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

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.”

It has been mentioned, to the honour of Boerhaave, by one of his biographers, that he received the visits of three crowned heads, the grand duke of Tuscany, William the Third, and Peter the Great, the last of whom slept in his barge all night, over against the house of our illustrious professor, that he might have two hours conversation with him before he gave his lectures. These visits most assuredly did more honour to the princes than to the philosopher, whose power, like that of the poets mentioned by Charles the Ninth in his epistle to Ronsard, is exercised upon the minds, while that of the sovereign is confined to the bodies of mankind.

As the list of the works of this illustrious physician form no inconsiderable monument to his memory, we shall avail ourselves of a more complete detail than has yet appeared in this country. In the revolutions of the medical science, it is true that many of them are no longer read, but by learned inquirers there are few of them which are not occasionally consulted, and the whole may be considered as an index to the history of medicine, under what may be termed his administration.

The works of Boerhaave are divided into three classes: the first, consisting of those which he acknowledged; the second, of those either attributed to him, or emanating from his school; and the third, of those to which he only performed the office of editor.

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.”

Among the editions of works already published, to which Boerhaave contributed, we have, 1. The writings of Drelincourt, one of his old masters, Amst. 1727, 4to. 2. “Pisonis selectiores observationes,” Ley den, 1718, 4to; and “Pisonis de cognoscendis et curandis morbis,” &c. Leyden, 1733, 8vo, 1736, 4to. 3. Vesalius’s “Anatomical works,” 1725, 2 vols. fol. 4. Luisinus’s “Tractatus medicus de Lue Venerea, prefixus aphrodisiaco,” 2 vols. fol. a collection of the writers on that disorder. 5. “Barth. Eustachii opuscula anatomica,” 3d edit. Delft, 1726, 8vo.

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.”

Of the numerous editions of Boileau’s works, the best are, that of Geneva, 1716, 2 vols. 4to, with illustrations by Brossette; that of the Hague, with Picart’s cuts, 1718, 2 vols. fol. a.nd 1722, 4 vols. 12mo; that by Allix, with Cochin’s cuts, 1740, 2 vols. 4to; that of Durand, 1745, 5 vols. 8vo; and lastly, a beautiful edition in 3 vols. 8vo. or 3 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1809, with notes by Daunou, a member of the Institute.

, 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.

. See Dubois and Boys or Boyse.

, 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.”

This very singular and exemplary clergyman, whose character it is impossible to contemplate without admiration, died Oct. 29, 1751. He wrote for the use of his parishioners the following practical tracts; 1. “The sin and danger of neglecting the Public Service of the Church,” 17*5, 8vo, one of the books distributed by the Society for promoting Christian knowledge. 2. “Religion the most delightful employment, &c.” 3. " The duty of worthily communicating.

, 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.

, an eminent cardinal of the church of Rome, and author of several derotional pieces, was born the 19th of October, 1609, at Mondovi, a little city in Piedmont, of a noble family. Having finished his first studies with great success, he entered himself in a monastery of the order of St. Bernard near Pignerol in July 1625, when he was but fifteen years of age, and was professed there the 2d of August the year following, according to Bertolot, who wrote his Life; though Moroti, in “Cistercii reflorescentis Historia,” places this. in 1627. He was sent that year to Monte Grosso near Asti to study philosophy, and having passed through a course of it, he returned to Pignerol, where he applied himself to divinity without the assistance of any master for two years, and afterwards went to Rome to perfect himself in that science under a professor. Being ordained priest at the proper age, the sentiments of piety which had influenced him in his youth, and which appear through all his writings, were heightened and improved. He had been scarce three years in his course of divinity, when he was sent to Mondovi to teach it there. He had some reluctance against accepting of that post on account of his aversion to disputes; but obedience, which was the rule of all his actions, obliged him to submit to it. He was afterwards made prior of Asti; and eight months after he was nominated abbot of the monastery of St. Mark at Mondovi; but he was so importunate in his solicitations to the general of the congregation to be discharged from that office, that his request was granted. He was sent, therefore, to Turin, where he spent five years in collecting the materials for his book of Psalmody. He was afterwards appointed again prior of Asti, abbot of Mondovi, and general of his order in 1651. While he held the last post, he had occasion to speak with cardinal Fubio Chigf, who entertained a very great esteem for him, of which he afterwards gave him signal proofs. When the time of his being general of the order was expired, he left Rome, and returning to Mondovi in order to profess divinity, cardinal Chigi, who was chosen pope under the name of Alexander VII. appointed our author general of the order again of his own accord, the plague, which then raged in many parts of Italy, preventing any assembly of the general chapter. He made him afterwards consultor of the congregation of the index, and then qualificator of the sacred office; which place he resigned for that of consultor in the same court. The pope, who had a particular friendship for him, and made him his confident in all his secrets, would have raised him to the dignity of a cardinal, if the humility of Bona had not prevented him from accepting it, and he had not made use of his interest with the pope in order to avoid it. But pope Clement IX. his successor, thought himself under an obligation to reward his virtues by making him a cardinal the 29th of November, according to Moroti, or of December, according to Bertolot, in 1669. Upon the death of this pope, cardinal Bona was proposed to be elected his successor; which gave occasion to this pasquinade, Papa Bona sarebbe solecismo, upon which father Daugieres, the Jesuit, wrote an ingenious epigram, which our Latin readers are aware will not bear a translation:

He died at Rome the 20th of October, according to Bertolot, or the 28th of that month, according to Moroti, in 1674, being seventy-four years of age. He directed himself, that he should be interred in the monastery of his own order, called St. Bernard at the Baths, with the following inscription upon his tomb: “D. O. M. Joannes Bona Pedemontanus, Congreg. Sancti Bernardi Monachus et hujus ecclesiae translate hue titulo S. Salvatoris in Lauro, Primus Presbyter Cardinalis, vivens sibi posuit.” Baillet, Labbe, and Sallo, bestow high praises on his principal work, “De Divina Psalmodia, deque variis ritibus omnium ecclesiarum in psallendis Divinis Officiis,” Rome, 1663, 4to, which includes a complete history of church music, and lias been often celebrated and quoted by musical writers. Yet Dr. Burney, an authority of great importance in questions of this kind, informs us that he was constantly disappointed when he had recourse to it for information, as the author “never mounts to the origin of any use that has been made of music in the church, or acquaints us in what it consisted,” and appears to have profited very little by the information which at that time must have been within his reach. His other distinguished work was “Rerum Liturgicarum, Lib. duo,” Rome, 1671, fol. and often reprinted. The best edition is that by Sala, printed at Turin, in 3 vols. 4to, 1747 1753. In 1755 Sala added another volume of Bona’s select epistles with those of his correspondents. The rest of his works are of the ascetic kind. He carried on a controversy for some time with Mabillon concerning the consecration of leavened or unleavened bread.

, a French antiquary and miscellaneous writer, was born at Louvres, in the district of Paris, in 1694, and educated for the ecclesiastical profession; but, devoting himself entirely to literature, he became under-librarian of St. Victor, and distinguished both by the politeness of his manners, and the variety as well as assiduity of his studies. In 1727, he was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and made many valuable contributions to its memoirs. His papers are characterised by simple but correct language, variety of erudition, clearness of argument, and solidity of criticism. At the instigation of M. Turgot, a place was created of historiographer of Paris, and Bonamy being appointed to occupy it, was led to write various memoirs relative to the history and antiquities of the city; and on occasion of the bequest of a curious library to the city, he was made librarian. From the year 174-7, he conducted the “Journal of Verdun” with the strictest propriety and decorum, and indeed in every thing displayed candour and probity, as well as learning. He died at Paris in 1770.

