglione, there to explore that true sublimity of style, which can only be obtained by a judicious observation of the ancient sculptures and the works of the celebrated modern artists. By the guidance of an excellent genius, and also by a most industrious application to design, he discovered the art of uniting and blending the antique and modern gusto in a style that at once exhibited both gracefulness and strength. His style is more correct and more ideal than that of his master, though inferior in truth of colour. Most of the works of this master (except his portraits, which were lively, natural, and graceful) are in the chapels of Genoa, Pisa, and other cities of Italy, but particularly in Pisa, where is the best of his works, a St. Sebastian in the Certosa.

, an ingenious naturalist, was born at Palermo, in Sicily, April 24th 1633, of a wealthy and respectable family, originally from Savona in Genoa. To improve himself in natural history, particularly in botany, to which he was early attached, he travelled over Sicily, Corsica, Malta, many parts of Germany, Holland, and England, conversing with the most eminent literary characters in the places he visited, with whom he afterwards kept up a correspondence. At Paris he became acquainted with the abbé Bourdalot, to whom he communicated various observations he had made, which, were published at Amsterdam in 1674 under the title “Recherches et observations d'Histoire Naturelle.” In the course of his travels, he was admitted doctor in medicine at Padua, was elected member of the Academ. Naturae Curios, and made botanist to the grand duke of Tuscany. In 1682, he entered among the Cistertian monks at Florence, and with the habit of the order took the name of Sylvio, which he affixed to his latter works, but he was still permitted to continue his researches in natural history. Returning at length to Sicily, he retired to one of the houses of the Cistertians near Palermo, where he died, Dec. 22, 1704. As he had been indefatigable in his researches, his colleciion of plants and other natural productions was very considerable. Sherrard, who saw his hortus siccus, or specimens of dried plants, in 1697, was so struck with their number and beauty, that he engaged him to give a catalogue of them to the public, which he did in his “Musrco plante rare,” published at Venice in 4to, the same year. The catalogue was also published by itself. Several of his works appear to have been printed while he was on his travels; the first of them, “De abrotano mare monitum,” in 1668 and in the same year, “Manifesturn botanicum, de plantis Siculis,” Catatue, 4to. By an advertisement at the beginning of the work he offers to botanists the seeds of many of the curious and rare plants he had collected, at moderate prices. Morison published an edition of this work at Oxford in 1674, 4to, under the title of “Icones et descriptiones rariarum plantarum Sicilian, Melitae, Galliae, et Italioe.” Many of the plants, Haller says, were new. The figures are small, and in general not well delineated or engraved. His next production was “Recherches et observations naturelles,” published at Paris in 1671, 12mo, again at Amsterdam in 1674, and again in 1744, in 8vo. It consists of letters to his correspondents in France, Italy, England, &c. In 1684, in 16mo, “Opcrvazioni natural) ove si contengono materie medico fisiche e di botanica,” Bologna. The observations are twenty in number, and dedicated, or addressed to so many of the author’s friends and patrons, among whom are many perons of high rank. He is very profuse in his elogia on the medical virtue of many of the plants, which he praises far beyond their real value. “Tenere oportet,” Haller says, “creduium esse virum et in viribus medicis plantarum liberalem.” “Musæo di fisica e cli esperienze decorate di opervazioni naturali,” Venet. 1697, 4to. The author here assumes the name of Sylvlo. The observations are, as in the former work, dedicated to his noble patrons, and contain ample accounts of the medical virtues of various plants, much beyond what, from experience, they have been found to possess. Some smaller dissertations were printed in Miscel. Naturae Curias, and in the Journal des Savans. On the whole, Boccone appears to have been an industrious and intelligent writer, possessing considerable originality, and deserves to be classed among botanists of the third rate.

, or Bochius, a Latin poet, was born at Brussels July 27, 1555, and became so eminent for his poetry, as to be called the Belgic Virgil. Having attached himself to cardinal Radzevil, he studied theology for some time, under the tuition of Bellarmin, afterwards the celebrated cardinal. He then travelled in Italy, Poland, Livonia, Russia, and other countries. The only memorable event that his biographers have recorded of these travels, is, that in his way to Moscow his feet were frozen, and he was thinking of submitting to amputation, when the place where he stopped happening to be surprized by the enemy, he recovered his feet in a most surprising manner, and escaped the danger of losing either them or his liberty. On his return home, he devoted his time to his literary pursuits, especially poetry, and died Jan. 13, 1609. He has left the following pieces 1. “De Belgii principatu.” 2. “Parodia heroica Psahnorum Davidicorum.” 3. “Observationes physicae, ethicae, politics, et historical, in Psalmos.” 4. “Vita Davidis.” 5. “Orationes.” 6. “Poe'mata, &.C.” these poetical pieces, consisting of epigrams, elegies, &c. were collected and printed at Cologne, in 1615, with the addition of some poems by his son, a promising youth, who died in Calabria. It must not be omitted that Booh wrote the verses under the cuts of Verstegan’s absurd book against queen Elizabeth, entitled “Theatrum crudelitatum Hereticorum nostri temporis,” a sort of popish martyrology.

, a learned French Protestant, born at Roan in Normandy, 1599. His father was a Protestant clergyman, and his mother a sister of the celebrated Peter du Moulin. He made a very early progress in learning, particularly in the Greek language, of which we have a proof in the verses he composed at the age of fourteen, in praise of Thomas Dempster, under whom he studied at Paris, and who has prefixed them to his Roman Antiquities. He went through a course of philosophy at Sedan, and studied divinity at Saumur, under Cameronius, whom he followed to London, the academy at Sauinur being dispersed during the civil war. He went also to Oxford, and in Lent term, 1622, was entered as a student at the library, where he laid in a considerable part of that stock of Oriental learning which he afterwards displayed in his works. He afterwards went over to Leyden, and studied Arabic under Erpenius. When returned to France, he was chosen minister of Caen, where, in 1630, he distinguished himself by public disputations with father Veron, a very famous polemic, and champion for the Roman catholic religion, published under the title of “Acte de la conference entre S. B. et Jean Baillebache, &c. d'un part: et Francois Veron, predicateur de controverses,” Saumur, 2 vols. 8vo. The dispute was held in the castle of Caen, in presence of a great number of Catholics and Protestants. Bochart came off with honour and reputation, which was not a little increased upon the publication of his Phaieg and Canaan, which are the titles of the two parts of his “Geographica Sacra,” 1646. While at Caen, he was tutor to Wentworth Dillon, earl of Roscommon, author of the “Essay on Translated verse.” He acquired also great fame by his tl Hierozoicon, printed at London, 1675. The great learning displayed in these works rendered him esteemed, not only amongst those of his own persuasion, but amongst all lovers of knowledge of whatever denomination, especially such as studied the scriptures in their original languages, which was then very common. Dr. Haiceweli, who was contemporary with Bochart, speaking of the knowledge of the oriental languages, observes, that “this last century (the fifteenth) afforded more skilful men that way than the other fourteen since Christ” In 1652, the queen of Sweden invited him to Stockholm, where she gave him many proofs of her regard and esteem. At his return into France, in 1653, he continued his ordinary exercises, and was one of the members of the academy of Caen, which consisted of all the learned men of that place. He died suddenly, when he was speaking in this academy, May 6, 1667, which gave M. Brieux occasion to make the following epitaph on him:

Besides what we have mentioned, he wrote a treatise on the terrestrial paradise, on the plants and precious stones mentioned in scripture, and some other pieces, but he left these unfinished. He left also a great number of sermons. As many of his dissertations as could be collected were published in the edition of his works printed in Holland, 1712, 3 vols. folio. The “Hierozoicon, seu Historia animalium S. Scriptime/' was reprinted at Leipsic, by Rosenmuller, with notes and additions, 1793—6, 3 vols. 4to. Bochart, in oriental literature was one of the first men of his time but, like many who have studied the Hebrew with great zeal, he fell into a sort of theory, which made him in many cases more attentive to words than things. His Sacred Geography is a stupendous undertaking, but it was impossible he could bring it to perfection at a time when we knew comparatively very little of modern Asia, and had few good books of travels. He is also accused, and not unjustly, of indulging too freely in etymologies of proper names, taken from the Hebrew, and of changing geographical questions, which are entirely of an historical nature, into etymological ones. These, and some other defects in Bochart’s writings, have occasioned some persons to look on him with contempt, and distrust the whole of his learned work; whereas, he has treated many questions with profound sagacity, and even his errors are instructive. The only thing wanting to render his work extensively useful, and to throw all the light upon the foreign geography of the Hebrews which the nature of the subject can admit of was a proper supplement, which, should fill up his omissions, and correct his mistakes and tliis was undertaken by the celebrated Michaelis, from whom we have abridged the above sentiments on the merits of Bochart, and who, in 1769, published the first part of what he modestly termed a gleaning after Bochart,” Spicilegium Geographiae Hebraeorum exterae post Bochartum," completed in eleven parts, Gottingeu, 1780, 4to.

, a liberal patron of learning, and first president of the parliament of Paris, was born in that metropolis, Jan. L6, 1730, of a family, the branches of which had filled many distinguished offices in the magistracy, and to which the subject of the preceding article appears to have been related. From his infancy, Mons. Saron was attached to mathematical studies, and particularly to calculations, the most complicated of which he performed with astonishing facility and many eminent astronomers, who were his friends, made no scruple to apply to him for assistance of this kind, which he contributed with the greatest politeness and as very much depends on intricate calculations, he may justly be allowed to share with them in the honour of their discoveries. He was, however, among the first who discovered that Herschell’s new star was a new planet, and not a comet, as most of the French astronomers thought. In 1779 he was elected into the academy of sciences, and contributed to the promotion of their labours, not only by his private studies, which were indeed rather those of an amateur than of a scholar by profession, but also by his fortune. He made, at a vast expence, a collection of the finest astronomical instruments of all kinds, which he very willingly lent to those who wished to make use of them, and never had more pleasure than when he fancied he was thus supplying the wants of men of genius. It was also by his liberality that Laplace was enabled to publish his “Theorie du mouvernent elliptujue et de la figure de terre,” 1784, 4to, the expence of which he defrayed. His whole life, indeed, exhibited a perfect model of a patron of learning and Learned men, and demonstrated how easily men of rank and fortune may exalt their characters by the encouragement of genius. Yet this man was doomed to destruction by the monsterswho ruled in France during the revolutionary period, and who ordered him, and some other members of the old parliament of Paris, to be guillotined, a sentence which was executed April 20, 1794. M. Monjoie published in 1800 “L'eloge de Saron,” 8vo, and Cassini paid him a similar compliment, which, however, was not printed.

, professor of divinity and Greek in the university of Konigsberg, was born in that city, May 20, 1716, and died in 1786. Among his numerous works on theology, education, and natural history, which are much esteemed in his own country, we may enumerate, 1. “Specimen theologiae naturalis,” Zullichau, 1743, 4to. 2. “Historia Socinianismi Prussic.” Konigsberg, 1753, 4to. 3. Historia Anti-Trinitariorum maxime Socinianismi et Socinianorum,“1774 1784, 2 vols. 8vo. 4.” A manual of Education,“1780, 8vo, in German. 5.” Essay on the natural history of east and west Prussia,“Dessau, 1782 1784, 5 vols. 8vo. 6.” Prussian Ornithology,“published in the 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, and 17th numbers of the” Observator of nature.“7.” Essay on the natural history of the Herring," Konigsberg, 1769, 8vo: all the preceding are in German.

, called also Langhen-Jan, a painter of history and portrait of the Flemish school, was born at Munster, about the year 1610; and removing to Flanders, acquired the art of design and colouring in the school of Jacques Jordaens. He designed well the heads erf his women are generally graceful, and those of his men distinguished by character: his tone of colouring sometimes resembled that of Rubens, but more frequently that of Vandyck. His pictures have great force and harmony, and his skilful management of the chiaro-scuro produces an agreeable effect. An altar-piece at the church of St. James in Ghent, representing the martyrdom of this saint, and a picture of the Annunciation in another church, painted in 1664, are distinguished performances of this master. Descamps mentions another John Van Bockhorst, who was born at Dentekoom in 1661, went when young to London, and was employed by sir Godfrey Kneller on his portraits, and the earl of Pembroke also employed him to paint portraits, history, and battle pieces. He afterwards practised portrait-painting in various parts of Germany, principally at the court of Brandeuburgh and in Cleves, and died in 1724.

, a French ecclesiastic, was born at Avallon, April 1, 1649, of poor parents, who, however, neglected nothing that could contribute to his having the means of acquiring a fortune by a good education. He first studied at Dijon, and then went through a course of philosophy at Auxerre. On his return home, he determined on a military life, and went to Paris in hopes of being admitted into the royal guards. Not succeeding, he began to study with a view to the church, but again altered his mind, and accompanied M. de Nointel, the French ambassador, to Constantinople. On his return at the end of two years, he went to Bourges to study law, and having finished his course, he practised for some time at Avallon with considerable success. Here, however, he gave himself up to a dissipated life, which ended in a state of melancholy, during which he wrote to his brother, an ecclesiastic, who advised him to retire for some months to a monastery of Carthusians, and meditate. on his past conduct. Bocquillot complied, recovered his peace of mind, and resumed his ecclesiastical studies. Having received the order of priesthood, he became curate of Chateiux, but was obliged some time after to resign it, owing to his deafness. Being then provided with a canonry at Avallon, he passed the remainder of his days in the tranquil employment of his pen, composing a great many homilies and books of practical piety, which he presented gratis to the booksellers, on condition that he should fix such prices on them as might suit the pockets of the poor. One of his best works is his “Traits historique de la Liturgie sacrée ou de la Messe,” “Paris, 1701, 8vo. He wrote also a life of the chevalier Bayard, under his fictitious name, the Prieur de Louval, taken principally from Godefroi’s life of Bayard, published in 1616, and an antiquary tract, entitled” Dissertation surles Tombeaux de Quarrée, village de Bourgoyne," Lyons, 1724, 8vo. He died of an apoplexy Sept. 22, 1728. His life and letters were published in 1745, 12mo.

, a learned professor of the university of Helmstadt, was born in 1722, at Wernigerode. After having been educated at home, with great care, by his father, who was judge of that city, and counsellor to the count Stolberg of Wernigerode, he went in 1739 to the school of Closter-Bergen, near Magdeburgh, then superintended by Steinmez, and in 1741, took his leave of this school, in a Latin oration, “De societatibus hujus sevi notabilioribus.” He then went to Halle, and having early imbibed a taste for oriental languages and sacred philology, he attached himself particularly to the two Michaelis’s, father and son, who were then professors in that university. From Halle, he went to Leipsic, where he studied Arabic, Syriac, Chaldaic, Samaritan, Ethiopian, and rabbinical Hebrew. On his return to Halle in 1747, he maintained a thesis for his doctor’s degree, under the presidency of Michaelis the father, “On the antiquity of the Hebrew language” and then opened a course of lectures which were much admired. Notwithstanding this success, however, he left Halle, after a residence of two years, and settled at Helmstadt. Here he became a most popular teacher, his lectures being attended by an unusual number of students; and in 1754, the uniYersity secured his services by appointing him professor extraordinary of oriental languages. About this time, happening to meet with some works in which the study of the Armenian, Coptic, and Turkish languages was recommended, he had a great desire to add these to his stock, and not having been able to obtain the assistance of Jablonski for the Coptic, he determined to learn the others without a master. Having begun this task at his lisure hours, in 1756, he made such rapid progress as to be able to publish, before the conclusion of the year, the first two chapters of St. Matthew translated from the Turkish into Latin, with a critical preface on the history and utility of the Turkish language and the first four chapters of the same evangelist translated from the Armenian into Latin, with some considerations on the Armenian language. These two little works, which were published, the first at Bremen, and the other at Halle, were criticised with some severity, perhaps not unjust; but the zeal and industry of the author, although not altogether successful in these attempts, were still the subject of admiration, and were not unrewarded. In 1760 he obtained a pension and in 1763, lest he should accept of the offer of a professorship made to him by the university of Giessen, that of Helmstadt conferred on him the title of professor in ordinary of philosophy, with an augmentation of salary. His various works in the mean time amply confirmed their choice, and extended his reputation throughout Europe. Of his private life we have no further account, although it was prolonged for many years after this period, as he died of an apoplexy, March 7, 1796. His principal works are, 1. “Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ex versione Æthiopici interpretis in Bibliis polyglottis Anglicanis editum cum Graeco, c.” Halle, 1748, 4to, with a preface by Michaelis on the Ethiopian translation of the New Testament. 2. “Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ex versione Persica, &c.” Helmstadt, 17.50, 4to. 3. Persian translations of Mark, Luke, and John, 1751, 4to. published separately. 4. “Evangelium secundum Marcum ex versione Arabica, &c.” Lerngow, 1752, 4to. 5. “Novum Testamentum ex versione jEthiopica, &c. in Latinum,” Brunswick, 1753 55, 2 vols. 4to. 6. “Fragmenta Veteris Test, ex versione Æthiopici interpretis, et alia quaedam opuscula Æthiopica,” Wolfenb. 1755, 4to. 7. “Pseudo-critica Millio-Bengeliana,” Halle, 1767, 8vo, pointing out some inaccuracies in the variorum editions of the New Testament by these eminent critics. Bode is considered by his countrymen as a man of most extensive learning, but as destitute of elegance as a writer, either in Latin or German, and as unacquainted with the art of enlivening his subject.