, a learned Jesuit, who died at Rome in 1725, at the age of eighty-seven, after having honourably filled different posts in his order, left several works of various kinds, principally relating to natural history, which was his favourite pursuit. He was engaged in 1698 to put in order the celebrated cabinet of father Kircher; and he continued to employ himself in that business and the augmentation of it till his death. The chief of his works are, 1. “Recreatio mentis et oculi in observatione Animalium Testaceorum,” Rome, 1684, 4to, with near 500 figures. He first composed this book in Italian, and it was printed in that language in 1681 in 4to; and translated by the author into Latin for the benefit of foreigners. 2. “History of the Church of the Vatican; with the plans both antient and modern,” Rome, 1696, folio, in Latin. 3. “Collection of the Medals of the popes, from Martin V. to Innocent XII.” Rome, 1699, 2 vols. fol. in Latin. 4. “Catalogue of the Orders, Religious, Military, and Equestrian, with plates representing their several habiliments,” in Latin and in Italian, Korne, 1706, 1707, 1710, and 1711, 4 vols. 4to. The plates in particular render this last work highly interesting and much in request. 5. “Observationes circa viventia in non viventibus,” Rome, 1691, 4to. 6. “Musaeum collegii Romani Kircherianum,” Rome, 1709, fol. 7. “A Treatise on Varnishes,” in Italian, Paris, 1713, 12mo. 8. “Gabinetto armonico,” 1723, 4to.

, was born December 25, 1563, at Urbino, of one of the most ancient and noble families in the city of Ancona, and was sent into France at the age of fifteen, to be educated suitably to his birth and the customs of that time. Bonarelli was but nineteen when he was offered a philosophical professorship of the Sorbonne, in the college of Calvi; but, his father having sent for him home, he was satisfied with having merited that honour, and declined accepting it. He attached himself, for some time, to cardinal Frederick Borromeo (nephew of St. Charles Borromeo) who had a regard for men of letters, and who founded the famous Ambrosian library at Milan. He went afterwards to Modena, to which place his father had removed. After his death, the duke Alphonso, knowing the merit of Bonarelli, employed him in several important embassies, and the success of these negociations proved how well they had been carried on. Bonarelli went to Rome with the hope of recovering the marquisate of Orciano, of which his father had been deprived; but an attack of the gout obliged him to stop at Fano, where he died January 8, 1608, aged forty-five, with the character of an able politician, a distinguished bel esprit, and a good philosopher for the age he lived in. The pastoral poem for which he is best known is entitled “Filli di Sciro,” and was printed first at Ferrara, 1607, 4to, with plates; there have been many editions since, the best of which are that of the Elzevirs, 1678, 4to, those of London, 1725, or 1728, and of Glasgow, 1763, 8vo; but with all its merit it is full of unnatural characters and distorted conceits. His shepherds are courtiers, and his shepherdesses are frequently prudes, whose conversation savours of the toilette. The author was censured for having made Celia, who has so great a share in the piece, nothing more than an episodical personage, but still more for giving her an equally ardent love for two shepherds at once. He attempted to excuse this defect in a tract written on purpose; “Discorsi in difesa del doppio amore della sua Celia,” but this was rather ingenious than conclusive. We have likewise some academical discourses of his.

, called sometimes Bolognese, from the place of his birth, flourished in the sixteenth century, and is better known as an engraver than as a painter. He is supposed, but without sufficient authority, to have been a scholar of Sabbatini. Some remaining oil-pictures of his, on canvas, which are, in general, weak, and of different styles, make it probable, says Lanzi, that he resolved to be a painter when he had passed youth. There is, however, in the church of St. Stephano, in Bologna, a Purgatory of his, which has great beauties, and is suspected to have been done with the assistance of Sabbatini. As an engraver, he worked from the pictures of Raphael, Julio Romano, and other great masters; and occasionally from his own designs. Mr. Strutt’s opinion is, that excepting one or two subjects, in which he called in the assistance of the point (the use of which, however, he never well understood), his plates are executed chiefly with the graver, in a manner though much varied from that of his tutor, Marc Antonio Raimondi, yet evidently founded upon it, although neither so firm, clear, or masterly. His drawing is often heavy, and the extremities of his figures frequently neglected; the folds of his draperies are seldom well expressed, and the back grounds to his prints, especially his landscapes, are extremely flat and stiff. However, with all these faults (which are not always equally conspicuous), his best prints possess an uncommon share of merit; and though not equal to those of his master, are deservedly held in no small degree of estimation by the greatest collectors. Bonasone has lately found an ingenious and able advocate in George Cumberland, esq. who, in 1793, published “Some Anecdotes” of his life, with a catalogue of his engravings, &c.

, a celebrated doctor, cardinal, and saint of the church of Rome, was born at Bagnarea in Tuscany, 1221. He was admitted into the order of St. Francis, about 1243; and studied divinity at the university of Paris under the celebrated Alexander de Hales, with so much success, that at the end of seven years he was thought worthy to read public lectures upon the Sentences. He was created doctor in 1255 along with St. Thomas Aquinas, and the year after appointed general of his order, in which office he governed with so much zeal and prudence, that he perfectly restored the discipline of it, which had been greatly neglected. Pope Clement IV. nominated him to the archbishopric of York in England; but Bonaventure disinterestedly refused it. After the death of Clement the see of Rome lay vacant almost three years, and the cardinals not being able to agree among themselves who should be pope, came at length to a most solemn engagement, to leave the choice to Bonaventure; and to elect whoever he should name, though it should be even himself, which, from his modest character, was not very probable. Accordingly, he named Theobald, archdeacon of Liege, who was at that time in the Holy land, and who took the title of Gregory X. By this pope he was made a cardinal and bishop of Albano; and appointed to assist at a general council, which was held at Lyons soon after. He died there in 1274, and was magnificently and honourably conducted to his grave; the pope and whole council attending, and the cardinal Peter of Tarantais, afterwards pope Innocent V. making his funeral oration. Sixtus IV. canonized him in 1482. He. has had the good fortune to be almost equally praised by popish and protestant writers, Bellarmine has pronounced Bonaventure a person dear to God and men; and Luther calls him “vir prtestantissimus,” a most excellent man. His works were printed at Rome in 1588, in 8 vols. folio. Excepting his commentary upon the master of the Sentences, they are chiefly on pious and mystical subjects, and have gained him the name of the Seraphic doctor. Brucker gives us the following account of his method of philosophizing, from his treatise “De reductione Artium ad Theologiam;” on the “application of Learning to Theology:” Human knowledge he divides into three branches, logical, physical and moral. Each of these he considers as the effect of supernatural illumination, and as communicated to men through the medium of the holy scriptures. The whole doctrine of scripture he reduces to three heads; that which respects the eternal generation and incarnation of Christ, the study of which is the peculiar province of the doctors of the church; that which concerns the conduct of life, which is the subject of preaching; and that which relates to the union of the soul with God, which is peculiar to the monastic and contemplative life. Physical knowledge he applies to the doctrine of scripture emblematically. For example, the production of the idea of any sensible object from its archetype, is a type of the generation of the Logos; the right exercise of the senses typifies the virtuous conduct of life; and the pleasure derived from the senses represents the union of the soul with God. In like manner, logical philosophy furnishes an emblem of the eternal generation and the incarnation of Christ: a word conceived in the mind resembling the eternal generation; its expression in vocal sounds, the incarnation. Thus the multiform wisdom of God, according to this mystical writer, lies concealed through all nature; and all human knowledge may, by the help of allegory and analogy, be spiritualised and transferred to theology. How wide a door this method of philosophising opens to the absurdities of mysticism the reader will easily perceive from this specimen.

, a cardinal, was born in that city June 22, 1332, and descended from a noble and illustrious family. He studied divinity at Paris, where he distinguished himself by his uncommon parts and application, and afterwards taught divinity. He was of the order of St. Augustin, of which he was made general in 1377, on the death of Beauregard. Pope Urban VI. gave him a cardinal’s cap the year after, or as some say, in 1384. This engaging him to stand up for the rights of the church against Francis de Carrario of Padua, that petty tyrant contrived to have him murdered. He was dispatched with the shot of an arrow, as he was passing St. Angelo’s bridge at Rome. This event some place in 1385, others in 1389, 1396, and 1398. The manner of his death gave occasion to the following Latin distich, which cannot be translated so as to be intelligible to an English reader:

He was the author of several works: as, Commentaries upon the Epistles of St. John and St. James, Lives of the Saints, Sermons, &c. Some improperly attribute to him the “Speculum de laudibus B. Maria-,” Nuremberg, 1476; but Fabricius gives it to the preceding cardinal, in whose works it appears, vol. VI. He had a very close and intimate friendship with the celebrated Petrarch, whose funeral oration he pronounced in 1369.

, a distinguished Latin scholar and poet, was born at Perugia in 1555, became a disciple of the celebrated Muretus, and afterwards principal teacher of the schools of Perugia. He appears next to have been professor of eloquence at Bononia, keeper of the Ambrosian library, and professor of rhetoric at Pisa, where he had the misfortune to lose his sight. During his career of teaching, his father, who was a poor shoemaker, having lost his wife, had an inclination to join the society of the Jesuits, and lest he should be rejected for his ignorance of Latin, became one of his son’s scholars, and made very considerable proficiency. Bonciarius died Jan. 9, 1616, leaving many works, which are very scarce, except his Latin Grammar, which, being adopted in the schools, was frequently reprinted. His “Epistolse” were first printed in 1603, 8vo, and reprinted 1604, at Marpurg, of which last edition Freytag gives an analytical account. They are written in an elegant style. His Latin poems are among the “Carmina Poetarum Italorum,” Florence, 1719, vol. II.

, a celebrated commentator and grammarian, was born in Somersetshire in 1550. He was educated at Winchester school, and in 1569 was entered a student at New college in Oxford, where he became highly esteemed for his academical learning. In 1573 he took the degree of B. A. and in 1579 that of M. A. and soon after the warden and fellows of his college appointed him master of the free-school of Taunton in Somersetshire. Here he continued many years, and several of his scholars became eminent both in church and state. Being at length, however, tired with the fatigue of this irksome employment, he turned his thoughts to the study of physic, and practised it with great reputation, although without taking any degree in that faculty. He died at Taunton the 3d of August, 1612, and was buried in the chancel of the church, with the following epitaph over his grave:

Mr. Bond has left “Annotationes in poemata Quiuti Horatii,” Lond. 1606, 8vo. Han. 1621, 8vo, and Ley den, 1653, 8vo. The best edition is that of Amst. 1636, 12mo. His Persius was not printed till two years after his death, in 8vo, under the following. title, “Auli Persii Flacci Satyrae sex, cum posthumis commentariis Johannis Bond,” 1614, 8vo. It was published by Roger Prowse, who had married his daughter Elizabeth, and who, in the dedication to Dr. Montague, bishop of Bath and Wells, informs us, that his father-in-law had not put the last hand to these Commentaries; which may be the reason of those considerable defects in some points of history and philosophy which are to be found in them. Mr. Wood is of opinion that, besides these, he wrote several other pieces, which were never published.

, LL. D. was the son of Dennis Bond, esq. of Dorchester, a violent adherent of the republican party in the seventeenth century, and at whose death, a little before that of the protector, the wits said Oliver Cromwell had given the devil Bond for his appearance. Our author was educated under John White, commonly called the patriarch of Dorchester, and was afterwards entered, not of St. John’s college, Cambridge, as Wood reports, but of Catherine-hall, of which he was afterwards chosen fellow, and took the degree of B. A. in 163 1, commenced M. A. in 1635, was nominated LL. D. in 1645, and completed the year following, while he was yet a member of that society. But, although he took his doctor’s degree in law, he was by profession a divine, and had before this preached for some years, first as a lecturer in Exeter, and frequently afterwards before the long parliament at Westminster. In 1643, both he and his tutor, Mr. White, were chosen of the assembly of divines; and when Mr. White took the rectory of Lambeth, Dr. Bond succeeded him as minister of the Savoy, and on Dec. 11, 1645, hfc was made master of the Savoy hospital under the great seal. On the decease of Dr. Eden, master of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, the fellows made choice of the celebrated Selden, and the choice was confirmed by parliament, but he declining the office, Dr. Bond was chosen, chiefly by the authority or interference of parliament, March, 1646. In 1649 he was chosen law professor of Gresham college, and in 1654 was made assistant to the commissioners of Middlesex and Wesminster, for the ejection of scandalous and ignorant ministers; and in 1658 served as vice-chancellor of Cambridge. He held his mastership and law professorship until the restoration, when he was ejected from both for his adherence to the politics by which he had obtained them. He then retired into Dorsetshire, and died at Sandwich in the isle of Purbeck, July 1676. Wood, who has committed several mistakes in his life, corrected by Dr. Ward, gives a list of his works, which are few: 1. “A Door of Hope,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “Holy and Loyal Activity,” Lond. 1641, 4to, and some sermons preached before the long parliament, to whose measures he adhered with great zeal. He appears, however, to have been a man of real learning. Calamy, we know not why, has mentioned his name, without one word of life.

, a native of Suffolk, translated Buchanan’s history, and was concerned with Aaron Hill in the “Plain Dealer,” a periodical paper of inferior merit. Hill appears to have had a friendship for him, and devoted the profits of his tragedy of Zara to his use. Bond himself played the character of Lusignan, but only for one night, being seized with a fit on the stage, which terminated his life the following morning, some time in 1735.

, or Bonifazio, called Veneziano, whom Ridolfi believes to have been a scholar of Palma, but Boschini numbers among the disciples of Titian, and says he followed him as the shadow the body. He is, indeed, often his close imitator, but oftener has a character of his own, a free and creative genius, unborrowed elegance and spirit. The public offices at Venice abound in pictures all his own, and the ducal palace, amongst others, possesses an Expulsion of the Publicans from the Temple, which for copiousness of composition, colour, admirable perspective, might be alone sufficient to make his name immortal, had his own times and record not placed him with Titian and Palma. Lanzi ascribes ta Bonifazio, what he styles the celebrated pictures from the Triumphs of Petrarch, once at Naples in a private collection, and now, he says, in England; it matters little, says Mr. Fuseli, where they are: of powers, such as he ascribes to Bonifazio, those meagre, dry, and worse than Peruginesque performances, can never be the produce. He died in 1553, aged sixty-two.