, a bookseller at Hamburgh, and a man of considerable learning, was born at Brunswick, Jan. 16, 1730, and died Dec. 13, 1793. He was long known for his controversial writings against the free-masons, but perhaps was more esteemed by his countrymen for his translations into German of various foreign popular works. Among these were Marmontel’s Incas and Montaigne’s Essays; and of the English series, Fielding’s Tom Jones, Sterne’s Sentimental Journey, and Tristram Shandy, and Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield.

, a French lawyer, and political writer, was born at Angers about 1530. In his youth he was supposed, but not upon good foundation, to have been a monk. He studied first at Toulouse, and after taking his degrees, read lectures there with much applause, having a design to settle there as law- pro lessor, and with that view he pronounced an oration on public instruction in the schools but finding Toulouse not a sufficiently ample stage for his ambition, he removed to Pans, and began to practise at the bar, where his expectations being likewise disappointed, he determined to apply himself to literary occupations, and in this he had very considerable success. Henry III. who liked to have men of letters about him, admitted him into familiar conversation, and had such an opinion of him, that he sent to prison one John, or Michael de la Serre, who had written against Bodin, and forbid him under pain of death to publish his work but this courtly favour did not last. Thuanus ascribes the king’s withdrawing his countenance to the envy of the courtiers but others think it was occasioned by Bodin' s taking a political part in opposition to the king. He found an asylum, however, with the duke of Alene,on, who made him secretary of his commands, one of the masters of the requests of his palace, and grand master of his waters and forests. The insurgents in the Netherlands at this time intended to declare the duke their sovereign, and were said to be prompted to this by queen Elizabeth of England. Bodin, however, accompanied him into England and Flanders, but he had the misfortune to lose this patron in 1584.

In 1576 he was chosen deputy to the states-general of Blois, by the tiers-etat of Vermandois, and ably contended for the rights of the people, and particularly opposed those who would have all the king’s subjects constrained to profess the Catholic religion, which we can easily suppose effectually prevented the king from being reconciled to him. He after this appears to have resided at Laon, where, in 1589, he persuaded that city to declare for the league, and at the same time wrote to the president Brisson, a letter severely reflecting on Henry III. but this fault he afterwards repaired by securing the allegiance of Laon to Henry IV. He died of the plague at Laon, in 1596, leaving a character more dubious than that of any man in his time, and the light thrown upon it in his works is certainly not of the most favourable kind. It may be said, that although toleration was a word not known in his time, he appears to have cherished some liberal notions on the subject, but, as to religious principles, he had so little steadiness, that he was by turns accounted, perhaps not always justly, a Protestant, Papist, Deist, Sorcerer, Jew, and Atheist; D'Aguessau, however, pronounces him a worthy magistrate, a learned author, and a good citizen. His first work was a commentary on Oppian’s “Cynogeticon,” Paris, 1549, 4to, in which he is supposed to have availed himself rather too freely of the notes of Turnebus. He then published an introduction to the study of history, under the title “Methodus ad facilem Historiarum cognitionem,” Paris, 1566, 4to, the principal fault of which is that it does not correspond with the title, being very desultory and immethodical. But that which procured him most reputation, was his six books on “The Republic,” a work equally immethodical with the other, and abounding in digressions and irrelevant matter, yet, for the time, an extraordinary collection of facts and reflections on political government. It was soon translated into other languages, and was read with much interest in an age when the principles of government were seldom discussed in books. When in England with the duke of Alenc,on, we are told that he found the English had made a Latin translation of it, bad enough, but, bad as it was, the subject of lectures at London and Cambridge. Bodin reports thus far himself; but that “it became a classic at Cambridge” has been supplied by his biographers, who were probably not aware that lectures on political government were then no part of Cambridge education, and if his book was explained and commented on there or at London, it must have been by individuals. In this work he introduces the influence of climate on the principles of government; and as Montesquieu has done the same, La Harpe, the French critic, terms Bodin’s book the “germ of the Spirit of Laws,” but this notion is far more ancient than either, and not indeed of much consequence, whether old or new. The first edition of these “Livres de la Republique” was printed at Paris, 1577, fol. and was followed by three' others, 1577, 1578, and 1580 but the edition of Lyons, 1593, and that of Geneva, 1600, are preferred, because they contain Bodin’s Treatise on Coins. He afterwards translated it into Latin, Paris, 1586, fol. an edition often reprinted, and more complete than the French, and several abridgements were published of it, both in Latin and French. His tables of law, entitled “Juris Universi Distributio,” were printed in 1578, and in the following year, his “”Demonomanie des Sorciers,“to which was annexed” A refutation of the book, de Lamiis,“of John Wier, physician to the duke of Cleves, who had undertaken to prove that the stories of witchcraft and sorcery have chiefly arisen from imposture or delusions of fancy. The literary character of Bodin, who defended this kind of superstition, incurred reproach, and he himself was suspected of being a magician. A work written by him, but never printed, and entitled” Heptaplomeron, sive de abditis rerum sublimium arcanis,“is said to have been an attack upon religion, and designed to invalidate the authority of revelation. By the seeming advantages which he gave in this work to the Jewish religion, he was suspected of being a convert to it; but it is more probable that he was a sceptic with regard to religion, and alike indifferent to all modes of faith. A little while before his death he published a Latin treatise, entitled” Theatrum Universae Naturae," in which he professes to pursue the causes and effects of things to their principles.

, that illustrious benefactor to literature, from whom the public library at Oxford takes its name, was the son of Mr. John Bodley, of Exeter, and of his wife Joan, daughter and heiress of Robert Home, esq. of Ottery St. Mary, near Exeter. By his father’s side he descended from the ancient family of the Bodleys, or Bodleighs, of Dunscomb, near Crediton, in Devonshire. He was born at Exeter, March 2, 1544, and was about twelve years of age when his father was obliged to leave England on account of his religion, and settle at Geneva, where he lived during the reign of queen Mary. The English church at Geneva consisted, as he himself informs us, of some hundred persons; and here, the university having been newly erected, he frequented the public lectures of Chevalerius on the Hebrew tongue, of Beroaldus on the Greek, and of Calvin and Beza on divinity, and had also domestic teachers in the house of Philibertus Saracenus, a physician of that city, with whom he boarded, and where Robert Constantine, author of the Greek Lexicon, read Homer to him. Under such masters, we cannot doubt his proficiency, although we have no more particular detail of his early studies upon record. Whatever else he learned, he appears to have imbibed an uncommon love of books, to have studied their history, and to have prepared himself, although unconscious of the result, for that knowledge which, it is evident from his correspondence, he was perpetually increasing, and which at length, when the political prospects which once flattered his ambition were closed, enabled, as well as incited him, to re-found the public library at Oxford.

Upon the accession of queen Elizabeth in 1558, he returned into England with his father 'and family, who settled at London and soon after, he was sent to Magdalen college, in Oxford, under the tuition of Dr. Humphrey, afterwards president of that society. In 1563he took the degree of B. A. and the same year was chosen probationer of Merton college, and the year following admitted fellow. In 1565, by persuasion of some of the fellows, he undertook the public reading of a Greek lecture in the hall of that college, which he continued for some time without expecting or requiring any stipend but afterwards the society of their own accord allowed him a salary of four marks per annum and from that time continued the lecture to the college. In 1566 he took the degree of M. A. and the same year read natural philosophy in the public schools. In 1569 he was elected one of the proctors of the university and after that, for a considerable time, supplied the place of university orator. Hitherto Mr. Bodley applied himself to the study of various faculties, without the inclination to profess any one more than the rest; but, in 1576, being desirous to improve himself in the modern languages, and to qualify himself for public business, he began his travels, and spent nearly four years in visiting France, Germany, and Italy. Afterwards, returning to his college, he applied himself to the study of history and politics. In 1583 he was made gentleman usher to queen Elizabeth; and in 1585, married Anne, daughter of Mr. Carew, of Bristol, and widow of Mr. Ball, a lady of considerable fortune. Soon after, he was employed by queen Elizabeth in several embassies to Frederick king of Denmark, Julius duke of Brunswick, William landgrave of Hesse, and other German princes, to erfgage them to join their forces with those of the English, for the assistance of the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France and having discharged that commission, he was sent to king Henry III. at the time when that prince was forced by the duke of Guise to quit Paris. This commission, he tells us, he performed with extraordinary secrecy, not being accompanied by any one servant, (for so he was commanded), nor with any other letters than such as were written with the queen’s own hand to the king, and some select persons about him. “The effect,” he adds, “of that message it is fit I should conceal; but it tended greatly to the advantage of all the Protestants in France, and to the duke’s apparent overthrow, which also followed soon upon it.” Camden says nothing more of this embassy than that queen Elizabeth “not only assisted the king of Navarre, when he was entangled in a dangerous and difficult war, with money and other military provisions, but sent over sir Thomas Bodley to support or encourage the French king when his affairs seemed to be in a very desperate condition.”

In 1588 he was sent to the Hague, to manage the queen’s affairs in the United Provinces, where, according to an agreement between the queen and the states, he was admitted one of the council of state, and took his place next to count Maurice, giving his vote in every proposition made to that assembly. In this station he behaved greatly to the satisfaction of his royal mistress, and the advancement of the public service. A more particular account of sir Thomas’s negociations with the states may be seen in Camden’s “Annals of queen Elizabeth,” under the year 1595, and in a short piece, written by sir Thomas himself, and published by Mr. Thomas Hearne in his notes upon that passage of Camden, entitled “An account of an Agreement between queen Elizabeth and the United Provinces, wherein she supported them, and they stood not to their agreement.”

After near five years residence in Holland, he obtained leave to return to England to look after his private affairs, but was shortly after remanded back to the Hague. About a year after he came into England again, to communicate some private discoveries to the queen and presently returned to the States for the execution of those councils he had secretly proposed. At length, having succeeded in all his negociations, he obtained his final recal in 1597. After his return, finding his advancement at court obstructed by the jealousies and intrigues of the great men, he retired from the court and all public business, and never could be prevailed with to return and accept of any new employment. His own account of his treatment at this time is too amusing and characteristic to be omitted “I cannot chuse,” says he, “in making report of the principal accidents that have befallen unto me in the course of my life, but record among the rest, that from the very first day 1 had no man more to triend, among the lords of the council, than was the lord treasurer Burleigh for when occasion had been ottered of declaring his conceit, as touching my service, he would always tell the queen (which I received from herself, and some other ear-witnesses) that there was not any man in England so meet as myself to undergo the office of the secretary; and since, his son the present lord treasurer hath signified unto me in private conference, that, when his father first intended to advance him to that place, his purpose was withal to make me his colleague. But the case stood thus in my behalf: Before such time as I returned from the Provinces United, which was in the year 1597, and likewise after my return, the earl of Essex did use me so kindly, both by letters and messages, and other great tokens of his inward favour to me, that, alihough I had no meaning but to settle in my mind my chiefest dependance upon the lord Burleigh, as one that I reputed to be both the best able, and therewithal the most willing, to work my advancement with the queen; yet I know not how the earl, who sought by all devices to divert her love and liking both from the father and the son (but from the son in special), to withdraw my affection from the one and the other, and to win me altogether to depend upon himself, did so often take occasion to entertain the queen with some prodigal speephes of my sufficiency for a secretary, which were ever accompanied with words of disgrace against the present lord treasurer, as neither she herself (of whose favour before I was thoroughly assured) took any great pleasure to prefer me the sooner (for she hated his ambition, and would give little countenance to any of his followers); and both the lord Burleigh and his son waxed jealous of my courses, as if underhand 1 had been induced, by the cunning and kindness of the earl of Essex, to oppose myself against their dealings. And though in very truth they had no solid ground at all of the least alteration in my disposition towards either of them both (for I did greatly respect their persons and places, with a settled resolution to do them any service, as also in my heart I detested to be of any faction whatsoever) yet the now lord treasurer, upon occasion of some talk that I have since had with him of the earl and his actions, hath freely confessed of his own accord to me, that his daily provocations were so bitter and sharp against him, and his comparisons so odious, when he put us in a balance, as he thought thereupon, he had very great reason to use his best means to put any man out of love of raising his fortune, whom the earl with sucn violence, to his extreme prejudice, had endeavoured to dignify. And this, as he affirmed, was all the motive -he had to set himself against me, in whatsoever might redound to the bettering of my state, or increasing my credit and countenance with the queen. When I” had thoroughly now bethought me, first in the earl, of the slender holdfast he had in the queen; of an endless opposition of the chiefest of our statesmen like still to wait upon him; of his perilous, feeble, and uncertain advice, as well in his own, as in all the causes of his friends; and when moreover for myself I had fully considered how very untowardly these two counsellors were affected unto me, (upon whom before in cogitation I had framed all the fabric of my future prosperity); how ill it did concur with my natural disposition, to become, or to be counted a stickler or partaker in any public faction how well I was able, by God’s good blessing, to live of myself, if I could be content with a competent livelihood; how short a time of farther life I was then to expect by the common course of nature when I had, I say, in this manner represented to my thoughts my particular estate, together with the earl’s, I resolved thereupon to possess my soul in peace all the residue of my days; to take my full farewell of state employments; to satisfy my mind with that mediocrity of worldly living that I had of mine own and so to retire me from the court, which was the epilogue and end of all my actions, and endeavours of any important note, till I came to the age of sixty three. Now although after this, by her majesty’s directions, I was often called to the court by the now lord treasurer, then secretary, and required by him, as also divers times since, by order from the king, to serve as an ambassador in France, to go a commissioner from his highness for concluding the truce between Spain and the Provinces, and to negotiate in other very honourable employments yet I would not be removed from my former final resolution insomuch as at length to reduce me the sooner to return to the court, I had an offer made me by the present lord treasurer (for in process of time he saw, as he himself was pleased to tell me more than once, that all my dealing was upright, fair, and direct) that in case I myself were willing unto it, he would make me his associate in the secretary’s office And to the intent I might believe that he intended it bonafide, he would get me out of hand to be sworn of the council. And for the better enabling of my state to maintain such a dignity, whatsoever 1 would ask that might be fit for him to deal in, and for me to enjoy, he woul'd presently solic.t the king to give it passage. All which persuasions notwithstanding, albeit I was often assaulted by him, in regard of my years, and for that I felt myself subject to many indispositions, besides some other reasons, which I reserve unto myself, I have continued still at home my retired course of life, which is now methinks to me as the greatest preferment that the state can afford.“Mr. Camden mentions the affair of sir Thomas’s disappointment in regard to the office of secretary in these words” It raised in him (the earl of Essex) a greater and more apparent discontent, that sir Robert Cecil was chosen secretary in his absence whereas he had some time before recommended sir Thomas Bodley, on the score of his great wisdom and experience in the affairs of the Low Countries, and had run very high in his commendations; but with so much bitterness, and so little reason, disparaged Cecil, that the queen (who had by this time a mean opinion of Essex’s recommendations) was the more inclinable to refuse to make Bodley secretary; neither would she let the lord treasurer join him in commission with his son; both which honours were designed him, till Essex, by too profuse and lavish praises, had rendered him suspected as a creature of his own."