, an eminent physician and medical writer, was born at Geneva, March 5, 1620, and following the steps of his father and grandfather, early attached himself to the practice of physic. After visiting several foreign academies, he was admitted doctor in medicine at Bologna, in 1643, and was soon after made physician to the duke de Longueville. Though he soon attained to high credit in his profession, and had a large share of practice, he dedicated a considerable portion of his time to reading, and to dissecting such subjects as the hospital afforded him, with a view of discovering the seats of diseases, minuting every deviation he observed from the natural structure of the viscera, or other parts of the body, and thus opening a new road for improving the science he cultivated. He also appears to have made extracts of every thing he deemed worthy of notice, from the various works he read. His hearing from some accident becoming defective, he withdrew from practice, and employed the last ten or twelve years of his life in arranging the materials he had collected. The first fruit of his labour, which he gave to the public in 1668, was “Pharos Medicoru in,” 2 vols. 12mo. This was printed again, much improved and enlarged, in 1679, in 4to, under the title of “Labyrinthi Medici, extricati,” &c. compiled principally from Bellonius and Septalius. In 1675, “Prodromus Anatomise practicas, sive de abditis morborum causis,” fol.; the precursor of his principal work, “Sepulchretum, seu Anatome practica, ex cadaveribus morbo denatis proponens historias et observationes,” &c. Genev. 1679, 2 vols. fol. which far exceeded the expectation raised by the Prodromus. It was enlarged by nearly a third part, and republished by Manget, 1700, 2 vols. fol. and was afterwards taken by Morgagni, as the basis of his work, “De sedibus et causis Morborum,” by which the “Sepulchretum” is in a great measure superseded. The author begins with observations on the appearances of the brain and other parts of the head; then of the contents of the thorax, abdomen, and pelvis; and lastly, of the extremities; forming an immense body of dissections, which he has illustrated by many pertinent and ingenious observations. “Cours de medicine, et de la chirurgie,” 1679, 2 vols. 4to. An epitome of the art of surgery, with some sections relating to the practice of medicine selected from the most accredited authors of the age. “Medicina septentrionalis, collectitia,” 1684, 2 vols. fol. shewing how largely the practitioners of the northern parts of Europe, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, and England, have contributed to the improvement of anatomy, surgery, and medicine, by extracts and accounts of the works of the principal writers of those countries. *“Mercurius compilatitius, seu index medico-practicus,” 1682, fol. A most useful work, shewing under the name of every disease or affection where cases or observations may be found, and what authors have written upon them. Such an index continued to the present time, though very voluminous, would be highly useful. Bonet also published “Epitome operum Sennerti,” 1685, fol. “J. D. Turqueti de Mayerne, de Arthritide,” 1671, 12mo, and “Rohaulti tractatus physicus, e Gallico in Latinam versus,” 1675, 8vo. He died of a dropsy, March 3, 1689.

, an elegant Italian scholar of the sixteenth century, was born at Gorzano in the Brescian territory, but in what year is not known. He was three years secretary to cardinal Bari at Rome; but lost the fruits of his services by the death of his master. He then served cardinal Glinucci in the same capacity; but long sickness made him incapable of that employment. When he was recovered, he found himself so disgusted with the court, that he resolved to seek his fortune by other means. He continued a good while in the kingdom of Naples, then went to Padua, and to Genoa; where he read public lectures on Aristotle’s politics. He was ordered to read some likewise upon his rhetoric, which he did with great success to a numerous auditory. His reputation increasing daily, the republic of Genoa made him their historiographer, and assigned him a handsome pension for that office. He now applied himself laboriously to compose the annals of that state, and published the five first books; but by speaking too freely and satirically of some families, he created himself enemies who resolved to ruin him, by a prosecution for an unnatural crime, and being convicted, he was condemned to be first beheaded, and then burnt, or as some say, sentence of burning was changed into that of beheading. Some have attributed this prosecution to the freedom of his pen; but the generality of writers have agreed that Bonfadio was guilty, yet are of opinion, that he had never been accused, if he had not given offence by something else. He was executed in 1560. Upon the day of his execution he wrote a note to John Baptist Grimaldi, to testify his gratitude to the persons who had endeavoured to serve him, and recommended to them his nephew Bonfadio, who is perhaps the Peter Bonfadio, author of some verses extant in the “Gareggiamento poetico del confuso accademico ordito,” a collection of verses, divided into eight parts, and printed at Venice in 1611. The first five books of Bonfadio’s history of Genoa were printed at Padua, 1586, 4to, under the title “I. Bonfadii annales Genuensium ab anno 1528, ubi desinit Folieta, ad annum 1550,” and was in 1597 published in Italian. He also published an Italian and very elegant translation of Cicero’s oration for Milo, an edition of which was published at Bologna in 1744, with his letters and miscellaneous works, “Lettere famigliari, &c.” 8vo, dedicated to pope Benedict XIV. with a life of the unfortunate author, and a curious Latin poem by Paul Manutius, in honour of those persons who used their interest to save Bonfadio from punishment.

, an historian of the fifteenth century, was born at Ascoli in Italy. Mathias Corvinus, king of Hungary, having heard of his abilities and learning, sent for him to his court, and Bonfinius paid his respects to him at Rees, a few days before that prince made his public entry into Vienna. At his first audience, as he himself tells us, he presented him with his translations of Hermogenes and Herodian, and his genealogy of the Corvini, which he dedicated to his majesty; and two other works addressed to the queen, one of which treated of virginity and conjugal chastity, and the other was a history of Ascoli. He had dedicated also a small collection of epigrams to the young prince John Corvinus, to which there is added a preface. The king read his pieces with great pleasure, distributed them among his courtiers in high terms of approbation, and would not allow him to return to Italy, but granting him a good pension, was desirous that he should follow him in his army. He employed him to write the history of the Huns, and Bonfinius accordingly set about it before the death of this prince; but it was by order of king Uladislaus that he wrote the general history of Hungary, and carried it down to 1495. The original of this work was deposited in the library of Buda. In 1543 Martin Brenner published thirty books from an imperfect copy, which Sambucus republished in 1568, in a more correct state, and with the addition of fifteen more books, a seventh edition of which was printed at Leipsic, in 1771, fol. Sambucus also published in 1572 Bonfinius’s “Symposion Beatricis, seu dialog, de fide conjugali et virginitate, lib. III.” Bonfinius wrote a history of the taking of Belgrade by Mahomet II. in 1456, which is printed in the “Syndromus rerum Turcico-Pannonicarum,” Francfort, 1627, 4to; and, as already noticed, translated the works of Philostratus, Hermogenes, and Herodian. His Latin style was much admired, as a successful imitation of the ancients. The time of his death has not been ascertained.

, a learned Jesuit and commentator, was born at Dinau in Liege, 1573. He was admitted into the society of Jesuits in 1592, and taught at Doway, philosophy, divinity, and the Hebrew tongue, which, as well as Greek, he understood critically. He died at Tournay, May 9, 1643. Dupin says that of all the Jesuits who have been commentators on the scriptures, there is no one superior in learning, and clearness of method, to Bonfrerius. His “Commentary on the Pentateuch” was published at Antwerp in 1625, and his “Onomasticon” of the places and cities mentioned in the Bible, composed by Eusebius, and translated by Jerome, with learned notes, was published along with his “Commentaries on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth,” at Paris in 1631, but the most complete edition of his works appeared in 1736.

, an able classical scholar and negociator, was born at Orleans of a protestant family in 1554; and studied at Strasburg in 1571, but in 1516, he studied the civil law under the celebrated Cujacius. During this time he applied much to critical learning; and though, says Bayle, he went not so far as the Lipsiuses and Casaubons, yet he acquired great reputation, and perhaps would have equalled them if he had not been engaged in political affairs. He was employed near thirty years in the most important negociations of Henry IV. for whom he was several times resident with the princes of Germany, and afterwards ambassador, but however published his edition of Justin at Paris, 1581, in 8vo. He had a critical and extensive knowledge of books, both manuscript and printed; and made a very great collection of them, some of which came afterwards to the library of Berne in Swisserland, and some, with his manuscripts, to the Vatican. Besides an edition of Justin, he was the author of other works; which, if they did not shew his learning so much, have spread his fame a great deal more. Thuanus highly commends an answer, which he published in Germany, to a piece wherein the bad success of the expedition of 1587 was imputed to the French, who accompanied the Germans; and the world is indebted to him for the publication of several authors, who wrote the history of the expeditions into Palestine. That work is entitled “Gesta Dei per Francos;” and was printed at Hanau in 1611, in two volumes, folio. He published also in 1600, at Francfort, “Rerum Hungaricarum Scriptores,” fol. There are letters of Bongars, written during his employments, which are much esteemed; and upon which Mr. Bayle remarks, that though he did not, like Bembo and Manucius, reject all terms that are not in the best Roman authors, yet his style is elegant. His letters were translated, when the dauphin began to learn the Latin language; and it appears by the epistle dedicatory to that young prince, and by the translator’s preface, that nothing was then thought more proper for a scholar of quality, than to read this work of Bongars. Bongars died at Paris in 1612, when he was 58 years of age: and the learned Casaubon, whose letters shew that he esteemed him much, laments in one of them, that “the funeral honours, which were due to his great merit, and which he would infallibly have received from the learned in Germany, were not yet paid him at Paris.” Mr. Bayle thinks that Bongars was never married: yet tells us, that he was engaged in 1597, to a French lady, who had the misfortune to die upon the very day appointed for the wedding, after a courtship of near six years. This Bongars speaks of in his letters, and appears to have been exceedingly afflicted at it. His Latin letters were published at Leyden in 1647, and the French translation above mentioned in 1668, along with the originals, 2 vols. 12mo, but that of the Hague in 1695 is the most correct. His edition of Justin is rare and valuable. It was printed from eight manuscripts, accompanied with learned notes, various readings, and chronological tables; but the Bipont editors seem to think he sometimes took unwarranted liberties with the text.

, a celebrated saint of the eighth century, and usually styled the Apostle of Germany, was an Englishman, named Wilfrid, and born at C red ton or Kirton in Devonshire, about the year 680. He was educated from the age of thirteen in the monastery of Escancester or Exeter, and about three years after removed to Nutcell, in the diocese of Winchester, a monastery which was afterwards destroyed by the Danes, and was never rebuilt. Here he was instructed in the sacred and secular learning of the times; and at the age of thirty, was ordained priest, and became a zealous preacher. The same zeal prompted him to undertake the functions of a missionary among the pagans and with that view he went with two monks into Friezeland, about the year 716; but a war which broke out between Charles Martel, mayor of the French palace, and Radbod, king of Friezeland, rendering it impracticable to preach the gospel at that time, he returned to England with his companions. Still, however, zealously intent on the conversion of the pagans, he refused being elected abbot of Nutcell, on a vacancy which happened on his return; and having received recommendatory letters from the bishop of Winchester, went to Rome, and presented himself to the pope Gregory II. who encouraged his design, and gave him a commission for the conversion of the infidels, in the year 719. With this he went into Bavaria and Thuringia, and had considerable success: and Radbod, king of Friezeland, being now dead, he had an opportunity of visiting that country, where he co-Operated with Willibrod, another famous missionary, who would have appointed him his successor, which Wilfrid rt fused, because the pope had particularly enjoined him to preach in the eastern parts of Germany. Through Hesse, or a considerable part of it, even to the confines of Saxony, he extended his pious labours, and had considerable success, although he suffered many hardships, and was often exposed to danger from the rage of the infidels.

After some time he returned to Rome, where Gregory II. consecrated him bishop of the new German churches, by the name of Boniface, a Roman name, which Gregory probably thought might procure from the German converts more respect to the pope, than an English one. Solicitous also to preserve his dignity, Gregory exacted from Boniface an oath of subjection to the papal authority, drawn up in very strong terms. Boniface then returned to the scenes of his mission, and had great success in Hesse, encouraged now by Charles Martel, the dominion of the French extending at this time a considerable way into Germany. We do not, however, find that he derived any other assistance from the civil authority, than personal protection, which doubtless was of great importance. If he complied with the instructions sent from England, he employed no means but what became a true missionary. These, instructions, or rather advice sent to him by Daniel, bishop of Winchester, about the year 723, afford too striking an instance of good sense and liberality in that dark age, to be omitted. Daniel’s method of dealing with idolaters was conceived in these words, “Do not contradict in a direct manner their accounts of the genealogy of their gods; allow that they were born from one another in the same way that mankind are: this concession will give you the advantage of proving, that there was a time when they had no existence. Ask them who governed the world before the birth of their gods, and if these gods have ceased to propagate? If they have not, shew them the consequence; namely, that the gods must be infinite in number, and that no man can rationally be at ease in worshipping any of them, lest he should, by that means, offend one, who is more powerful. Argue thus with them, not in the way of insult, but with temper and moderation: and take opportunities to contrast these absurdities with the Christian doctrine: let the pagans be rather ashamed than incensed by your oblique mode of stating these subjects. Shew them the insufficiency of their plea of antiquity; inform them that idolatry did anciently prevail over the world, but that Jesus Christ was manifested, in order to reconcile men to God by his grace.” From this same prelate he received other instructions respecting reforming the church, and exercising discipline 'with the refractory and scandalous priests, who occasioned much obstruction to his mission. In the mean time, the report of his success induced many of his countrymen to join him, who dispersed themselves and preached in the villages of Hesse and Thuringia.