In the same year (1597) he began the munificent work of restoring, or rather founding anew, the public library at Oxford, which was completed in 1599. In his memoirs he has admirably displayed his first thoughts, his first feelings, and his first precautions on this important undertaking. After adverting to the motives which induced him to retire from court and chuse a private life, he goes on thus “Only this I must truly confess of myself, that though I did never yet repent me of those, and some other my often refusals of honourable offers, in respect of emiching my private estate yet somewhat more of late I have blamed myself and my nicety that way, for the love that I bear to my reverend mother the university of Oxon, and to the advancement of her good, by such kind of means, as I have since undertaken. For thus I fell to discourse and debate in my mind tiiat although I might find it fittest for me to keep out of the throng of court contentions, and address my thoughts and deeds to such ends altogether, as I myself could best affect yet withal I was to think, that my duty towards God, the expectation of the world, and my natural inclination, and very morality did require, that I should not wholly so hide those little abilities that 1 had, but that in some measure, in one kind or other, I should do the true part of a profitable member of the state. Whereupon examining exactly for the rest of my life what course I might take, and having sought (as I thought) all the ways to the wood, to select the most proper, I concluded at the last to set up my staff at the library door in Oxon, being thoroughly persuaded, that in my solitude and surcease from the commonwealth affairs, 1 could not busy myself to better purpose, than by reducing that place (which then in every part lay ruined and waste) to the public use of students. For the effecting whereof I found myself furnished, in a competent proportion, of such four kinds of aids, as, unless I had them all, there was no hope of good success. For without some kind of knowledge, as well in the learned and modern tongues, as in sundry other sorts of scholastical literature without some purse-ability to go through with the charge without great store of honourable friends, to further the design and without special good leisure to follow such a work, it could but have proved a vain attempt and inconsiderate. But how well I have sped in all my endeavours, and how full provision I have made for the benefit and ease of all frequenters of the library, that which I have already performed in sight, that which besides I have given for the maintenance of it, and that which hereafter I purpose to add, by way of enlargement of that place (for the project is cast, an. I, whether I live or die, it shall be, God willing, put in full execution), will testify so truly and abundantly for me, as I need not be the publisher of the dignity and worth of my own institution.” Camden, under the year 1598, tells us, that Bodley, being at present unengaged from affairs of state, set himself a task, which would have suited the character of a crowned head, the promotion and encouragement of learning for he began to repair the public library at Oxford, and furnished it with new books. It was set up, he adds, by Humphrey duke of Gloucester, but through the iniquity of the times was, in the reign of Edward VI. stripped of all the books but he (Bodley) having made the choicest collection from all parts of the world of the most valuable books, partly at his own cost, and partly by contributions from others, he first stocked, and afterwards left it so well endowed at his death, that his memory deserves to bear a very lasting date amongst men of worth and letters.“The same author, in his” Britannia,“tells us, duke Humphrey’s library consisted of one hundred and twentynine volumes, procured from Italy at a great expence. His translator adds, that they were valued at above a thousand pounds, and that the duke in 1440 gave one hundred and twenty-six volumes more, and in 1443 a much greater number, besides considerable additions at his death three years after. But, before duke Humphrey’s time, Richard de Bury, alias Aungervil, bishop of Durham, in 1295, gave a great number of books to the university, which were kept in a place for that purpose in the college, now Trinity college, which the monks of Durham had founded in the north suburbs of Oxford; an account whereof may be gathered from a book written by himself, called” Philobiblos, sive de amore librorum, et institutione Bibliothecae.“And after him, in 1320, Thomas Cobham, bishop of Worcester, built another over the old Congregation-house in the north coemetery of St. Mary’s. In 1597, sir Thomas Bodley, taking into his consideration the ruinous condition of duke Humphrey’s library, and resolving to undertake the restoration of it at his own expence, wrote a letter, dated at London, Jan. 23, to Dr. Ravis, dean of Christ church, then vice-chancellor, to be communicated to the university; offering therein to restore the fabric of the said library, and to settle an annual income for the purchase of books, and the support of such officers as might be necessary to take care of it. This letter was received with the greatest satisfaction by the university, and an answer returned, testifying their most grateful acknowledgment and acceptance of his noble offer. On this, sir Thomas immediately set about the work, and in two years time brought it to a good degree of perfection. In 1601, the university had such a sense of his services that he was voted a public benefactor, and his name ordered to be included among the other benefactors repeated in the public prayers. He furnished it with a large collection of books, purchased in foreign countries at a great expence and thi.-, collection in a short time became so greatly enlarged by the generous benefactions of several noblemen, bishops, and others, that neither the shelves nor the room could contain them. &ir Thomas then offering to make a considerable addition to the building, the motion was readily embraced, and, on July 19, 1610, the first stone of the new foundation was laid with great solemnity, the vice-chancellor, Doctors, masters of arts, &c. attending in their proper habits, a speech being made upon the occasion. But sir Thomas Bodley did not live to see this part of his design completed, though he left sufficient means in trust, as he bestowed his. whole estate (his debts, legacies, and funeral charges defrayed) to the noble purposes of this foundation. By this, and the help of other benefactions, in procuring which sir Thomas was very serviceable by his great interest with many eminent persons, the university was enabled to add three other sides to what was already built, forming a noble quadrangle, and spacious rooms for schools of arts. By sir Thomas’s’ will 200l. per annum was settled on the library for ever out of whichhe appointed near forty pounds for the head librarian, ten pounds for the sub-librarian, and eight for the junior. He drew up likewise a body of excellent statutes for the government of the library. In this library is a statue erected to the memory of sir Thomas Bodley, by the earl of Dorset, chancellor of the university, with the following inscription:” Thomas Sackvillus Dorsettia? Comes, Summus Angliae Thesaurarius, et hujus Academise Cancellarius, Thomse Bodleio Equiti Aurato, qui Bibliothecam hanc instituit, honoris causa pie posuit i. e. Thi.mas Sackvile, earl of Dorset, lord high treasurer of England, and chancellor of this university, piously erected this monument to the honour of sir Thomas Bodley, knt. who founded this library.“King James I. we are told, when he came to Oxford in 1605, and, among other edifices, took a view of this famous library, at his departure, in imitation of Alexander, broke out into this speech” If I were not a king, I would be an university man and if it were so that I must be a prisoner, if I might have my wish, 1 would have no other prison than that library, and be chained together with so many good authors." A catalogue of the printed books in the Bodleian library was published in 1674 by Dr. Thomas Hyde, then chief librarian another of the manuscripts was printed in 1697; and a more ample catalogue of the books was printed at Oxford, in 1738, in two volumes, folio.

After king James’s accession to the throne, sir Thomas received the honour of knighthood and from this time, it appears by the Cabala (p. 95), he lived mostly at Parsons’ Green, Middlesex. His town house was in the parish of St. Bartholomew the Less, near Smithfield, London, where his wife died and was buried June 1611, and here likewise sir Thomas died, Jan. 28, 1612. It is probable he had been for some time indisposed, as we find by Wood’s Annals, that the vice-chancellor, heads of houses and proctors sent to him letters of condolence, dated Jan. 17. We learn from the same author, that as soon as his death was announced, the university assembled to consider of the most honourable testimony of respect for his memory, on which it was agreed that a distant day should be appointed for his interment in Merton college chapel, which he had himself desired. The ceremony was accordingly performed with a solemnity and pomp becoming the university which he had so amply enriched. The body lay in state for some days in the hall of Merton college, surrounded by three heralds at arms, the relations of the deceased, his executors, the vice-chancellor, dean of Christ church, the proctors and bedels, and the whole society of Merton. On the day of the funeral, March 27, a procession was formed of the heads of the several houses, all the distinguished members of the university, and sixty-seven poor scholars (the number of his years) chosen by the heads of houses: the body was removed from Merton college through Christ church, and thence through the high street to the divinity school, where it was deposited while an oration was delivered by Richard Corbet, afterwards bishop of Oxford. It was then removed to St. Mary’s church, where a funeral sermon was preached by Dr. William Goodwyn, dean of Christ church and these ceremonies being over, the corpse was conveyed to Merton college, and, after another speech by John Hales, fellow of Merton, “the ever memorable,” was interred at the upper end of the choir, under the north wall. In 1615 Stone the statuary was employed to erect a monument of black and white marble, on which is placed his effigies, in a scholar’s gown, surrounded with books and at the four corners stand grammar, rhetoric, music, and arithmetic. On each hand of his effigies stands an angel that on the left holds out to him a crown and that on the right a book open, in which are these words Non delebo nomen ejus de libro vitae I. e. “I will not blot his name out of the book of life.” Underneath is the figure of a woman, sitting before the stairs of the old library, holding in one hand a key, and in the other a book, wherein the greatest part of the alphabet appears; and behind are seen three small books shut, inscribed with the names of Priscianus, Diomedes, and Donatus. Beneath all are engraven these words Memoriae Thomae Bodley Militis, Publicae Bibliothecae fundatoris, sacrum. Obiit 28 Jan. 1612.

Dr. John Morris, canon of Christ- church, bequeathed by his will to the university five pounds per annum, for a speech to be made by a master of arts in praise of sir Thomas Bodley; the person who made the speech to be nominated by the dean of Christ-church, and confirmed by the vice-chancelor for the time being. But this gift was not to take place till the death of Dr. Morris’s widow; which happening in November, 1681, the annuity then fell to the university, and the year following, Dr. John Fell, dean of Christ-church, nominated Thomas Sparke, A. M. of his college who, being approved by the vicechancellor, made a solemn speech in the schools, the 8th of November, 1682. This is continued annually on the day when the visitation of the library is made. His statutes for the regulation of the library were translated out of English into Latin by Dr. John Budden, principal of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college), and incorporated with the university statutes. Sir Thomas wrote his own life to the year 1609, which, together with the first draught of his statutes, and a collection of his letters, were published from the originals in the Bodleian library, by Hearne, under the title of “Reliquiae Bodleianse, or, some genuine remains of sir Thomas Bodley,” London, 1703, 8vo. Of this we have availed ourselves in the preceding account, to which something must now be added from subsequent information. It is not easy to quit the history of a man to whom literature is so exceedingly indebted, and who cannot be contemplated without veneration, not only by the sons of Oxford, but by every one who has profited by access to the invaluable library which will hand his 'name down to the latest posterity.

In Dr. Birch’s Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, there are extracts of several letters written by sir Thomas Bodley to the earl of Essex, the lord treasurer Burghley, sir Robert Cecil, and Mr. Anthony Bacon, chiefly during sir Thomas’s residence in Holland. From these, therefore, and from other passages in that work, we shall select a few particulars, which may serve to render the account of his life somewhat more complete. In 1583, when Mr. Stafford (afterwards sir Edward Stafford) was appointed ambassador to France, it was said that Mr. Bodley was to go with him as chief secretary but no evidence appears of his having actually served the ambassador in that capacity. The letters we have mentioned exhibit a farther proof of the fidelity and diligence with which he discharged his duty, in the management of queen Elizabeth’s affairs in the United Provinces. As some of the facts the letters relate to r are too minute to require a particular discussion in this place, it may be sufficient to refer generally to Dr. Birch’s Memoirs. One principal business of Mr. Bodley in Holland, was to obtain satisfaction from the States General, for certain sums of money due from them to the queen, for the expence she had been at, in assisting and supporting their republic and though he conducted himself in this negociation with his usual ability, and, in general, gave high satisfaction to her majesty, yet he once greatly displeased her, by returning to England, in order to lay before her, a secret proposition, from some leading members of the States, relative to the payments demanded.

4 In a letter written to the queen on the 14th of May, 1595, just after his return, he inclosed the substance of their overture, and alleged the reasons of his own coming over in person, to be the winning of time, the clearing of doubts, and the framing of the overture fully to her majesty’s satisfaction. Nevertheless, the queen continued so exasperated with the proposal brought by him, that on the 24th of May, he wrote to Mr. Anthony Bacon, that he had not stirred abroad for ten days past, nor knew when he should, since he saw so little hope of better usage at court “where,” says he, “I hear for my comfort, that the queen on Monday last did wish I had been hanged.” And if withal I might have leave, that I should be discharged, I would say, Benedetto si el Giorno, el Mese, & 'lAnno." However, at length, Mr. Bodley was sent back to the Hague, with new instructions, to demand of the States a. hundred thousand pounds in ready money, and to protest, that if they would not now determine to return her majesty such an answer, as she might find they had some feeling of her manifold deserts and present necessities, she would not only revoke her succours from thence with all expedition, but make her grievances known by some public declaration, whereby the world mi^ht take notice of their want of conscience in their dealing. But not being able to bring the States to a compliance with the terms insisted upon, he was, at last, commanded to effect the very same project, which he had before carried to England, and for which he had endured so much bitterness and grief; and in conclusion he brought them to these terms: that they would consent to a discharge of the auxiliary entertainments, which would ease her majesty of at least forty thousand pounds a year, upon condition that her intention might be known two months before to make an annual presentation of twenty thousand pounds, to be paid every time by public legation on her majesty’s birth-day; but not to be continued beyond her reign: to assist her majesty, if there should be occasion, with their shipping and other sea provisions, and to come to no accord or pacification with the Spaniard, unless with her consent; and to discharge the sum of four hundred thousand pounds in four years, but payable only to her majesty’s person.

Though sir Thomas Bodley’s design, in re-founding the public library at Oxford, was so excellent and useful, and his bequeathing his estate for that purpose so commendable, some persons were dissatisfied at their not being remembered by him in his last will. This, at least, was the case with Mr. Chamberlayne, who, though not a relation of sir Thomas’s, yet having had a long acquaintance with him, complains of his conduct with no small degree of malignity. He says that sir Thomas Bodley was so carried away with the vanity and vain glory of his library, that he forgot all other respects and duties almost of conscience, friendship, or good nature. Mr. Chamberlayne farther observes, as another argument of sir Thomas’s vanity, that he had written his own life in seven sheets of paper, not leaving out the least minuteness, or omitting any thing that might tend to his own glory or commendation and that he had not so much as made mention of his wife, or that he was married by which it might be seen what a mind he carried, and what account he made of his best benefactors. It is easy to perceive, that these reflections are chiefly the result of spleen and disappointment.

, a younger brother of sir Thonas Bodley, and, as already noticed, a benefactor to his library, was born in the city of Exeter, about the year 1546. After a suitable education, though in what school is not known, he was sent to Christ-church-college in Oxford, where he took the degrees of bachelor and master of arts. From thence he removed into his native country, where his merit became so conspicuous, that he was made one of the canons, residentiary of Exeter cathedral, and rector of Shobroke, about seven miles from that city, near Crediton. He was chief mourner at his brother’s funeral and, March 30, 1613, was created doctor in divinity, as a member of Christ-church. He died April the 19th, 1615, in the seventieth year of his age, and was interred in St. Peter’s cathedral in Exeter, near the choir, under a flat marble stone, with an epitaph. As to his character we are told, that for his pious zeal, and continual labour in the faithful discharge of the duties of his function, he cannot be over-praised, and that he was of an hospitable disposition, very charitable, and pious. In his will, he bequeathed to the mayor and chamber of Exeter, four hundred pounds in money, to purchase twenty pounds a year in lands, towards the maintenance of a preacher in that city. There is nothing of his writing extant, except an. elegy on the death of the famous bishop Jewel, inserted in Humphrey’s life of that prelate. Dr. John Prideaux, regius professor of divinity and rector of Exeter college, dedicated an act sermon to him, and acknowledges himself indebted to him for some preferment. Prideaux entered Exeter college as a poor servitor, and probably was then indebted to Dr. Bodley for his advancement.

, youngest brother to sir Thomas Bodley, was, in all probability, born at Exeter, as well as his brothers. He was bred up a scholar, and spent some time in Merton-college in Oxford; but preferring a military to a studious life, he served in the Low-countries, which was then the theatre of war, and behaved so well, that he was advanced to the degree of a captain. In 1598, he was sent into Ireland, with several old companies of English out of the Netherlands, amounting in all to above a thousand men, of which he was second captain. There he signalized himself by his valour and conduct and was, at the taking of the isle of Loghrorcan at the attack of Castle-Ny park and at the siege of Kinsale, in 1601, where he was overseer of the trenches, as he was also at the sieges of Baltimore, Berchahaven, and Castlehaven, for which, and other services, he was knighted by the lord deputy Chichester. He was living in Ireland in the year 1613, when he was director-general, and overseer of the fortifications of that kingdom, but the time of his death is not known. He wrote “Observations concerning the fortresses of Ireland, and the British colonies of Ulster,” a ms. once in the library of sir James Ware, an'd afterwards in that of Henry lord Clarendon, and “A Jocular Description of a Journey taken by him to Lecale in Ulster, in 1602,” also in manuscript.

, a voluminous writer, and one of the, revivers of literature in Germany, was born at Zurich, July 19, 1693, and notwithstanding his father’s design to bring him up to the church, or for trade, he seemed born for the sciences, and particularly the belles lettres. He concealed his dislike, however, for the ministry, until the time when he might have been admitted, and then declined proceeding any farther. His father then would have him pursue trade, and in 1717 sent him to Bergamo for that purpose. This being of course as disagreeable to him as the study of divinity, he returned home after two years, his predilection for poetry growing more and more upon him. Ovid’s Metamorphoses, a translation of which fell in his way, filled his head with poetical images, and the English Spectator formed his morals, while he studied his philosophy in Bayle and Montaigne. The German language was at this time in a barbarous state; literature was at a low ebb, and the pedantic studies of the schools were not to the liking of such a youth as Bodmer. Finding nothing, therefore, to read in his own language, he confined himself to the classics of antiquity, and gave up every other employment, except the study of the history and politics of Swisserland. In history, however, he looked only for men, manners, and language; and was desirous of forming from it a system of psychology.

In 1737 he was elected a member of the grand council of Zurich, but this excited no ambition. Having lost his children, he refused every kind of civil promotion, and took as much pains to avoid as others do to procure such honours. His object was to reform the taste of his country, and with this view, for many years all his writings were of the didactic and critical kind. In 1721 he and Breitinger made their first appearance in the republic of letters, by a periodical paper, in the manner of the English Spectator, to which they gave the title of the “Painter of Manners,” and which contributed in a very great degree to the reformation of style. This was followed by many other works, which procured Bodmer the high character of the restorer of the German language, criticism, and poetry. He published also various pieces relative to the history of Swisserland, the greater part of which appeared in the Helvetic Bibliotheque, and have since been inserted in the supplement of Lauffer’s history of Swisserland. In 1748 and 1758, he and his former colleague Breitinger re-published many pieces of German poetry of the thirteenth century: Bodmer also translated some old English ballads, and published the poetry of Opitz with critical remarks. All these contributed essentially to the refinement of German taste and style but Bodmer reached his fiftieth year before he became himself a poet. He had hitherto been terrified at the restraint which rhime imposes, and made no attempt of the kind, until Klopstock, by introducing hexameters, opened the way to ease and variety. Bodmer had studied Milton and Klopstock, and as he was the son of a clergyman, and once destined for the church, this, and a desire to tread in the steps of these illustrious predecessors, determined him to choose a subject from the Bible. Perhaps, says his biographer, his creative powers suggested to him the patriarchs instead of the Achilleses and Æncases. Hitherto his pen had not touched on a national subject, nor could he find any creative fund in national history. Animated therefore by the genius of Milton, he ventured to write an epic in an age in which the poetic fire appeared to be extinguished. His hero was Noah, who having survived the destruction of the first, became the father of a new race of men. Bodmer, by charging this new generation with the crimes of all ages, rendered his poem at once moral and political, and, under the title of the “Noachide,” it was printed at Zurich, 1752, 1765, and 1772.

His other works were, a German translation of Milton, Zurich, 1769; and of Homer, ibid. 1769; of Apollonius Rhodius, ibid. 1779; Collections for the history of the Allies, ibid. 1739 Dissertation on the wonderful in poetry, 1749; Critical observations on portraits in poetry Letters on Criticism A collection of all his smaller epic poems, entitled Calliope; A collection of critical and poetical works, the fountain of the German language, 1768; a magnificent edition, already noticed, of the '^Minnisinger,“or Old German Bards, 1758. He also wrote parodies on Lessing’s Fables, and the Tragedies of Weiss, both very inferior, to his other works. In 1767 his” Noah“was translated by Mr. Collier, and partakes of all the faults of such compositions as the” Death of Abel." Bodmer’s great fault, indeed, was that inflated and bombast style, which has been since his time so popular in Germany, and which, in the dramatic form, some years ago, threatened to debase the taste of this country. His imagination is fertile, and occasionally bursts into something like sublimity, but is rarely under the guidance of judgment or taste. Having something of both, however, at the time his countrymen had neither, he cannot be denied the merit of giving a more favourable direction to their studies but it was his misfortune to acquire fame when there was none to dispute it, and as his country increased in its number of scholars and critics, he in vain endeavoured to preserve his superiority by being jealous of rising merit. The first critic when German criticism was in its infancy, he would also be the first when she was advanced to maturity but he outlived his authority, and was no longer the first, although he might rank among the best. He died Jan. 2, 1783.

, an eminent German critic and historian, and counsellor to the emperor and to the elector of Mentz, was born in 1611, at Cronheim in Franconia, and was during a long life reputed one of the ablest men Germany had produced, particularly in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, in history, and political and legal knowledge. He was only twenty when thought worthy of being appointed professor of eloquence at Strasburgh, and in 1640 was made a canon of St. Thomas. Christina, queen of Sweden, invited him to Upsal in 1648, to be professor of eloquence, and the following year conferred on him the place of historiographer of Sweden, with a pension of eight hundred crowns, which she generously continued when his health obliged him to return to Strasburgh. He was then elected professor* of history at Strasburgh, and in 1662 the elector of Mentz appointed him his counsellor. The year after, the emperor Ferdinand III. bestowed the' same honour upon him, with the title of count Palatine. Louis XIV. offered him a pension pf two thousand livres, but the court of Vienna, unwilling to lose him, induced him to decline it, and made up his loss by another pension of six hundred rix-dollars. Boeder, honoured and enriched by so many favours, pursued his studies with unremitting ardour, until his death in 1692. He published with notes or commentaries, editions of Herodian, Strasburgh, 1644, 8vo Suetonius, ibid. 1647, 4to Manilius, ibid. 1655, 4to Terence, ibid, 1657, 8vo Cornelius Nepos, Utrecht, 1665, 12mo; Polybius, 1666, 1670, 1681, 4to; part of Tacitus, Velleius Paterculus, Virgil, Herodotus, and Ovid. His other works were 1 “De Jure Galliae in Lotharingiam,” Strasburgh, 1663, 4to, a refutation of the treatise on the rights of the French king to Lorraine. 2. “Annotationes in Hippolytum a Lapide,” ibid. 1674, 4to, a refutation of the work entitled “De ratione status imperii Romano-Germanici,” by Chemnitz or James de Steinberg. 3. “Dissertatio de scriptoribus Graecis et Latinis, ab Homero usque ad initium XVI seculi,” ibid. 1674, 8vo, and reprinted by Gronovius in the tenth vol. of his Grecian antiquities. 4. “Bibliographia historico-politico-philologica,” 1677, 8vo. 5. “Historia Belli Sueco-Danici annis 1643 1645,” Stockholm, 1676, Strasburgh, 1679, 8vo. 6. “Historia universalis ab orbe comlito ad J. C. nativitatem,” ibid. 1680, 8vo, with a dissertation on the use of history. 7. “Notitia sacri imperii Romani,” ibid. 1681, 8vo. 8. An edition with notes and improvements, of Picolomini’s Latin history of Frederic III. ibid. 1685, fol. reprinted 1702. 9. “De rebus saeculi post Christum XVI. liber memorialis,” Kiel, 1697, 8vo: 10. “Historia universalis IV saeculorum post Christum,” 1699, 8vo, reprinted at Rostock, 4to, with a life of the author, by J. Theophilus Moller. 11. Various “Letters” in Jaski’s collection, Amsterdam, 1705, 12mo. 12. “Commentatio in Grotii librum de jure belli ac pacis,” Strasburgh, 1705, 1712, 4to. He was a most enthusiastic admirer of Grotius. 13. “Bibliographia critica,” Leipsic, 1715, 8vo, enlarged by J. Gottlieb Krause the former editions of this work were very defective. 14. “Dissertations, and smaller pieces,” published by J. Fabricius, ajt Strasburgh, 1712, 4 vols. 4to, on history, politics, morals, criticism, many of them very valuable.

, minister of the German chapel at St. James’s, London, the son of Anthony Boehm, minister at Oeetorff, in the county of Pyrmont, in Germany, who died 1679, was born June 1, 1673, and after his father’s death was sent to school at Lemgo, and afterwards at Hameln, whence, after making proficiency in Greek and Latin, he was removed to the newly-erected university at Halle. Having finished the usual course of studies here, and taken orders, he was for some time employed as tutor to the sons of noblemen and gentlemen. About the year 1701, some German families in London requested of the university of Halle to send over a proper person as schoolmaster to their children. Boehm was invited to accept this situation, and arrived at London in November of that year, where his first object was to acquire the English language. In 1702 he opened a school in Bedfordbnry, but met with so little encouragement, although invited hither for the purpose, that he must have returned to his own country, if, in 1705, he had not been appointed by prince George of Denmark, queen Anne’s husband, to be one of his chaplains, and officiate at his chapel, which he did for some time alternately with his colleague Crusius, and gave so much satisfaction, not only to the prince, but to the queen, that after his highness’s death, in 1708, the queen ordered the same service to be continued, and gave him access to her presence, which he improved occasionally in the promotion of acts, of charity and humanity. On one occasion, particularly, by his intercession, the queen prevailed on the king of France to release many of th French Protestants condemned to the gallies for religion. When king George I. came to the crown, Mr. Boehm was confirmed in his station, which beheld to his death, May 27, 1722. He was buried in Greenwich church-yard, with a characteristic epitaph. He appears to have been a man of unfeigned and fervent piety, and remarkably zealous in promoting works of piety and charity. Dr. Watts said of him, that he feared there were but few such men then in England, British or German, Episcopal or Non -conformist. His original works are 1. “Enchiridion Precum, cum introductione de natura Orationis,” 1707, 1715, 8vo. 2. “A volume of discourses and tracts,” in English. 3. “The duty of Reformation,” 1718. 4. “The doctrine of godly sorrow,” 1720. 5. “Plain directions for reading the Holy Bible,” 1708, and 1721. 6. “Various pious tracts, in the German language. He also translared the” Pietas Hallensis,“a curious history of the rise and progress of the Orphan school at Halle, 1705 6 7, and the first” Account of the Protestant mission at Tranquebar,“1709 11, some parts of the works of bishop Hopkins, Dr. Barrow, &c. Arndt’s” True Christianity" and edited a Latin edition of the same, and editions of some other pious treatises by foreign divines. He left an unfinished history of the reformation in England from Henry VIII. to Charles II. and some other manuscripts.

, privy- counsellor of the landgrave of Hesse, and professor of mathematics and philosophy at Giessen, was born at Darmstadt, Nov. 17, 1720, and died July 6, 1790. As a philosopher, he adhered to the principles of Wolf, who had been his master, but in mathematics he followed and added to the improvement of the age, by many useful and experimental treatises. His “Magazine for engineers and artillery-men,” 1777 85, 12 vols. 8vo, procured him very considerable reputation. He also wrote, 1. “Logica, ordine scientifico in usum. auditorum conscripta,” Francfort, 1749 62 69, 8vo. 2. “Metaphysica,” Giessen, 1673, 8vo, and an improved edition, 1767, 8vo. He had a considerable hand in the “Francfort Encyclopaedia” and, along with F. K. Schleicher, wrote the “New Military Library,” Marbourg, 1789 90, 4 vols.

, or Behmen, a noted visionary, and founder of the sect of the Behmenists, was born in a village near Gorlitz, in Upper Lusatia, 1575. His education was suitable to the circumstances and views of his parents, who, designing him for a mechanic trade, took him from school as soon as he could read and write, and put him apprentice to a shoe-maker. He first began to use that occupation as a master at Gorlitz, in 1594, and getting into such business as enabled him to support a family, he entered after some time into matrimony, and had several children.

In the mean time, being naturally of a religious turn of mind, he was a constant frequenter of sermons from his youth, and took all opportunities of reading books of divinity, but, not being able to satisfy himself about the differences and controversies in religion, he grew very uneasy, till, happening one day to hear from the pulpit that speech of our Saviour, “Your heavenly Father will give the holy spirit to them that ask it” he was presently so affected, that from this moment, as he tells us, he never ceased asking, that he might know the truth. Upon this, he says, by the divine drawing and will, he was in spirit rapt into the holy sabbath, where he remained seven whole days, in the highest joy; after which, coming to himself, he laid aside all the follies of youth, and was driven by divine zeal earnestly to reprehend impudent, scandalous, and blasphemous speeches, and in all his actions forbore the least appearance of evil, continuing to earn a comfortable livelihood by diligent application to his trade. la 1600, he was a second time possessed with a divine light, and by the sight of a sudden object brought to the inward ground or centre of the hidden nature yet somewhat doubting, he went out hi to an open field, and there beheld the miraculous works of the Creator in the signatures, figures, or shapes of all created things very clearly and manifestly laid open; whereupon he was taken with exceeding joy, yet held his peace, in silence praising God. But ten years after, in 1610, through the overshadowing of the holy spirit, he was a third time touched by God, and became so enlightened, that, lest so great grace bestowed upon him should slip out of his memory ^ and he resist his God, he began to write privately for his own use (without the help of any books except the holy scripture), the truths which had been thus revealed to him. In this spirit he first published his treatise, entitled “Aurora, or the rising of the sun,” in 1612 which book was immediately carried to the magistrates of Gorlitz by George Richterus, dean of the ministers of that place, who complained of its containing many of the errors of Paracelsus and Wigelius for Boehmen had amused himself with chemistry in his youth. The magistrates suppressed the piece as much as possible, and commanded the author to write no more, observing to him, that such employment was properly the business of the clergy, and did not belong to his profession and condition.

Thus rebuked, he remained silent for seven years but finding that the directors of the electoral laboratory had recommended him to a great many persons of the court as a good chemist, he lifted up his head, and boldly opposed Richterus and, taking up his pen again, was resolved to redeem the time he had lost; insomuch that in the remaining five years of his life he wrote ahove twenty books, the last of which, entitled “A table of his principles, or a key of his writings,” was published in 1624. He did not long survive it; for, betimes in the morning, Nov. 18 of that year, he called one of his sons, and asked him, “if he also heard that excellent music” To which being answered in the negative, he ordered the door to be set open, that the music might be the better heard. He asked afterwards what o'clock it was and being told it had struck two, he said, “It is not yet my time, my time is three hours hence.” In the interim he was heard to speak these words, “O thou strong God of hosts, deliver me according to thy will O thou crucified Lord Jesus, have mercy upon me, and receive me into thy kingdom.” When it was near six o'clock, he took leave of his wife and sons, and blessed them, and said, “Now I go hence to paradise” then bidding his son turn him, he immediately expired in a deep sigh.

A great number of persons have been inveigled by the visions of this fanatic; among others the famous Quirinus Kahlman in Germany, who says, that he had learned more, being alone in his study, from Boehmen, than he could have learned from all the wise men of that age together: and that we may not be in the dark as to what sort of knowledge this was, he acquaints us, that amidst an infinite number of visions it happened, that being snatched out of his study, he saw thousands of thousands of lights rising round about him. But our author is better known among ou-rselves, where he has hundreds of admirers and no wonder, since, as Dr. Henry More observes, the sect of the Quakers have borrowed a great many of their doctrines from our Teutonic philosopher of whom we shall venture to say, from a perusal of some of his writings, that he possessed the grand arcanum of mysterizing plain truths by an inextricably oenigmatical expression. He has still many disciples in England and we are sorry to add, met with a warm advocate and industrious disciple in the late pious Mr. William Law, who employed many years in preparing an edition and translation of Bcehmen’s works, and which were published after his decease in 2 vols. 4to, to which two others were afterwards added. The titles of these writings will be perhaps sufficient, without entering farther into their merits, or that of their author. 1. Aurora, or the rising of the sun, 1612. 2. Of the three principles, together with an appendix of the threefold life of man, 1619. 3. Of the threefold life of man, 1620. 4. An answer to the forty questions of the soul, propounded by Dr. Walter, &c. ibid. 5. Three books; the first, of the incarnation of Jesus Christ; the second, of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ; the third, of the tree of faith, ibid. 6. Of six parts, ibid. 7. Of the heavenly and earthly mysterium, ibid. 8. Of the last times, to P. K. ibid. 9. De signatura rerum, or the signature of all things, 1621. 10. A consolatory book of the four complexions, ibid. 11. An apology to Balthazar Tilken, in two parts, ibid. 12. A consideration upon Esaias Steefel’s book, ibid. 13. Of true repentance, 1622. 14. Of true resignation, ibid. 15. Of regeneration, ibid. 16. Of predestination and election of God; at the end of which is a treatise, entitled, 17. A short compendium of repentance, 1623. 18. The mysterium magnum upon Genesis, ibid. 19. A table of the principles, or key of his writings, to G. F. and J. H. 20. Of the supersensual life, ibid. LM. Of the two testaments of Christ, viz. baptism and the supper of the Lord, ibid. 22. A dialogue between the enlightened and unenlightened soul, ibid. 23. An apology upon the book of true repentance, directed against a pasquil of the principal minister of Gorlitz, called Gregory Rickter, ibid. 24. An epitome of the mysterium magnum, ibid. 25. A table of the divine manifestation, or an exposition of the threefold world, to J. S. V. S. and A. V. F. ibid. The following are without date. 26. Of the errors of the sects of Ezekiel Meths, to A. P. A. or an apology to Esaias Steefel. 27. Of the last judgment. 28. Certain letters to diverse persons, written at diverse times, with certain keys for some hidden words. Besides these our author left unfinished, 29. A little book of divine contemplation. 30. A book of one hundred and seventy-seven theosophic questions. 3 1 The holy weeks, or the prayerbook.

, an eminent professor of botany and anatomy in the university of Wittetnberg, who was born in 1723, and died in 1803, was the disciple of Ludwig, and the author of a great many treatises on every branch of botanical science, much admired for original thoughts, perspicuity of method, and extensive knowledge. The principal of these were, 1. “Flora Lipsiae indigena,” Leipsic, 1750, 8vo. 2. “Definitiones plantarum Ludwigianas auctas et emendatas edidit G. R. Boehmer,” ibid. 1760, which forms a new and improved edition of Ludwig’s Elements of Botany. 3. “Bibliotheca scriptorum historic naturalis, oeconomisc, aliarumque artium ac scientiarum ad illam pertmentium, realis systematica,” ibid. 9 vols. 8vo, a very valuable bibliographical work, with references to the literary journals, &c. 4. “A history of plants used in arts and manufactures,” ibid. 1794, 8vo, in German. To these may be added a vast number of academical dissertations on botanical subjects. The Bcehmeria, a genus of the class Monrecia Tetrandria, was so named in honour of him, by Jacquin.