In the year 732, he received the title of archbishop from Gregory II f. who supported his mission with the same spirit as his predecessor Gregory II.; and under this encouragement he proceeded to erect new churches, and extend Christianity. At this time, he found the Bavarian churches disturbed by one Eremvolf, who would have seduced the people into idolatry, but whom he condemned, according to the canons, and restored the discipline of the church. In the year 738, he again visited Rome; and after some stay, he induced several Englishmen who resided there, to join with him in his German mission. Returning into Bavaria, he established three new bishoprics, at Salczburgh, Frisinghen, and Ratisbon. At length he was fixed at Mentz, in the year 745, and although afterwards many other churches in Germany have been raised to the dignity of archbishoprics, Mentz has always retained the primacy, in honour of St. Boniface. He also founded a monastery at Fridislar, another at Hamenburgh, and one at Ordorfe, in all which the monks gained their livelihood by the labour of their hands. In the year 746, he laid the foundation of the great abbey of Fulda, which continued long the most renowned seminary of religion and learning in all that part of the world. The abbot is now a prince of the empire. In the mean time his connection with England was constantly preserved; and it is in the epistolary correspondence with his own country, that the most striking evidence of his pious views appears. Still intent on his original design, although now advanced in years, he determined to return into Friezeland, and before his departure, acted as if he had a strong presentiment of what was to happen. He appointed Lullus, an Englishman, his successor as archbishop of Mentz, a privilege which the pope had granted him, and ordained him with the consent of king Pepin. He went by the Rhine to Friezeland, where, assisted by Eoban, whom he had ordained bishop of Utrecht, he brought great numbers of pagans into the pale of the church. He had appointed a day to confirm those whom he had baptized; and in waiting for them, encamped with his followers on the banks of the Bordue, a river which then divided East and West Friezeland. His intention was to confirm, by imposition of hands, the converts in the plains of Dockum. On the appointed day, he beheld, in the morning, not the new converts whom he expected, but a troop of enraged pagans, armed with shields and lances. The servants went out to resist; but Boniface, with calm intrepidity, said to his followers, “Children, forbear to fight; the scripture forbids us to render evil for evil. The day which I have long waited for is come; hope in God, and he will save your souls.” The pagans immediately attacked them furiously, and killed the whole company, fifty-two in number, besides Boniface himself. This happened on June 5, 755, in the fortieth year after his arrival in Germany. His body was interred in the abbey of Fulda, and was long regarded as the greatest treasure of that monastery. Boniface’s character has been strangely misrepresented by Mosheim, and by his transcribers, but ably vindicated by Milner, who has examined the evidence on both sides with great precision. His works, principally sermons and correspondence, were published under the title “S. Bonifacii Opera, a Nicolao Serrario,” Mogunt. 1605, 4to.

, the son of a lawyer of the same name, was born at Crema, in the Venetian state about 1584. In his thirtieth year he went to study at Padua, and made such proficiency as to be created doctor of laws at the age of eighteen. About two years after he was appointed law professor in the college of Rovigo, where he first lectured on the institutes of Justinian. He afterwards accompanied the pope’s nuncio Jerome Portia, as secretary, and was himself employed in some affairs of importance. On his return to Venice, he had several preferments, and among others that of archpriest of Rovigo. In Oct. 1619, he was elected Greek and Latin professor at Padua, but declined accepting the office. In 1620, he assisted at Venice, in the establishment of an academy for the education of the young nobility, and gave lectures on the civil law. Pope Urban VIII. bestowed on him the archdeaconry of Trevisa, which he held, with the office of grand vicar of that diocese, under four successive bishops. He assisted also very essentially in founding a new academy at Padua for the Venetian nobility, in 1636, and was the first director or president of it, and founded a similar establishment at Trevisa. In 1653 he was appointed bishop of Capo d'Istria, which he held until his death in 165i). He was a man of various learning, as appears by his “Historia Trevigiena,” 4to, his “Historia Ludicra,” 1656, 4to, a collection of singular narratives from authors of every description. He published also some “Latin poems” in 1619, 12mo. “De Romanae Historian Scriptoribus excerpta ex Bodino, Vossio et aliis,” Venice, 1627, 4to.

, an eminent Italian lawyer, poet, and historian, was born in 1547, at Rovigo in the state of Venice, and educated at Padua, where, during his lawstudies, he composed some pieces for the theatre which were much approved. After marrying at Trevisa, or Trevigni, Elizabeth Martinagi, the daughter and heiress of Marc Antonio, he settled in that place, of which he wrote the history, and acquired so much reputation that the republic of Venice bestowed on him the office of judge’s counsellor or assessor, the duties of which he executed with great probity; and during his holding it wrote his law tracts. In 1588, he published his commentary on the feudal law of Venice. After the death of his wife, he married a lady of Padua, where he was admitted to the rank of citizenship, and where he resided for the remainder of his life. He died June 23, 1635, at a very advanced age, and was buried in the church of St. James, with a modest inscription written by himself in 1630. His principal writings are, 1. “Storia Trevigiana,” Trevisi, 1591, 4to, but a better edition, Venice, 1744, 4to. 2. “Letiere Famigliari,” Rovigo, 1624, 4to. 3. “Orazione &c. per dirizzare una Statua a Celio Ricchiero Rodigino,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 4. “Lezione sopra im Sonetto del Petrarca,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 5. “Lezione sopra un altro Sonetto del Petrarca,” ibid. 1625, 4to. 6. “L'arte de Cenni,” Vicenza, 1616, 4to, one of the earliest attempts to instruct the deaf and dumb. 7. “Discorso del modo di ben formare a questo tempo una Tragedia,” Padua, 1624, 4to. 8. “Discorso sopra la sua Impresa neli' Accademia Filarmonica,” ibid. 1624, 4to. 9. “La Re^ publica delle Api, con la quale si dimostra il modo di ben formare un nuovo Governo Democratico,” Rovigo, 1627, 4to. 10. “Comentario sopra la legge dell' Senato Veneta, &c.” ibid. 1624, 4to. Freher also mentions “Comment, de Furtis, et de componendis Epitaphiis,” but without giving the exact titles or dates.

, a learned Augustin, was born at Toulouse in 1670; and at Rome, whither he was sent for by cardinal Norris in 1695, he became distinguished by his learning and piety. He was employed by pope Clement XI. in several matters of importance, and particularly in the examination of the Gregorian calendar. Bonjour had also the superintendence of the seminary established by cardinal Barbarigo at Montefiascone, and denominated the academy of sacred letters. He was acquainted with almost all the oriental tongues, and especially with the Coptic, or ancient Egyptian. Actuated by a zeal for acquiring knowledge, and for propagating the gospel, he visited China, where he died in February 1714, whilst he was employed in forming a map of that empire, which he undertook to conciliate the favour of the emperor, and thereby promote the objects of his mission. He published, 1. “Dissertatio de nomine patriarch! Joseph! a Pharaone imposito, in defensionem vulgatoe editionis, et patrum qui Josephum in Serapide adumbratuni tradiderunt,” &c. Rome, 1696, fol. 2. “Select dissertationes in Sac. Scripturam,” Rome, 1705, fol. which prove his acquaintance with the oriental languages, and with ancient history and chronology. 3. “In monumenta Coptica, seu Ægyptiacæ bibliothecæ Vatican brevis exercitatio,” ibid. 1699, fol. 4. “Calendarium Romanum chronologorum causa constructum, &c.” ibid. 1701.

, or Bonnefonius, a Latin poet, was born in 1554, at Clermont in Auvergne, and rilled the post of lieutenant-general of Bar-sur-Seine. His “Paricharis,” in the style of Catullus, is of all modern performances, the nearest to the graces, the easy pencil, the delicacy and softness of that ancient poet. La Bergerie has translated the Pancharis into French verse, very inferior to the Latin. The poems of Bonnefons are at the end of those of Beza, in the edition of that author given at Paris by Barbou, 1757, 12mo. There is also one of London, 1720 and 1727, 12mo. Bonnefons died in 1614, leaving a son, who likewise cultivated Latin poetry, but his performances, enumerated by Moreri, are in less request.

, a man celebrated for piety and virtue, was born at Genoa, Nov. 14, 1653, being the son of Samuel Bonnell, merchant, who resided some time at Genoa, and of Rebecca, daughter of Thomas Sayer, near Norwich, esq. His grandfather was Daniel Bonnell of London, merchant, and his great-grandfather, Thomas Bonnell, a gentleman of good family near Ipres in Flanders, who, to avoid the duke of Alva’s persecution, removed with his family into England, and settled at Norwich, of which, before his death, he was chosen mayor. Samuel Bonnell, father of James Bonnell, being bred up under that eminent merchant, sir William Courteen, knt. applied himself to the Italian trade, at Leghorn and Genoa, with such success, that about 1649, he was worth at least 10,000l. and his credit much greater than his fortune. But both were soon impaired by several accidents, by great losses at sea, and particularly by his zeal for kingCharles II. during his exile, and the rest of the royal family, whom he privately supplied with large sums of money. About 1655, he removed with his family into England; and, at the restoration, on account of the services he had done the royal family, and as a compensation for the large sums he had advanced them (which, it seems, were never repaid otherwise) there was granted him a patent to be accomptant-general of the revenue of Ireland, a place worth about 800l. a year, his son’s life being included in the patent with his own. But this he was not long possessed of, for he died in 1664, leaving his son and one daughter.

After this son, the object of the present article, had been instructed in the first rudiments of learning at Dublin, he was sent to Trim school, where he was eminent for sweetness of temper, and for a most innocent, gentle, and religious behaviour. At fourteen years of age he left that place, and was sent to a private philosophy school at Nettlebed in Oxfordshire, kept by Mr. William Cole, who had formerly been principal of St. Mary Hall in Oxford, and remained there two years and a half. But finding his master was too remiss in matters of morality and religion, a thing quite unsuitable with his strict temper; and observing there were in that place all the dangers and vices of the university, without the advantages, he removed to Catherine-hall in Cambridge, where he prosecuted his studies with indefatigable diligence, and performed all his exercises with general approbation. After taking the degrees of A.B. in 1672, and A. M. 1676, he removed into the family of Ralph Freeman of Aspenden-hall in Hertfordshire, esq. as tutor to his eldest son, and there continued till 1678, when, going with his pupil into Holland, he stayed about a year in sir Leoline Jenkyns’s family at Nimeguen. From Nimeguen he went, in the ambassador’s company, through Flanders and Holland: and returning to England, continued with his pupil till 16S5, when Mr. Freeman was sent into France and Italy. In 1684, Mr. Bonnell went into France, and met Mr. Freeman at Lyons, and in his company visited several parts of that country. From thence, however, he went directly to Ireland, and took his employment of accountant-general into his own hands, which had, since his father’s death, been managed by others for his use. In the discharge of it he behaved with so much diligence and fidelity, that he soon acquired the esteem of the government, and the love of all who were concerned with him. During the troublesome reign of king James II. he neither deserted his employment, as others did, nor countenanced the arbitrary and illegal measures of the court, and yet was continued in his office, which proved a great advantage to the protestant interest in Ireland, for whatever he received out of his office, he liberally distributed among the poor oppressed protestants. He also took every opportunity to relieve the injured, and boldly to plead their cause with those who were in power. But though his place was very advantageous, and furnished him with ample means of doing good, yet either the weight of the employment, or his ill state of health, or perhaps his desire of entering into holy orders, which he had long designed, but never effected, made him resolve to quit it; and he accordingly parted with it to another person in 1693. In the whole course of his life he behaved in so upright and worthy a manner, that he was courted by his superiors and reverenced by his equals. In piety, justice, charity, sobriety, and temperance, few have excelled him. His devotion was confined within the strictest bounds of sobriety and reason, and free from the least appearance of affectation. He commonly gave away the eighth part of his yearly income to the poor, and his charity was not only extensive but impartial. His learning was very considerable; he thoroughly digested the Greek and Roman authors, understood French perfectly, and had made great progress in the Hebrew language. In philosophy and oratory he exceeded most of his contemporaries in the university, and applied himself with success to mathematics and music. In the course of his studies he read several of the fathers, and translated some parts of Synesius into English. There is nothing, however, of his published, but some Meditations and Prayers inserted in his Life, and a “Harmony of the Gospels,” written by another hand, but “improved by James Bonnell, esq. for his own use,” Lond. 1705, 8vo. This excellent man died of a malignant fever, April 23, 1699, and was buried in St. John’s church in Dublin. In 1693 he married Jane, daughter of sir Albert Conyngham, by whom he had three children, of whom only one daughter survived him a very short time. A neat monument was erected to his memory by his relict. “Such a character,” says Mr. Granger, “may, perhaps, be overlooked by some, because there is nothing remarkably striking in it. But the man who is uniformly good, and that to such a degree as Mr. Bonnell was, ought to stand high in our opinion, and to be esteemed what he certainly was, a great man.”

, bishop of London, proverbial for his cruelty, was the son of an honest poor man, and born, at Hanley in Worcestershire, although some have very eagerly reported that he was the natural son of one George Savage, a priest, as if the circumstance of his birth could have had any effect on his future disposition. He was maintained at school by an ancestor of Nicholas Lechmere, esq. a baron of the exchequer in the reign of king William; and in 1512, he was entered at Broadgate-hall in Oxford, now Pembroke college. On June 12, 1519, he was admitted bachelor of the canon, and the day following bachelor of the civil law. He entered into orders about the same time, and had some employment in the diocese of Worcester; and on the 12th of July 1525, was created doctor of the canon law. He was a man of some, though not great learning, but distinguished himself chiefly by his skill and dexterity in the management of affairs, which made him be taken notice of by cardinal Wolsey, who appointed him his commissary for the faculties; and he was with this prelate at Cawood, when he was arrested for high treason. He enjoyed at once the livings of Blaydon and Cherry Burton in Yorkshire, Ripple in Worcestershire, East Dereham in Norfolk, and the prebend of Chiswick in the cathedral church of St. Paul: but the last he resigned in 1539, an of East Dereham in 1540. He was installed archdeacon of Leicester, October 17, 1535.

After the cardinal’s death, he got into the good graces of king Henry VIII. who appointed him one of his chaplains. On this he began his career in a manner not very consistent with his after-conduct. He was not only a favourer of the Lutherans, but a promoter of the king’s divorce from queen Catherine of Spain, and of great use to his majesty in abrogating the pope’s supremacy. He was also in high favour with lord Cromwell, secretary of state, by whose recommendation he was employed as ambassador at several courts. In 1532, he was sent to Rome, along with sir Edward Karne, to excuse king Henry’s personal appearance upon the pope’s citation. In 1533, he was again sent to Rome to pope Clement VII. then at Marseilles, upon the excommunication decreed against king Henry VIII. on account of his divorce; to deliver that king’s appeal from the pope to the next general council. But in this he betrayed so much of that passionate temper which appeared afterwards more conspicuously, and executed the order of his master in this affair with so much vehemence and fury, that the pope talked of throwing him into a caldron of melted lead, on which he thought proper to make his escape. He was employed likewise in other embassies to the kings of Denmark and France, and the emperor of Germany. In 1538, being then ambassador in France, he was nominated to the bishopric of Hereford, Nov. 27; but before consecration he was translated to London, of which he was elected bishop Oct. 20, 1539, and consecrated April 4, 1540.