, a very celebrated German lawyer, was born in 1674 at Hanover. He became professor of law at Halle, and afterwards director of the university and in 1743 was appointed chancellor of the duchy of Magdeburgh, and chancellor in ordinary of the faculty oflaw. He died Aug. 11, 1749. His chief study was the canon law, but he was also equally distinguished for his knowledge of the civil law and in all his writings displays profound sense and learning. Among the most approved of his works, we may enumerate: 1 “Tractatus ecclesiasticus de jure parochiali,” Halle, 1701, 4to. 2. “Jus Ecclesiasticum Protestantium,” ibid. 1714, 5 vols. 4to and in 1737, a second edition, in 7 vols. 4to; a third in 1740, extended to 12 vols. 4to. 3. “Corpus juris canonici,” Halle, 1747, 2 vols. 4to. This, which is written in a spirit of moderation and candour, he dedicated to pope Benedict XIV. who received the compliment very graciously. He had two sons* John Samuel, and George Louis, both eminent lawyers, law-writers, and professors, a list of whose works may be seen in our authority. A third son, Philip Adolphus, born at Halle in 1717, and who died in 1789, was a physician, having been admitted doctor in medicine in 1736. As he applied his mind particularly to the study of midwifery, he gave for his inaugural thesis, “De precavenda polyporum generatione.” His next dissertation, which was published in 1741, in 4to, was “Situs uteri gravidi, ac foetus, ac sede placentae in utero.” In this he has given a critical examination of the midwifery forceps used in England, which he compares with and prefers to Leuret’s. These pieces were added by the author to his edition of sir Richard Manningham’s “Compendium artis Obstetricoe,” published in 1746, 4to. Having acquired celebrity by these and other works, he was adopted member of the Acad. Nat. Curios, and foreign associate of the royal academy of surgery at Paris. He was also appointed to succeed his father as professor of anatomy and medicine in the university at Hall. In 1749 he published “Institutiones Osteologicse, in usum prelectionum,” 8vo. Haller particularly commends in this work the engravings of the embryos, and some foetal skeletons. His “Observationum Anatomicarum fasciculus primus,” folio, was published in 1752. Among many rare and curious objects are, an engraving of a pregnant uterus, to shew the membrana decidua, and a foetus in one of the Fallopian tubes, with the placenta. The second collection, also in folio, published in 1756, contains a smaller foetus in one of the tubes, and a child with two bodies and only one head.

, an illustrious physician and professor at Leyden, born Dec. 31, 1668, at Voorhoot, a small village in Holland, about two miles from that city. His father intended him for divinity, and with this view initiated him in letters himself. About the twelfth year of his age, he was afflicted with an ulcer in his left thigh, which seemed to baffle the art of surgery, and occasioned such excessive pain, as much interrupted his studies for some time; but at length, by fomenting it with salt and wine, he effected a cure himself, and thereupon conceived his first thoughts of studying physic. In 1682, he was sent to the public school at Leyden, and at the expiration of the year got into the sixth and highest class, whence it is customary, after six months, to be removed to the university. At this juncture his father died, who left a wife and nine children, with a slender provision of whom Herman, though hut sixteen, was the eldest. Upon his admission into the university, he was particularly noticed by a friend of his father, Mr. Trigland, one of the professors of divinity, who procured him the patronage of Mr. Daniel Van Alphen, burgomaster of Leyden and by the advice of these gentlemen he attended Senguerd’s lectures on logic, the use of the globes, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and ethics he likewise attended the learned Jacob Gronovius on Greek and Latin authors, R kius on Latin classics, rhetoric, chronology, and geography, and Trigland and Scaafe on the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, in order to understand the sacred writings in their originals. In 1687, he applied to mathematics, and found the study so entertaining, that, after having gone through geometry and trigonometry, he proceeded to algebra, under Voider, in 1689. This year he gave a specimen of his learning in an academic oration, proving, “That the doctrine of Epicurus concerning the chief good was well understood by Cicero” and for this received the golden medal, which usually accompanies the merit of such probationary exercise. In 1690 he took a degree in philosophy. In his thesis on this occasion, with great strength of argument, he confuted the systems of Epicurus, Hobbes, and Spinosa. After having laid a solid foundation in all other parts of learning, he proceeded to divinity under the professors Trigland and Spanheim the first of whom gave lectures on Hebrew antiquities, the second on ecclesiastical history.

Notwithstanding he was thus qualified for entering into orders, which, according to his father’s intention, he had hitherto chiefly in view, and that his patrimony was by this time almost wholly exhausted; yet such was his diffidence, that he attempted rather, by teaching mathematics, to defray the expence attending the farther prosecution of his theological studies. By this means he not only increased his reputation, but (what laid the foundation of his future fortune) was introduced to an intimate friendship with John Vandenburg, burgomaster of Leyden. By this new connection he was recommended to the curators, to compare the Vossian manuscripts (purchased in England for the public library at Leyden) with the catalogue of sale; which he executed with such accuracy as procured him the esteem of the university, and recommended him in so particular a manner to Mr. Vandenburg, that this gentleman became ever after solicitous for his advancement and observing the amazing progress Boerhaave made in whatever he applied to, persuaded him to join the study of physic to philosophy and theology. As a relaxation therefore from divinity, and in complaisance to this gentleman, he dipt into physic, being duly prepared for it by his acquaintance with the learned languages, mathematics, and natural philosophy and he resolved to take a degree in physic before his ordination. The study of medicine commencing with that of anatomy, he diligently perused Vesalius, Fallopius, and Bartholin, oftentimes himself dissecting and attending the public dissections of professor Nuck. He next applied himself to the fathers of physic, beginning with Hippocrates and, in their chronological order, reading carefully all the Greek and Latin physicians but soon finding that the later writers “were almost wholly indebted to that prince of physicians for whatever was valuable in them, he resumed Hippocrates, to whom alone in this faculty he devoted himself for some time, making extracts, and digesting them in such a manner, as to render those inestimable remains of antiquity quite familiar to him.” He afterwards made himself acquainted with the best modern authors, particularly with Sydenham, whom he usually styled the immortal Sydenham. He next applied to chemistry, which so captivated him, that he sometimes spent days and nights successively in the study and processes of this art. He made also a considerable proficiency in botany not contented with inspecting the plants in the physic-garden, he sought others with fatigue in fields, rivers, &c. and sometimes with danger in almost inaccessible places, thoroughly examining what he found, and comparing them with the delineations of authors.

His progress in physic hitherto was without any assistance from lectures, except those mentioned in anatomy, and a few by professor Drelincourt on the theory; nor had he yet any thoughts of declining the priesthood: amidst mathematical, philosophical, anatomical, chemical and medical researches, he still earnestly pursued divinity. He went to the university of Harderwick in Guelderland, and in July 1693 was created there M. D. Upon his return to Leyden, he still persisted in his design of engaging in the ministry, but found an invincible obstruction to his intention. In a passage-boat where he happened to be, some discourse was accidentally started about the doctrine of Spinosa, as subversive of all religion and one of the passengers, who exerted himself most, opposing to this philosopher’s pretended mathematical demonstrations only the loud invective of a blind zeal, Boerhaave asked him calmly, “Whether he had ever read the works of the author he decried” The orator was at once struck dumb, and fired with silent resentment. Another passenger whispered the person next him, to learn Boerhaave’s name, and took it down in his pocket-book; and as soon as he arrived at Leyden, gave it out every where, that Boerhaave was become a Spinosist. Boerhaave, finding that such prejudices gained ground, thought it imprudent to risque the refusal of a licence for the pulpit, when he had so fair a prospect of rising by physic. He now therefore applied wholly to physic, and joined practice with reading. In 1701, he took the office of lecturer upon the institutes of physic and delivered an oration the 18th of May, the subject of which was a recommendation of the study of Hippocrates: apprehending that, either through indolence or arrogance, this founder of physic had been shamefully neglected by those whose authority was likely to have too great weight with the students of medicine. He officiated as a professor, with the title of lecturer only, till 1709, when the professorship of medicine and botany was conferred on him: his inaugural oration was upon the simplicity of true medical science, wherein, exploding the fallacies and ostentation of alchemistical and metaphysical writers, he reinstates medicine on the ancient foundation of observation and experiments. In a few years he enriched the physic-garden with such a number of plants, that it was found necessary to enlarge it to twice its original extent. In 1714, he arrived to the highest dignity in the university, the rectorship; and, at its expiration, delivered an oration on the method of obtaining certainty in physics. Here, having asserted our ignorance of the first principles of things, and that all our knowledge of their qualities is derived from experiments, he was thence led to reprehend many systems of the philosophers, and in particular that of Des Cartes, the idol of the times. This drew upon him the outrageous invectives of Mr. R. Andala, a Cartesian, professor of divinity and philosophy at Franeker, who sounded the alarm, that the church was in danger; and that the introduction of scepticism, and even Spinosism, must be the consequence of undermining the Cartesian system by such a professed ignorance of the principles of things his virulence was carried to such a degree, that the governors of the university thought themselves in honour obliged (notwithstanding Boernaave’s remonstrances to the contrary) to insist upon his retracting his aspersions. He accordingly made a recantation, with offers of further satisfaction to which Boerhaave generously replied, that the most agreeable satisfaction he could receive was, that so eminent a divine should have no more trouble on his account. In 1728, he was elected of the academy of sciences at Paris; and, in 1730, of the royal society of London. In 1718, he succeeded Le Mort in the professorship of chemistry and made an oration on this subject, “That chemistry was capable of clearing itself from its own errors.” August 1722, he was taken ill and confined to his bed for six months, with exquisite arthritic pains; he suffered another violent illness in 1727; and being threatened with a relapse in 1729, he found himself under the necessity of resigning the professorships of botany and chemistry. This gave occasion to an elegant oration, in which he recounts many fortunate incidents of his life, and returns his grateful acknowledgements to those who contributed thereto. Yet he was not less assiduous in his private labours till the year 1737, when a difficulty of breathing first seized him, and afterwards gradually increased. In a letter to baron Bassand, he writes thus of himself “An imposthumation of the lungs, which has daily increased for these last three months, almost suffocates me upon the least motion if it should continue to increase without breaking, I must sink under it; if it should break, the event is still' dubious happen what may, why should I be concerned since it cannot be but according to the will of the Supreme Being, what else should 1 desire God be praised In th mean time, I am not wanting in the use of the most approved remedies, in order to mitigate the disease, by promoting maturation, but am no ways anxious about the success of them I have lived to upwards of sixty-eight years, and always cheerful.” Finding also unusual pulsations of the artery in the right side of the neck, and intermissions of the pulse, he concluded there were polypous concretions between the heart and lungs, with a dilatation of the vessels. Sept. 8, 1738, he wrote his case to Dr. Mortimer, secretary of the royal society and for some days there were flattering hopes of his recovery but they soon vanished, and he died the 23d, aged almost seventy.

No professor was ever attended in public as well as private lectures by so great a number of students, from such different and distant parts, for so many years successively none heard him without conceiving a veneration for his person, at the same time they expressed their surprise at his prodigious attainments and it may be justly affirmed, that none in so private a station ever attracted a more universal esteem. He amassed greater wealth than ever any physician in that country from the practice of physic, which was owing as much at least to his cEconomy, as the largeness of his fees he was falsely accused of penuriousness, for he was liberal to the distressed, but without ostentation his manner of obliging his friends was such, that they often knew not, unless by accident, to whom they were indebted. In friendship he was sincere, constant, and affectionate he was communicative without conceitedness, and zealous though dispassionate in contending for truth so unmoved was he by detraction, as to sa v “The sparks of calumny will be presently extinct of them selves, unless you blow them.”

The following anecdotes respecting an important feature in Boerhaave’s character will not be read without interest “Fifty years are now elapsed,” says the learned baron Haller, “since I was the disciple of the immortal Boerhaave but his image is continually present to my mind. I have always before my eyes the venerable simplicity of that great man, who possessed in an eminent degree the power of persuasion. How often have I heard him say, when he spoke of the precepts of the Gospel, that the Divine Teacher of it had much more knowledge of the human heart than Socrates He particularly alluded to that sentence in the New Testament, * Whosoever looketh after a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart' for, added my illustrious master,” the first attacks of vice are always feeble reason has then some power over the mind. It is then in the very moment that such thoughts occur as have a tendency to withdraw us from our duty, that, if we with diligence suppress them, and turn our attention to something else, we may avoid the approaching danger, and not fail into the temptations of vice."

Boerhaave wrote in Latin a Commentary on his own Life, in which, in the third person, he takes notice of his opinions, of his studies, and of his pursuits. He there tells us, “that he was persuaded the Scriptures, as recorded in their originals, did iustrurt us in the way of sulvation, and afford tranquillity to the mind, when joined with obedience to Christ’s precepts and example.” He complains, however, that many of those who make the most unequivocal profession of our Saviour’s doctrine, pay too little deference to his example recommended in one of his precepts—“Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.”

Not long before he died, he told his friends, that he had never doubted of the spiritual and immaterial nature of the soul but that in a very severe illness with which he was afflicted, he had a kind of experimental certainty of the distinction between corporeal and thinking substances, which mere reason and philosophy cannot supply, and had opportunities of contemplating the wonderful and inexplicable union of soul and body. “This,” says Dr. Johnson, in his exquisite life of him, “he illustrated by the effects which the infirmities of his body had upon his facilities; which yet they did not so oppress or vanquish, but that his soul was always master of itself, and always resigned to the pleasure of its author.”

Music and gardening were the constant amusements of Boerhaave. In the latter part of his life his great pleasure was to retire to his country seat near Leyden, where he had a garden of eight acres, enriched with all the exotic shrubs and plants which he could procure, that would live in that soil. “Thus,” says Dr. Lobb, “the amusement of the youth and of the age of this great man was of the same kind the cultivation of plants an employment coeval with mankind, the first to which necessity compelled them, and the last to which, wearied with the tiresome round of vanities, they are fond of retreating, as to the most innocent and entertaining recreation.”

Under the first of these classes we have, 1 Various discourses, or “Orationes;” as “Oratio de commendando studio Hippocratico” and “Oratio de usu ratiocinii mechanici in Medicina,” reprinted 1709, 8vo. “Oratio qua repurgatas Medicinse facilis asseritur sirnplicitas decomparandocerto in physicis de chemia suos errores expurgante de vita et obitu Bernhardi Albini,” Leyden, 1721, 4to. “Oratio quain habuit cum botanicam et chemicam professionem publice poneret,” ibid. 1729 “de honore medici servitute” all these are among his “Opuscula.” 2. “Institutiones medicae in usus exercitationis annuae domesticos,” Leyden, 1708, 1713, 1720, 1727, 1734, 1746, 8vo; Paris, 1722, 1737, 1747, 12mo. translated into most languages, and even into the Arabic by order of the Mufti; and on which the following commentaries have been published one by Haller, Leyden, 1758, 7 vols. 4to; and another by Lamettrie, entitled “Institutions et Aphorismes,” Paris, 1743, 8 vols. 12mo, 3. “Aphorisini de cognoscendis et curandis morbis, in usum doctritirc Medicinse,” Leyden, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1734, 1742, 12mo; Paris, 1720, 1726, 1728, 1745, 1747, 12mo; Louvain, 1751, 12mo, with his treatise “De Lue Venerea;” in English, 1735 in French, Kennes, 1738, 12mo; also in Arabic and on which Van Swietcn wrote his excellent commentary, 5 vols. 4to. 4. “Index plantarum qnae in horto academico LugJuuoBatavo reperiuntur,” Leyden, 1710, 1718, 8vo. A new edition, enlarged, and with thirty figures of plants rather indifferently executed, and an account of the directors of the garden, from its origin to the time of Boerhaave, was published under the title of “Index alter, &c.” Leyden, 1720, 4to; 1727, 2 vols. 4to. 5. “Libellus de materia medica et remediorum formulis,” London, 1718, 8vo Leyden, 1719, 1727, 1740, 8vo; Paris, 1720, 1745, 12mo; Francfort, 1720; in French by Lamettrie, 1739, 1756, 12mo. This has sometimes been mistaken for a work “De viribus medicamentorum,” improperly attributed to Boerhaave. 6. “Epistolae ad Ruischium clarissimum, pro sententia Malpighiana de glandulis,” Amst. 1722. 7. “Atrocis nee descripti prius morbi histoia, secundum medicae artis leges conscripta,” Leyden, 1724, 8vo. 8. “Atrocis, rarissimique morbi historia altera,” Leyden, 1728. 8vo. 9. “Elementa Chemise quae anniversario labore uocnit in publicis, privatisque scholis,” Paris, 1724, 2 vols. 8vo; Leyden, 1732, 4to Paris, 1733 and 1753, 2 vols. 4to. with the author’s “Opuscula,” and translated into French and English, the latter by Shaw and Chambers, 1727, 4to and again by Oallowe, 1735, 4to.

Among the works attributed to him, without sufficient authority, or proceeding from his school, being compilations by his students from his lectures, are 1. “Tractatus de Peste,” published with other treatises respecting the plague at Marseilles. Boerhaave was himself infected at that melancholy period, and in this lays down a mode of cure. 2. “Consultationes medicse, sive sylloge epistolarum cum responsis,” Hague, 1743, often reprinted, and translated into English, Lond. 1745, 8vo. 3. “Prselectiones publicae de morbis oculorum,” dictated by Boerhaave in 1708, Gottingen, 1746, 8vo. Haller published two editions; one in 1750, from a bad transcript; the other from a more correct one by Heister, Venice, 1748, 8vo. 4. “Introductio in praxin clinicam,” Leyden, 1740, 8vo. 5. “Praxis medica,” London, 1716, 12mo. 6. “De viribus medicamentorum,” collected from his lectures in 1711, 1712, Paris, 1723, 8vo, &c. 7. “ Experimentet institutiones chemicaV' Paris, 1728, 2 vols. 8vo. 8.” Methodus discendi Medic-mam,“Amst. 1726, 1734, 8vo; Lend. 1744, the best edition by Haller, Amst. 1751, 2 vols. 4to, under the title of” Herman ni Boerhaave, viri summi, suique praeceptoris, methodus studii medici emendata et accessionibus locupletata.“9.” Historia plantarum quae in horto academico Lugd. Batav. crescunt,“Leyden, 1717, 2 vols. 12mo (under the name of Rome), Lond. 1731, 1738. 10.” Prselectiones de calculo,“Lond. 1748, 4to. 13.” Praelectiones academics?, de morbis Nervorum," Leyden, 1761, 2 vols. 8vo; Francfort, 1762. This was edited by James van Eeems, from various manuscript copies of Boerhaave’s lectures. In fact, all the works enumerated in this list were produced in the same manner, some in his lifetime, but mostly after his death. Such was the very extensive reputation of Boerhaave, that to be his pupil was in some degree accounted a qualification for future honours and practice, and every pupil was glad to bring away as much as he could in manuscript, to testify his diligence. The booksellers, very naturally desirous of profiting by the popularity of our author, employed many of these pupils in collating different transcripts, and publishing what was conceived to be the best text. In this way, doubtless, his reputation might occasionally suffer by the incorrectness or misapprehension of these transcribers yet even Haller and other eminent physicians were glad to avail themselves of such assistance, to extend /the Boerhaavian school, and promote the salutary revolution in medical science which this illustrious writer had begun. The celebrated medical school of Edinburgh was the first branch from it which introduced Boerhaave to this country, all the original founders and professors of that school having been his pupils.

There is yet a third class of writings connected with the name of Boerhaave, in which he acted principally as editor. Among these we may enumerate 1. The count Marsigli’s “Histoire physique de la Mer,” Amst. 1725, fol. 2. Vaillant’s “Botanicon Parisiense,” Lej'deu, 1727, 4to. 3. Swammerdam’s “Historia Insectorum, sive Biblia Naturae,” Amst. 1737, 2 vols. fol. translated into Latin by Gaubius, with a preface by Boerhaave. These, however, are not to be considered as new editions, for they were never published before, and the world was now, for the first time, indebted for them to Boerhaave’s zeal for the promotion of science. Swammerdam’s work was purchased and printed entirely at his own expence. It was not by his talents only, but by his fortune also, that he sought to advance science; and his liberal patronage of Linr.-jeus and Artedi was amply acknowledged by both; but as in his first interview with the former there are some characteristic traits unnoticed by B jerhaave’s biographers, we shall in this place extract Stoever’s account, from his life of Linmeus.

“Linnæus, when at Ley den, had particularly wished to see and converse with Boerhaave, but in vain. No minister could be more overwhelmed with intreaties and invitations, nor more difficult in granting an au[ >nce, than Boerhaave. His menial servants reaped ad ant a ^es from this circumstance for them an audience was always a profitable money-job by the weignt of gold it could alone be accomplished. Without a douceur it was hard for anystranger or foreigner to gain admittance. Linnæus was quite unacquainted with this method, and had it not in his power to make presents. Owing to Boerhaave’s infinite occupations, and the strict regularity which he observed, ambassadors, princes, and Peter the Great himself, were obliged to wait several hours in his anti-chamber, to obtain an interview. How much more difficult must it have been for the young northern doctor, allowing him his usual spirit of liberality, to aspire at the honour of admittance. Notwithstanding all these obstacles, he obtained it at last. He sent Boerhaave a copy of his newpublished system. Eager to know the author of this work, who had likewise recommended himself by a letter, he appointed Linnæus to meet him on the day before his intended departure, at his villa, at the distance of a quarter of a league from Leyden, and charged Gronovius to give him notice of his intention. This villa contained a botanical garden, and one of the finest collections of exotics. Linnæus punctually attended to the invitation. Boerhaave, who was then sixty-seven years old, received him with gladness, and took him into his garden, for the purpose of judging of his knowledge. He shewed him, as a rarity, the Crategus Aria, and asked him if he had ever seen that tree before, as it had never been described by any botanist. Linnæus answered that he had frequently met with it in Sweden, and that it had been already described by Vaillant. Struck with the young man’s reply, Boerhaave denied the latter part of his assertion, with so much more confidence, as he had himself published Vaillant’s work, with notes of his own, and firmly believed that tree had not been described in it. To remove all doubts, and to give all possible sanction to what he advanced, Boerhaave immediately produced the work itself from his library, and to his extreme surprise, found the tree fully described in it, with all its distinctive marks. Admiring the exact and enlarged knowledge of Linnæus in botany, in which he seemed even to excel himself, the venerable old man advised him to remain in Holland, to make a fortune, which could not escape his talents. Linnoeus answered that he would fain follow this advice, but his indigence prevented him from staying any longer, and obliged him to set out next day for Amsterdam, on his return to Sweden; but nevertheless this visit to Boerhaave unexpectedly became the source of his fortune and of his eminence.”

7. “Prosper Alpinus de presagienda vita et morte,” 1733, 4to. 8. “Aretaeus de causis signisque morborum,” Leyd. 1731, 1735. To all these he wrote prefaces, notes, and sometimes lives of the authors. He and Groenvelt had an intention of re-publishing all the most valuable Greek physicians and he is said to have left, almost ready for the press, the works of Nicander and jEtius. When we consider the labour necessary for these undertakings, as well as for Boerhaave’s original works, and the vast extent of his practice and correspondence, we may justly consider him as not only one of the most learned medical writers of his time, but as one of the most industrious nor can we be surprised that Linnæus, then unknown, or any stranger, should find access difficult to one whose time was so valuable, so well employed, and so liable, from his great celebrity, to be lost in visits of ceremony or curiosity.

, professor of medicine in the university of Petersburg, was born at the Hague in 1715. He was the son of James Kaan, and of Margaret, the daughter of Herman Boerhaave. After receiving a good classical education, he went to Leyden, where, applying to the study of medicine under the celebrated Albinus Gaubius, and other masters, he was admitted to the degree of doctor in 1738. He iiad before obtained an honorary medal from the university for his discourse “De gaudiis Alcheimstarum,” though he was more particularly attached to anatomy, which he cultivated with great success. The year following he took the name of Ins uncle Boerhaave. In 1740 he went to Petersburgh, where his talents soon procured him the situation of professor in medicine in the university there, and of one of the members of the imperial academy. By Portal and Blumenbach he is called archiater, or aulic counsellor, and first physician to the empress, confounding him with his brother Herman Kaan B. who about the same time enjoyed that honour. In the course of a severe and tedious illness, from which he with difficulty recovered, he lost his hearing. This happened 1749. He died in 1753. His works are: “Perspiratio dicta Hippocrati, per universum corpus anatomice illustrata,” Lugd. B. 1738, 12mo; in which he shews there is a constant inhalation or absorption, and an exhalation, or perspiration, carried on, not only on the surface of the body, but in all the principal cavities. “Impetum faciens dictum Hippocrati per corpus consentiens, philologice et physiologice illustratum,” Lugd. Bat. 1745, 12mo. la this he treats of the action of the mind upon the body, by the means of the nerves of the fabric and motion of the muscles on the effects of opium, given to a dog, &c. He also gave the anatomy of an elephant, which he had an opportunity of dissecting, and of two monstrous infants, &c.

, professor of theology at Leipsic, was born at Dresden, Nov. 6, 1685, studied at Leipsic and Wittemberg, and travelled afterwards in Holland and England. He died at Leipsic, Nov. 19, 17.53. He was a man of great learning, which he employed principally on subjects of biblical criticism and ecclesiastical history. His principal works are: 1. “De exulibus Grcecis iisdemque litterarum in Italia instauratoribus,” Leipsic, 1704, and enlarged 1750, 8vo. 2. “De ortu atque progressu Philosophise moralis,” ibid. 1707. 3. “De Socrate, singular! boni ethici exemplo,” ib. 1707. 4. “De Lutheri actis anno 1520,” ibid. 1720, 4to. 5. “De actis Lutheri anno 1531,” ibid. 1721, 4to. 6. “Institutiones theologiae symbolicse,” ib. 1751, 4to. 7. “Dissertationes sacrae,” ibid. 1752. The Journal des Savans for 1725 mentions a dissertation of his on the Lycaonians, in which he takes the part of those writers who deny that the language of that people was a dialect of the Greek. Boerner published, from 1728 to 1734, a complete edition of the works of Luther, in 22 vols. folio. He published also, in 1709, an edition of Le Long’s “Bibliotheca Sacra,” at Antwerp, 2 vols. 8vo, with corrections and additions. He had two sons, Christian Frederic, and Frederic, who were both physicians. The latter, who died in 1761, published the “Lives and writings of eminent physicians and naturalists,” in German, Wolfenbuttle, 1748 64, 3 vols. 8vo. Boerner was once possessed of a ms. of part of the New Testament, which is known by the name of the Codex Boerneriamis. It is noted G. in the second part of Wetstein’s New Testament, and was collated by Kuster, and described in the preface to his edition of Mill’s Greek Testament. It was published by professor Matthei, at Meissen, in Saxony, in 17ll, and is supposed to have been written between the eighth and twelfth centuries. It is preserved at present in the electoral library at Dresden, and a copy of it is in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, among the books and Mss. left by Dr. Bentley.

, of Sarlat, in Perigord, counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born Nov. 1, 1530, and cultivated both Latin and French poetry with success. He was an author at the age of Sixt teen, and died at thirty-two, in 1563, at Germignan, two leagues from Bourdeaux. Montagne, his friend, to whom he left his library, collected his works in 1571, 8vo. They consist of translations of several works of Plutarch and Xenophon, of political discourses, pieces of poetry, &c. His “Authenoticon,” or voluntary slavery, was published in 1575, at the time of the bloody dissensions about religion in France. Montagne published some sonnets of his which possess considerable merit, but upon the whole, his friendship for Boethie has induced him to over-rate his merit.

, the most learned and almost the only Latin philosopher of his time, descended from an ancient and noble family, inauy of his ancestors having been senators and consuls, was born at Rome in the year 455. Though deprived of his father the year he was born by the cruelty of Valeutinian III. who caused him to be put to death, his relations took all proper care of his education, and inspired him with an early taste for philosophy and the belles-lettres. They sent him afterwards to Athens, where he remained eighteen years, and made surprising progress in every branch of literature, particularly philosophy and mathematics, in which Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Ptolemy, were his favourite authors. During this course of education, he was not less distinguished for probity and humanity, than for genius and learning. On his return to Rome, he attracted the public attention, as one born to promote the happiness of society. The most eminent men in the city sought his friendship, foreseeing that his merit would soon advance him to the first employments of the state. His alliance, too, was consequently courted by many, but Elpis, descended from one of the most considerable families of Messina, was the lady on whom Boethius fixed his choice. This lady was learned, highly accomplished, and virtuous. She bore him two sons, Patricius and Hypatius. Boethius, as was expected, obtained the highest honour hiscountry could bestow. He was made consul in the year 487, at the age of thirty-two. Odoacer, king of the Heruli, reigned at that time in Italy, who, after having put to death Orestes, and deposed his son Augustulus, the last emperor of the West, assumed the title of king of that country. Two years after Boethius’s advancement to the dignity of consul, Theodoric, king of the Goths, invaded Italy and, having conquered Odoacer and put him to death, he in a short time made himself master of that country, and fixed the seat of his government at Ravenna, as Odoacer and several of the later western emperors had done before him. The Romans and the inhabitants of Italy were pleased with the government of Theodoric, because he wisely ruled them by the same laws, the same polity, and the same magistrates they were accustomed to under the emperors. In the eighth year of this prince’s reign, Boethius had the singular felicity of beholding his two sons, Patricius and Hypatius, raised to the consular dignity. During their continuance in office, Theodoric came to Rome, where he had been long expected, and was received by the senate and people with the greatest demonstrations of joy. Boethius made him an eloquent panegyric in the senate; which the king answered in the most obliging terms, declaring that he should ever have the greatest respect for that august assembly, and would never encroach upon any of their privileges.

Boethius was advanced a second time to the dignity of consul, in the eighteenth year of the reign of king Theodoric. Power and honour could not have been conferred upon a person more worthy of them for he was both an excellent magistrate and statesman, as he faithfully and assiduously executed the duties of his office and employed, upon every occasion, the great influence he had at court, in protecting the innocent, relieving the needy, and in procuring the redress of such grievances as gave just cause of complaint. The care of public affairs did not however engross his whole attention. This year, as he informs us himself, he wrote his commentary upon the Predicaments, or the Ten Categories of Aristotle. In imitation of Cato, Cicero, and Brutus, he devoted the whole of his time to the service of the commonwealth, and to the cultivation of the sciences. He published a variety of writings, in which he treated upon almost every branch of literature. Besides the commentary upon Aristotle’s Categories, he wrote an explanation of that philosopher’s Topics, in eight books; another, of his Sophisms, in two books; and commentaries upon many other parts of his writings. He translated the whole of Plato’s works: he wrote a commentary, in six books, upon Cicero’s Topics: he commented also upon Porphyry’s writings he published a discourse on Rhetoric, in one book a treatise on Arithmetic, in two books and another, in five books, upon Music he wrote three books upon Geometry, the last of which is lost he translated Euclid and wrote a treatise upon the quadrature of the circle neither of which performances are now extant he published also translations of Ptolomy of Alexandria’s works and of the writings of the celebrated Archimedes: and several treatises upon theological and metaphysical subjects, which are still preserved.

The learning displayed in these works procured Boethius such reputation that he was frequently visited by persons of the first rank. Among these Gondebald, king of the Burgundians, who had married a daughter of Theodoric, came to Rome for the purpose of conversing with so eminent a philosopher. Boethius shewed him several curious mechanical works of his own invention, particularly two watches or time-keepers, one of which pointed out the sun’s di'irnal and annual motion in the ecliptic, upon a moveable sphere and the other indicated the hours of the day, by the expedient of water dropping out of one vessel into another: and so fond was Gondebald of these pieces of mechanism, that upon his return to his own country, be dispatched ambassadors to Theodoric, praying that he would procure for him the two wonderful time-keepers he had seen at Rome.

During the course of these transactions, Boethius lost his beloved wife Elpis, but married a second time Rusticiana, the daughter of Symmachus, and was elected consul with his father in law, in the thirtieth year of Theodoric’s reign and it was during this consulship that he fell under the displeasure of king Theodoric. Rich in health, affluence, domestic happiness, and the love of his fellow citizens, and the highest reputation, all these circumstances probably contributed in some degree to accelerate his ruin. King Theodoric, who had long held him in the highest esteem, was an Arian and Boethius, who was a catholic, published about this time a book upon the unity of the Trinity, in opposition to the three famous sects of Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians. This treatise was universally read, and created our author a great many enemies at court; who insinuated to the prince, that Boethius wanted not only to destroy Arianism, but to effectuate a change of government, and deliver Italy from the dominion of the Goths and that, from his great credit and influence, he was the most likely person to bring about such a revolution. Whilst his enemies were thus busied at Ravenna, they employed emissaries to sow the seeds of discontent at Rome, and to excite factious people openly to oppose him in the exercise of his office as consul. Boethius, in the mean while, wanting no other reward than a sense of his integrity, laboured both by his eloquence and his authority to defeat their wicked attempts and persisted resolutely in his endeavours to promote the public welfare, by supporting the oppressed, and bringing offenders to justice. But his integrity and steadiness tended only to hasten his fall. King Theodoric, corrupted probably by a long series of good fortune, began now to throw off the mask. Though an Arian, he had hitherto preserved sentiments of moderation and equity with regard to the catholics; but fearing, perhaps, that they had a view of overturning his government, he began now to treat them with seventy, and Boethius was one of the first, that fell a victim to his rigour. He had continued long in favour with his prince, and was more beloved by him than any other person but neither the remembrance of former affection, nor the absolute certainty the king had of his innocence, prevented him from prosecuting our philosopher, upon the evidence of three abandoned profligates, infamous for all manner of crimes. The offences laid to his charge, as we are informed in the first book of the Consolation of Philosophy, were, “That he wished to preserve the senate and its authority that he hindered an informer from producing proofs, which would have convicted that assembly oftreason and that he formed a scheme for the restoration of tha Roman liberty.” In proof of the last article, the above mentioned profligates produced letters forged by themselves, which they falsely averred were written by Boethius. For these supposed crimes, as we learn from the same authority, he was, unheard and undefended, at the distance of five hundred miles, proscribed and condemned to death. Theodoric, conscious that his severity would be universally blamed, did not at this time carry his sentence fully into execution but contented himself with confiscating Boethius’s effects, with banishing him to Pavia, and confining him to prison. Soon after this, Justin, the catholic emperor of the East, finding himself thoroughly established upon the throne, published an edict against the Arians, depriving them of all their churches. Theodoric was highly offended at this edict. He obliged pope John I. together with four of the principal senators of Rome (one of whom was Symmachus, father-in-law to Boethius), to go on an embassy to Constantinople and commanded them to threaten that he would abolish the catholic religion throughout Italy, if the emperor did not immediately revoke his edict against the Arians. John was received at Constantinople with extraordinary pomp, but being able to produce no effect as to the object of his embassy, on his return, Theodoric threw him and his colleagues into prison at Ravenna, and Boethius was ordered to be more strictly confined at Pavia. It was here that he wrote his five books of the “Consolation of Philosophy,” on which his fame chiefly rests. He had scarcely concluded his work, when pope John being famished to death in prison, and Symmachus and the other senators, put to death, Theodoric ordered Boethius to be beheaded in prison, which was accordingly executed Oct. 23, 526. His body was interred by the inhabitants of Pavia, in the church of St. Augustine, near to the steps of the chancel, where his monument was to be seen until the last century, when that church was destroyed.

His most celebrated production, his ethic composition “De Consolatione Philosophise,” has always been admired both for the style and sentiments. It is an imaginary conference between the author and philosophy personified, who endeavours to console and soothe him in his afflictions. The topics of consolation contained in this work, are deduced from the tenets of Plato, Zeno, and Aristotle, but without any notice of the sources of consolation which are peculiar to the Christian system, which have led many to think him more of a Stoic than a Christian. It is partly in prose, and partly in verse; and was translated into Saxon by king Alfred, and illustrated with a commentary by Asser, bishop of St. David’s and into English, by Chaucer artel queen Elizabeth. It was also translated into English verse by John Walton, in 1410, of which translation there is a correct manuscript on parchment in the British Museum. Few books have been more popular, especially in the middle ages, or have passed through a greater number of editions in almost all languages. It has been observed by Mr. Harris, in his “Hermes,” that “with Boethius the Latin tongue, and the last remains of Roman dignity, may be said to have sunk in the western world.” To the same purpose, Gibbon says, “that the senator Boethius is the last of the Romans whom Cato or Tully would have acknowledged for their countryman.”

The first edition of Boethins “De Consolatione” was printed at Nurenberg, 1176, fol. hut there was an edition in Latin and German, printed at the same place in 1473. The best edition of his whole works is that printed at Basil, 1570, 2 vols. fol. In 1785, his Consolation was translated into English, with notes and illustrations, by the vev. Philip Ridpath, minister of Hutton in Berwickshire, London, 8vo.

, a celebrated Scotch historian, was born at Dundee, in the shire of Angus, about 1470. After having studied at Dundee and Aberdeen, he was sent to the university of Paris, where he applied to philosophy, and became a professor of it there. There also he contracted an acquaintance with several eminent persons, particularly with Erasmus, who kept a correspondence with him afterwards. Elphinston, bishop of Aberdeen, having founded the king’s college in that city about 1500, sent for Boeis from Paris, and appointed him principal. He took for his colleague Mr. William Hay, and by their joint labour the kingdom was furnished with several eminent scholars. Upon the death of his patron, he undertook to write his life, and those of his predecessors in that see. The work is in Latin, and entitled “Vitae Episcoporum Murthlacensium et Aberdonensium,” Paris, 1522, 4tol He begins at Beanus, the first bishop, and ends at Gawin Dunbar, who was bishop when the book xyas published. A third part of the work is spent in the life of Elphinston, for whose sake it was undertaken. He next undertook to write in the same language the history of Scotland the first edition of which was printed at Paris by Badius Ascenslus in 152G, which consisted of seventeen books, and ended with the death of James I. but the next in 1574 was much enlarged, having the addition of the 18th book and part of the 19th the work was afterwards brought down to the reign of James III. by Ferrerius, a Piedmontese. It was translated by Bellenclen. (See Bellenden, John). Mackenzie observes, that of all Scots historians, next to Buchanan, Boethins has been the most censured and commended by the learned men who have mentioned him. Nicolson tells us, that in the first six books there are a great many particulars not to be found in Fordun or any other writer now extant and that, “unless the authors which he pretends to have seen be hereafter discovered, he will continue to be shrewdly suspected for the contriver of almost as many tales as Jeoffrey of Momnouth.” His 18th book, however, is highly commended by Ferrerius, who says, “that he has treated of things there in so comprehensive a manner, that he believes no one could have done it more fully or significantly on the same subject.” His stylo, says another writer, has all the purity of Caesar’s, and is so nervous both in the reflections and diction, that he seems to have absolutely entered into the spirit of Livy, and made it his own. Erasmus, who was intimately acquainted with him, says, in one of his epistles, “that he was a man of an extraordinary happy genius, and of great eloquence.” “He was certainly,” says another writer, “a great master of polite learning, well skilled in divinity, philosophy, and history; but somewhat credulous, and much addicted to the be-> lief of legendary stories. With regard to his other accomplishments, he was discreet, well-bred, attentive, generous, affable, and courteous.“Dr. Johnson in his Tour in Scotland observes that Hector Boethius may be” justly reverenced as one of the revivers of elegant learning. The style of Boethins, though, perhaps, not always rigorously pure, is formed with great diligence upon ancient models, and wholly uninfected with monastic barbarity. His history is written with elegance and vigour, but his fabulousness and credulity are justly blamed. His fabulousness, if he was the author of the fictions, is a fault for which no apology can be made; but his credulity may be excused in an age when all men were credulous. Learning was then rising on the world; but ages, so long accustomed to darkness, were too much dazzled with its light to see any thing distinctly. The first race of scholars, in the fifteenth century, and some time after, were, for the most part, learning to speak, rather than to think, and were therefore more studious of elegance than of truth. The contemporaries of Boethius thought it sufficient to know what the ancients had delivered. The examination of tenets and of facts was reserved for another generation.”

, a celebrated French architect, was the son of a sculptor, and of a sister of the famous Quinault, and born at Nantes in Bretagne, May 7, 1667. He was trained under Harduin Mansard, who trusted him with conducting his greatest works. Boffrand was admitted into the French academy of architecture in 1709: many princes of Germany chose him for their architect, and raised considerable edifices upon his plans. His manner of building approached that of Palladio and there was much of grandeur in all his designs. As engineer and inspectorgeneral of the bridges and highways, he caused to be constructed a number of canals, sluices, bridges, and other mechanical works. There is of this illustrious architect a curious and useful, book, which contains the general principles of his art to which is added an account of the plans, profiles, and elevations of the principal works which he executed in France and other countries, entitled “Livre d' Architecture, &c.” fol. 1745, with seventy plates. He published also an account of the casting the bronze figure of Louis XIV. “Description de ce qui a etc” pratique pour fondre en bronze, &c." 1743, fol. with plates. In his private character, Boffrand is represented as of a noble and disinterested spirit, and of a pleasing and agreeable manner. He died at Paris, March Is, 1754, dean of the academy of architecture, first engineer and inspectorgeneral of the bridges and highways, architect and administrator of the general hospital.

, a learned and pious writer of the seventeenth century, was the son of William Bogan, gentleman, and born at Little Hempston in Devonshire, about the feast of St. John the Baptist in the year 1625. He became a commoner of St. Alban hall under the tuition of Mr. Ralph Button in Michaelmas term in 1640. He was admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college November the 26th the year following, and left the university when the city of Oxford was garrisoned for the king, and returned after the surrender of it to the parliament. October 21, 1646, he took the degree of bachelor of arts, and was elected probationer fellow of his college the year following. November 19, 1650, he took the degree of master of arts, and became a retired and religious student, and distinguished in the university for his admirable skill in the tongues. At last, having contracted an ill habit of body by his intense application to his studies, he died September 1, 1659, and was interred in the middle of the north cloister belonging to Corpus Christi college, joining to the south side of the chapel there. “At that time and before,” Wood informs us, “the nation being very unsettled, and the university expecting nothing but ruin and dissolution, it pleased Mr. Began to give by his will to the city of Oxford five hundred pounds; whereas hud the nation been otherwise, he would have given that money to his college.” An original picture of him is to be seen in the guild-hall of the city of Oxford. Mr. Wood adds, that he was an excellent tutor, but a zealous puritan and in his Hist. & Antiq. Univers. Oxon. he gives him the character of vir studiosus et lingiiarum peritissimus, a studious person, and well skilled in the languages, in which opinion some learned foreigners who have read his works concur. He wrote, 1. Additions, in four books, to Francis Rous’s “Archaeologioc Atticae,” the fifth edition of which was published at Oxford, 1658, 4to. These additions relate to the customs of the ancient Greeks in marriages, burials, feasts, &c. at the close of which, Mr. Bogan, with great simplicity of manner, gives his reasons for undertaking the work: “The cords,” he says, “which drew me to do it (and drawn I was) were three, such as, twisted together, I could by no means break; viz. l.The importunity of my friend. 2. The necessity of the knowledge of ancient rites and customs for the understanding of authors. And, 3. the hopes which I had by employment (as by an issue) to divert my humour of melancholy another way. The causes why I did it no better are as many, viz. 1. Want of years and judgment, having done the most part of it in my Tyrocinium (when I took more delight in these studies) us appears by the number of the authors which I have cited. 2. Want of health. And, 3. want of time and leisure, being called away by occasions that might not be neglected, and by friends that could not be disobeyed. If yet I have given but little light, and my labour and oil be not all lost, I have as much as I desired myself, and thou hast no more than I owed thee.” 2. “A view of the Threats and Punishments recorded in Scripture alphabetically composed, with some brief observations on sundry texts,” Oxford, 1653, 8vo. 3. “Meditations of the mirth of a Christian Life,” Oxford, 165:3, 8vo. 4. “Help to Prayer both extempore and by a set form as also to Meditation,” &c. Oxford, 1660, 12mo, published after the author’s death by Daniel Agas, fellow of Corpus Christi college. Our author also wrote a large and learned epistle to Mr. Edmund Dickenson, M. A. of Merlon college, prefixed to that gentleman’s book, emitled “Delphi Phcenicizantes, &c.” published at Oxford, 1655, in 8vo. And “Homerus Æfipo/Jw sive comparatio Homeri cum scriptoribus sacris quoad Normam loquendi.” In the preface he declares that it is not his intention to make any comparison between the sacred writers and their opinions and Homer, but only of their idioms and ways of speaking. To this book is added Hesiodus 'Opi^wv; wherein he shews how Hesiod expresses himself very much after the same manner %vith Homer, Oxford, 1658, 8vo. He designed likewise to publish a discourse concerning the Greek particles but he was prevented by sickness from completing it; and another treatise concerning the best use of the Greek and Latin poets. Freytag has bestowed an article on his treatise on Homer’s style.

, a favoured pupil of T. Bartholine, and strenuous defender of his fame and opinions, was born at Dresden, about the year 1630. After visiting France, England, and other parts of Europe, to improve himself in knowledge, he took the degree of doctor in medicine at Basle in Swisserland, in 1652, and at the end of four or five years, passed principally with Bartholine, to whom he was strongly attached, he settled at Bern. His works are principally controversial, defending the priority of the discovery of the lymphatics by Bartholine, against Rudbeck the Swede, who claimed it and ivho, if he did not discover them, Haller says, has the merit of having more fully and accurately described them than- Bartholine had done. Bogden, in this contest, displayed much learning, but equal roughness and ill-humour. The titles of his works are, “liudbekii insidise structae vasis lymphaticis Thomas Bartholini,” 4to, and “Apologia pro vasis lymphaticis Bartholini, adversus insidias secundo structas ab Olao Rudbek.” Haffnice, 1654, 12mo. “Simeonis Seth, tie alimentorum facultatibus,” Gr. and Lat. 1658, 8vo. “Observationes Meclicae ad Thomam Bath.” The observations, twelve in number, are published in the “Culter Anatomicus” of Lyser Copenh. 1665.

, or Boha-Eddyn, an Arabian historian of great note, born March 1145, was celebrated for his Life of Saladin, in whose court he flourished in the twelfth century. What makes his history particularly valuable, is his being contemporary to the events he writes and his being also a favourite of Saladin’s, constantly about his person, and high in office. He is very accurate in his account of the crusades, and Saladin’s taking of Jerusalem and mentions our Richard I. who made such a figure as Saladin’s antagonist. The accurate Schultens has published a very excellent edition in folio, with much erudition, Leyden, 1732 the same was published in 1755, but only with a new title of that date. It has been observed by an able critic, that this historian, Abulpharagius, and Abulfeda, bear much resemblance to Plutarch; as they have enriched their histories with so many striking anecdotes and curious information on the progress and state of literature in their respective ages and countries.

, a physician of considerable reputation in the seventeenth century, was born at Leipsic in 1640, and began his studies there, and at Jena. In 1663 he travelled in Denmark, Holland, England, and France, and returned by the way of Swisserland in 1665. The following year he took his degree of M. D. and in 1668 was promoted to the anatomical chair at Leipsic. In 1691 he was appointed city-physician, and in 1691 professor of therapeutics. In 1700 he was dean of the faculty, and after a prosperous career, both as a physician and writer, died in 1718. His principal works are, 1. “De Alkali et Acidi insuificientia pro principiorum corporum naturalium. munere gerendo,” Leipsic, 1675, 8vo. 2. “Dissertations chemico-physicic,” ibid. 1685, 4to, 1696, 8vo. 3. “Meditationes physico-cheuiicte de aerisin sublunaria infiuxu,” ibid. 1678, 8vo; 1685, 4to. 4. “De duumviratu hypocliondrioium,” ibid. 1689, 4to. 5. “Observatio atque experimenta circa usum spiritns vini externum in hainorragiis” sistendis,“Leipsic, loS.'i, 4to. 6.” Exercitatioues physiologicæ, ibid. 1680, 1686, 1697 and 1710, 4to. 7. “De officio medici duplici, clinini nimirum ac forensis,” Leipsic, 1689, 1704, 4 vols. 4to, a work of great merit. 8. “De renunciatione vulnerum lethalium examen,” ibid. 1689, 8vo, often reprinted. Bonn, although not arriving at the conclusions of more modern and scientific physicians, frequently approaches them through the medium of sound and experimental knowledge. These last mentioned works on medicine, as connected with legal evidence, are particularly valuable.

, a voluminous political and miscellaneous writer of the seventeenth century, was born at Ringsfield, in Suffolk, the only son of Baxter Bohun, who with his ancestors, had been lords of the manor of Westhall, in that county, from the 25th Henry VIII. In 1663, he was admitted fellow-commoner of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and continued there till the latter end of 1666, when the plague obliged him and others to leave the university. In 1675 he was made a justice of peace for Suffolk, and continued in that office till the second of James II. when he was discharged, but was restored to that office in the first of William and Mary. The time of his death is not mentioned, but he was alive in 1700. He wrote, 1. “An Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of the nation, in three parts, being the history of three sessions of parliament in 1678, 1682,and 1683,” 4to. 2. “A Defence of the Declaration of king Charles II. against a pamphlet styled, A just and modest Vindication of the proceedings of the two last Parliaments.” This was printed with and added to the Address. 3. “A Defence of Sir Robert Filmer, against the mistakes and representations of Algernon Sydney, esq. in a paper delivered by him to the sheriffs upon the scaffold on Tower-hill, on Friday, Dec. 7, 1683, before his execution there,” Lond. 1684. 4. “The Justice of Peace’s Calling, a moral essay,” Lond. 1684, 8vo. 5. “A Preface and Conclusion to Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha,” ibid. 1685, 8vo. 6. “A Geographical Dictionary,” ibid. 1688, 8vo. 7. “The History of the Desertion; or an account of all the public affairs of England, from the beginning of Sept. 1688 to Feb. 12 following,” ibid. 1689, 8vo. 8. “An Answer to a piece called The Desertion discussed (by Jeremy Collier),” printed at the end of the “History of the Desertion.” 9. “The Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance no way concerned in the controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites,” ibid. 1689, 4to. In page 24th is a passage respecting bishop Ken, which Mr. Bohun found to be untrue, and therefore requests that it may be cancelled. 10. “The Life of John Jewell, bishop of Salisbury,” prefixed to a translation of his Apology, 1685. 11. “Three Charges delivered at the general quarter sessions holden at Ipswich, for the county of Suffolk, in 1691, 1692, and 1693,” 4to. 12. “The great Historical, Geographical, and Poetical Dictionary,” Lond. 1694, fol. He also translated Sicurus’ origin of Atheism the Universal Bibliotheque, or account of books for Jan. Feb. and March 1687 Sleidan’s History of the Reformation Puffendorff’s Present State of Germany, and Degory Wheare’s Method of reading History, Lond. 1698, 8vo.

, count of Scandiano, an Italian poet, was born at the castle of Scandiano, near Reggio in Lombardy, about the year 1434. He studied at the university of Ferrara, and remained in that city the greater part of his life, attached to the ducal court. He was particularly in great favour with the duke Borso and Hercules I. his successor. He accompanied Borso in a journey to Rome in 1471, and the year following was selected by Hercules to escort to Ferrara, Eleonora of Aragon, his future duchess. In 1481 he was appointed governor of Reggio, and was also captain-general of Modena. He died at Reggio, Dec. 20, 1494. He was one of the most learned and accomplished men of his time, a very distinguished Greek and Latin scholar, and at a time when Italian poetry was in credit, one of those poets who added to the reputation of his age and country. He translated Herodotus from the Greek into Italian, and Apuleius from the Latin. He wrote also Latin poetry, as his “Carmen Bucolicum,” eight eclogues in hexameters, dedicated to duke Hercules I. Reggio, 1500, 4 to Venice, 1528; and in Italian, “Sonetti e Canzoni,” Reggio, 1499, 4to; Tenice, 1501, 4to, in a style rather easy than elegant, and occasionally betraying the author’s learning, but without affectation. Hercules of Este was the first of the Italian sovereigns who entertained the court with a magnificent theatre on which Greek or Latin comedies, translated into Italian, were performed. For this theatre Boiardo wrote his “Timon,” taken from a dialogue of Lucian, which may be accounted the first comedy written in Italian. The first edition of it, according to Tiraboschi, was that printed at Scandiano, 1500, 4to. The one, without a date, in 8vo, he thinks was the second. It was afterwards reprinted at Venice, 1504, 1515, and 1517, 8vo. But Boiardo is principally known by his epic romance of “Orlando Innamorato,” of which the celebrated poem of Ariosto is not only an imitation, but a continuation. Of this work, he did not live to complete the third book, nor is it probable that any part of it had the advantage of his last corrections, yet it is justly regarded as exhibiting, upon the whole, a warmth of imagination, and a vivacity of colouring, which rendered it highly interesting: nor is it, perhaps, without reason, that the simplicity of the original has occasioned it to be preferred to the same work, as altered or reformed by Francesco Berni (See Brrni). The “Orlando Innamorato” was first printed at Scandiano, about the year 1495, and afterwards at Venice, 1500, which De Bure erroneously calls the first edition. From the third book where Boiardo 1 s labours cease, it was continued by Niccolo Agostini, and of this joint production numerous editions have been published.

, an eminent French poet, usually called by his countrymen Despreaux, was born on November 1, 1636. His parents were Gilles Boileau, register of the great chamber, and Ann de Nielle, his second wife; but it is uncertain whether he was born at Paris or Crone. In his early years, he was the reverse of those infantine prodigies who often in mature age scarcely attain to mediocrity; on the contrary, he was heavy and taciturn; nor was his taciturnity of that observing kind which denotes sly mischief at the bottom, but the downright barren taciturnity of insipid good-nature. His father, on comparing him with his other children, used to say, “as for this, he is a good-tempered fellow, who will never speak ill of any one.” In his infancy, however, he ap“pears to have been of a very tender constitution, and is said to have undergone the operation for the stone at the age of eight. Through compliance with the wishes of his family, he commenced with being a counsellor; but the tlryness of the Code and Digest soon disgusted him with this profession, which, his eulogist thinks, was a loss to the bar. When M. Dongois, his brother-in-law, register of parliament, took him to his house in order to form him to the style of business, he had a decree to draw up in an important cause, which he composed with enthusiasm, while he dictated it to Boileau with an emphasis which shewed how much he was satisfied with the sublimity of his work; but when he had finished, he perceived that Boileau was fallen asleep, after having written but few words. Transported with anger, he sent him back to his father, assuring him he” would be nothing but a blockhead all the rest of his life." After this he began to study scholastic divinity, which was still less suited to his taste, and at length he became what he himself wished to be a Poet; and, as if to belie, at setting out, his father’s prediction, he commenced at the age of thirty, with satire, which let loose against him the crowd of writers whom he

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

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

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

, one of the brothers of the preceding, a doctor of the Sorbonne, was born in 1635, studied in the university of Paris, took his degree of doctor in theology in 1662, was appointed dean of Sens, and vicar of the archbishop Gondoin, in 1667; and in 1694, was presented by the king with a canonry in the holy chapel of Paris. He died dean of the faculty of theology in 1716.

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

, the eldest brother of Boileau Despreaux, was born in 1631, and had a place in the king’s household. He was a man of wit and learning, and published a translation of Arrian’s Epictetus, with a life of the philosopher, Paris, 1655, 8vo. He also published a translation of Diogenes Laertius, 1668, in 2 vols. 12mo; and two dissertations against Menage and Costar. His “Posthumous Works” were published in 1670. He also wrote verses, in no high estimation.

, canon of the church of St. Honore at Paris, was of the diocese of Agen, in which he enjoyed a curacy. The delicacy of his constitution having obliged him to quit it, he repaired to Paris. The cardinal de Noailles afforded him many marks of his esteem. He died the 10th of March, 1735, aged 86. There are by him, 1. Letters on various subjects of morality and devotion, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. The life of the duchess of Liancourt, and that of madame Combe, superior of the house of the Eon Pasteur. All these works evince a fund of sense and good sentiments; but his style is too much inflated.

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

, of the Oratory, a native of Orleans, was born in 1629, and died July 15, 1696. He succeeded father le Cointe his friend in the place of librarian to the house of St. Honore, and inherited his papers, which were not useless in his hands. He revised the eighth volume of the “Ecclesiastical Annals of France,” and published it in. 1683. This work procured him a pension of a thousand livres granted him by the clergy. He afterwards undertook, at the entreaty of Harlay, archbishop of Paris, the History of that church; 1690, 2 vols. folio. The second did not appear till eight years after his death, by the care of father de la Rippe, and father Desmolets of the oratory. He frequently mingles civil with ecclesiastical history, and these digressions have lengthened his work; but they have also diversified it. The dissertations with which he has accompanied it evince great sagacity in discerning what is true from what is false. His history is written in Latin, and the style is pure and elegant.

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

, a famous French antiquary, was born at Besangon, 1528, and published several collections, which tend to illustrate the Roman antiquities, on which he had bestowed great attention, having drawn plans of all the ancient monuments in Italy, and visited all the antiquities of the isles of Corfu, Cephalonia, and Zante. He went also to the Morea, and would have proceeded to Syria, had he not been prevented by a dangerous fever, which seized him at Methone. Upon his return to his own country, he was appointed tutor to the sons of Anthony de Vienne, baron de Clervaut, with whom he travelled into Germany and Italy. He had left at Montbeliard his antiquities, which he had been collecting with so much pains; and had the misfortune to lose them all when the people of Lorraine ravaged Franche Comte“. He had now none left except those which he had transported to Metz, where he himself head retired; but as it was well known that he intended to publish a large collection of antiquities, there were sent to him from all parts many sketches and draughts of old monuments, by which means he was enabled to favour the public with his work, entitled,” De Romano? urbis topographia et antiquitate.“It consists of four volumes in folio, which are enriched with several prints, by Theodore de Bry and his sons, 1597 1602. He published also the lives of many famous persons, with their portraits, entitled,” Theatrum vitoe humanx,“divided into four parts, in 4to: the first printed at Francfort, 1597; the second and third in 1598; and the fourth in 1599. His treatise,” De divinatione et magicis praestigiis,“was not printed till after his death, which happened at Metz, Oct. 30, 1602. There have been two editions of it: one at Hainan in 1611, 4to; another at Oppenheim in 1625, folio. He wrote also a book of” Emblems,“with de Bry’s engravings, Francfort, 1595, 4to;” Parnassus Biceps,“ibid, 1627, fol. a very rare book; and” Habitus variarum orbis gentium,“1581, fol. with plates. He published also some” Poemata, Epigramrnata, &c." 1574, 16mo; but these are not so much esteemed as his other performances. His adventure in a garden of cardinal Carpi at Rome, shews him a genuine antiquary. This garden was full of ancient marbles, and situated on the Mons Quirinalis. Boissard went thither one day with his friends, and immediately parted from them, let them return home, and concealed himself in some of the alleys. He employed the rest of the day in copying inscriptions and drawing the monuments; and as the garden gates were shut, he staid there all night. The next morning, the cardinal, finding him at this work, could not imagine how a stranger should get into his garden at an unseasonable hour; but when he knew the reason of Boissard’s staying there all night, he ordered him a good breakfast, and gave him leave to copy and draw whatsoever he should think curious in his palace.

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

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

This transaction made much noise in Paris, and at length reached the ears of the marchioness de Pompadour. Boissi’s deplorable situation moved her. She immediately sent him a hundred louis-d'ors, and soon after procured him the profitable place of editor of the Mercure de France, with a pension for his wife and child, if they outlived him. His “Œuvres de Theatre” are in 9 vols. 8vo. His Italian comedy, in which path he is the author of numerous pieces, has not the merit of the above. His early satires, of which he had written many, being remembered, prevented his admission into the French academy till he was sixty years of age, though he was well entitled to that honour, by his labours and talents, twenty years sooner. He died April, 1658, complaining in his last moments, that his misery was not shortened by an earlier death, or his felicity extended by longevity.

, baron of Villars, bailif of Gex, in which office he was living in 1618, maitre d'hotel to queen dowager Louisa of France, was also secretary to the marechal de Bnssac, and accompanied him into Piedmont under Henry II. We have by him, “L‘Histoire des Guerres de Piemont, depuis 1550 jusqu’en 1561;” Paris, 1607, 4to, and 8vo. This historian is neither elegant nor accurate in general; but he may be consulted with safety on the exploits that passed under his own observation. Boivin died very old, but at what time is not known. His History, continued by Cl. Malinger, appeared in 1630, 2 vols 8vo.

, professor of Greek in the royal college of Paris, was born at Montreuil l'Argile“, in Upper Normandy. Being sent for to Paris by his elder brother, young Boivin soon made great progress in literature, in the languages, and especially in the knowledge of the Greek. He died October 29, 1726, aged 64, member of the French academy, and of that of belles lettres, and keeper of the king’s library. He profited by this literary treasure, by drawing from it a variety of information, and to a great extent. In his private character he was of gentle manners, and truly amiable. He wrote, 1.” The Apology for Homer, and the Shield of Achilles, in 12mo. 2. Translation of the Batrachomyomachia of Homer into French verse, under his name Latinised into Biberimero. 3. The CEdipus of Sophocles, and the Birds of Aristophanes, translated into French, in 12mo. 4. Pieces of Greek poetry. 5. The edition of the “Mathematici veteres,” 1693, in folio. 6. A Latin life of Claude le Peletier, in 4to, written in a style rather too inflated. 7. A translation of the Byzantine history of Nicephorus Gregoras, correct, elegant, and enriched with a curious preface, and notes replete with erudition.

, brother to the preceding, a distinguished scholar and pensionary of the academy of belles lettres, was born at Montreuil l'Argile, and educated, first under the Jesuits at Rouen, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His acquirements in literature were various and extensive; but his temper, according to his own account, was intractable and unsocial, enterprising, vain, and versatile. He was employed by several eminent magistrates as the associate and director of their private studies; but the litigiousness of his disposition involved him in great trouble and expence. He published some learned dissertations on historical subjects, in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres,” and made great progress towards a new edition of Josephus. He died in 1724, aged 75 years.

, a pious and useful clergyman of Leicestershire, was born at Leicester in 1679, and at the age of fifteen had made such progress in letters as to be matriculated at St. John’s college, Cambridge. Having taken the degree of B. A. in 1698, he retired to Hinckley in Leicestershire, where he engaged in teaching a small endowed school, and retained that employment until 1732, at the humble salary of 10l. per annum. At the usual age, he was admitted into holy orders to serve the curacy of Stoney Stanton near Hinckley. It appears from the parish register, that he commenced his parochial duties in May 1702; and the care of the parish was confided to him, his rector then residing on another benefice. His stipend was only 30l. a year, as the living was a small one, being then in the open-field state. Nor does it appear that he had made any saving in money from the profits of his school all the property he seems to have brought with him to his curacy was, his chamber furniture, and a library, more valuable for being select than extensive. When Mr. Bold was examined for orders, his diocesan (Dr. James Gardiner, bishop of Lincoln) was so much pleased with his proficiency in sacred learning, that he had determined to make Mr. Bold his domestic chaplain: but the good bishop’s death soon after closed his prospect of preferment as soon as it was opened in that quarter; and Mr. Bold framed his plan of life and studies upon a system of rigid ceconomy and strict attention to his professional duties, which never varied during the fifty years he passed afterwards on his curacy. Remote from polished and literary society, which he was calculated both to enjoy and to adorn, he diligently performed the duties of an able and orthodox divine; a good writer; an excellent preacher, and an attentive parish priest. He appears, from the early age of 24 years, to have formed his plan of making himself a living sacrifice for the benefit of his flock; and to have declined preferment (which was afterward offered to him) with a view of making his example and doctrine the more striking and effective, by his permanent residence and labours in one and the same place. He appears to have begun his ecclesiastical labours in a spirit of self-denial, humility, charity, and piety. He had talents that might have rendered him conspicuous any where, and an impressive and correct delivery. His life was severe (so far as respected himself); his studies incessant; his spiritual labours for the church and his flock, ever invariably the same. His salary, we have already mentioned, was only ZOl. a year, which was never increased, and of which he paid at firsts/, then J2l. and lastly 16l. a year, for his board. It needs scarcely be said that the most rigid ceconomy was requisite, and practised, to enable him to subsist; much more to save out of this pittance for beneficent purposes. Yet he continued to give away annually, 5l.; and saved 5l. more with a view to more permanent charities: upon the rest he lived. His daily fare consisted of water-gruel for his breakfast; a plate from the farmer’s table, with whom he boarded, supplied his dinner; after dinner, one half pint of ale, of his own brewing, was his only luxury; he took no tea, and his supper was upon milk-pottage. With this slender fare his frame was supported under the labour of his various parochial duties. In the winter, he read and wrote by the farmer’s fire-side; in the summer, in his own room. At Midsummer, he borrowed a horse for a day or two, to pay short visits beyond a walking distance. He visited all his parishioners, exhorting, reproving, consoling, instructing them.

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

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

Her death was much lamented by many, as she had been an eminent patroness of men of learning and genius, and in all other respects of a most generous and charitable disposition; and it is highly probable, that, if she had lived, the vast sums of money, which were raised by the suppression of religious houses, would have been employed in the promotion of the most public and valuable purposes.

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

, a French writer, was born at Lyons, Feb. 13, 1709, of a distinguished family, and died there in 1793. He wrote, 1. “De la corruption du gout dans la Musique Francaise,” 1745, 12mo. 2. “De la Bibliomanie,” 1761, 8vo, a subject since so ably handled by Mr. Dibdin. 3. “Discours sur l'Emulation,” 1763, 8vo. 4. “Essai sur la lecture,” 1763, 8vo. He left in manuscript a history of the academy of Lyons, of which he was secretary, and after fifty years attendance at their sittings, pronounced a discourse entitled “Renovation des voeux litteraires,” which was afterwards published.

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

He returned to France, and applied himself to the Protestants; first at Paris, afterwards at Orleans. He shewed a great desire to be promoted to the ministry, and to be reconciled to the church of Geneva; but the persecution that arose against the Protestants, made him resolve to take up his first religion, and the practice of physic. He went and settled at Autun, and prostituted his wife to the canons of that place; and to ingratiate himself the more with the Papists, exerted a most flaming zeal against the reformed. He changed his habitation often: he lived at Lyons in 1582, as appears by the title of a book, which he caused to be printed then at Paris against Beza, and died there in the same year. The book just mentioned is entitled “The history of the life, doctrine, and behaviour of Theodorus Beza, called the spectable and great minister of Geneva.” This was preceded by the “History of the life, actions, doctrine, constancy, and death of John Calvin, heretofore minister of Geneva,” which was printed at Lyons, in 1577. Both these histories are altogether unworthy of credit, as well because they are written by an author full of resentment, as because they contain facts notoriously false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Bolton was originally of a valetudinarian habit, though he preserved himself by temperance to a considerable age. In the preface to the work now under consideration, he speaks of the feeble frame he with so much difficulty supported; and afterwards says, “My decay is now such, that it is with what I write as with what I act; I see in it the faults which 1 know not how to amend.” He however survived the publication of it two years, dying in London, where he came for Dr. Addington’s advice, on the 26th Nov. 1763, and was buried in the porch between the first and second door of the parish-church of St. Mary, Reading. Since his death a plain marble has been erected to his memory.

Dr. Bolton was a very tall man, very thin, very brown. He understood well, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian, and French. Mr. Whiston, jun. says that it was a long time before he could prevail on himself to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles for preferment; but at last, as articles of peace, and so far as authorised by scripture, he did; for it was generally supposed he did not approve of all the Athauasian doctrine. There is nothing of this, however, to be deduced from his works, and he appears to have accepted his preferments when offered. He married Mrs. Holmes, a widow-lady, with whom he lived about twenty-five years in great domestic happiness, but left no children by her. Besides the several performances already mentioned, he wrote and printed a “Visitation sermon” in 1741; and under his inspection, Mr. David Henry, then printer at Reading, abridged “Twenty Discourses” from Abp. Tillotson’s works, to which Dr. Bolton is said to have prefixed a preface, and added a sermon of his own, but the sermon on Sincerity is supposed to have been abridged by Mr. Wray, his son-in-law. Mr. Wray, now rector of Darley, in Derbyshire, published “A Sermon occasioned by the death of Robert Bolton, LL. D. &c.” 1764, with an affectionate tribute to his memory.

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

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