At the time of the king’s death in 1547, Bonner was ambassador with the emperor Charles V.; and though during Henry’s reign he appeared zealous against the pope, and had concurred in all the measures taken to abrogate his supremacy, yet these steps he appears to have taken merely as the readiest way to preferment; for his principles, as far as such a man can be said to have any, were those of popery, as became evident from his subsequent conduct. On the 1st of September 1547, not many months after the accession of Edward VI. he scrupled to take an oath, to renounce and deny the bishop of Rome, and to swear obedience to the king, and entered a protestation against the king’s injunction and homilies. For this behaviour he was committed to the Fleet; but having submitted, and recanted his protestation, was released, and for sometime complied outwardly with the steps taken to advance the reformation, while he used privately all means in his power to obstruct it. After the lord Thomas Seymour’s death, he appeared so remiss in putting the court orders in execution, particularly that relating to the use of the common prayer book, that he was severely reproved by the privy council. He then affected to redouble his diligence: but still, through his remissness in preaching, and his connivance at the mass in several places, many people in his diocese being observed to withdraw from the divine service and communion, he was accused of neglect in the execution of the king’s orders. He was summoned before the privy council on the llth of August, when, after a reproof for his negligence, he was enjoined to preach the Sunday three weeks after at Paul’s cross, on certain articles delivered to him; and also to preach there once a quarter for the future, and be present at every sermon preached there, and to celebrate the communion in that church on all the principal feasts: and to abide and keep residence in his house in London, till he had licence from the council to depart elsewhere. On the day appointed for his preaching, he delivered a sermon to a crowded audience on the points assigned to him. But he entirely omitted the last article, the king’s royal power in his youth; for which contempt he was complained of to the king by John Hooper, afterwards bishop of Worcester: and archbishop Cranmer, bishop Ridley, sir William Petre, and sir Thomas Smith, secretaries of state, and William May, LL. D. and dean of St. Paul’s, were appointed commissioners to proceed against him. Appearing before them several days in September, he was, after a long trial, committed to the Marshalsea; and towards the end of October deprived of his bishopric.

On the accession of queen Mary, Bonner had an opportunity of shewing himself in his proper character, which indeed had been hitherto but faintly-concealed. He was restored to his bishopric by a commission read in St. Paul’s cathedral the 5th of September 1553; and in 1554, he was made vicegerent, and president of the convocation, in the room of archbishop Cranmer, who was committed to the Tower. The same year he visited his diocese, in order to root up all the seeds of the Reformation, and behaved in the most furious and extravagant manner; at Hadham, he was excessively angry because the bells did not ring at his coming, nor was the rood-loft decked, or the sacrament hung up. He swore and raged in the church at Dr. Bricket, the rector, and, calling him knave and heretic, went to strike at him; but the blow fell upon sir Thomas Joscelyn’s ear, and almost stunned him. On his return he set up the mass again at St. Paul’s, before the act for restoring it was passed. The same year, he was in commission to turn out some of the reformed bishops. In 1555, and the three following years, he was the occasion of above two hundred of innocent persons being put to death in the most cruel manner, that of burning, for their firm adherence to the Protestant religion. On the 14th of February 1555-6, he came to Oxford (with Thirlby bishop of Ely), to degrade archbishop Cranmer, whom he used with great insolence. The 29th of December following he was put into a commission to search and raze all registers and records containing professions against the pope, scrutinies taken in religious houses, &c. And the 8th of February 1556-7, he was also put in another commission, or kind of inquisition, for searching after and punishing all heretics.

Upon queen Elizabeth’s accession, Bonner went to meet her at Highgate, with the rest of the bishops; but she looked on him as a man stained with blood, and therefore would shew him no mark of her favour. For some months, however, he remained unmolested; but being called before the privy council on the 30th of May 1359, he refused to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy: for which reason only, as it appears, he was deprived a second time of his bishopric the 29th of June following, and committed to the Marshalsea. After having lived in confinement some years, he died September 5, 1569, and three days after he was buried at midnight, in St. George’s churchyard, Southwark, to prevent any disturbances that might have been made by the citizens, who hated him extremely. He had stood excommunicated several years, and might have been denied Christian burial; but of this no advantage was taken. As to his character, he was a violent, furious, and passionate man, and extremely cruel in his nature; in his person he was very fat and corpulent, the consequence of excessive gluttony, to which he was much addicted. He was a great master of the canon law, being excelled in that faculty by very few of his time, and well skilled in politics, but understood little of divinity. Several pieces were published under his name, of which the following is a list 1. Preface to the Oration of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, concerning true Obedience. Printed at London, in Latin, 1534, 1535, and at Hamburgh in 1536, 8vo. Translated into English by Mi-, chael Wood, a zealous Protestant, with a bitter preface to the reader, and a postscript, Roan, 1553, 8vo. It is also inserted in J. Fox’s book of Martyrs. In the preface Bonner speaks much in favour of king Henry the VHIth’s marriage with Ann Boleyn, and against the tyranny exercised by the bishop of Rome in this kingdom. 2. Several letters to the lord Cromwell. 3. A declaration to lord Cromwell, describing to him the evil behaviour of Stephen (bishop of Winchester), with special causes therein contained, wherefore and why he misliked of him. 4. Letter of his about the proceedings at Rome concerning the king’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. 5. An admonition and advertisement given by the bishop of London to all readers of the Bible in the English tongue. 6. Injunctions given by Bonner, bishop of London, to his clergy (about preaching, with the names of books prohibited). 7. Letter to Mr. Lechmere. 8. Responsum & exhortatio, Lond. 1553, 8vo. Answer and exhortation to the clergy in praise of priesthood: spoken by the author in St. Paul’s cathedral, the 16th October, 1553, after a sermon preached before the clergy, by John Harpesfield. 9. A letter to Mr. Lechmere, 6th September, 1553. 10. Articles to be enquired of in the general visitation of Edmund bishop of London, exercised by him in 1554, in the city and diocese of London, &c. To ridicule them, John Bale, bishop of Ossory, wrote a book, entitled, A declaration of Edmund Bonner’s articles, concerning the clergy of London diocese, whereby that execrable anti-christ is in his right colours revealed, 1554, and 1561, 8vo. 11. A profitable and necessary doctrine, containing an exposition on the Creed, seven Sacraments, ten Commandments, the Pater Noster, Ave Maria, with certain homilies adjoining thereto, for the instruction and information of the diocese of London, Lond. 1554-5, 4to. This book was drawn up by his chaplains John Harpesfield and Henry Pendleton; the former part of it, which is catechism, is mostly taken out of the Institution of a Christian man, set out by king Henry VIII. only varied in some points. 12. Several letters, declarations, arguings, disputes, &c. of his are extant in John Fox’s book of Martyrs, vol. last. 13. His objections against the process of Robert Horn, bishop of Winchester, who had tendered the oath of supremacy to him a second time, are preserved by Mr. Strype in his Annals of the Reformation. The character of bishop Bonner is so familiar to our readers as to require little illustration, or any addition to the preceding account from the former edition of this Dictionary; yet some notice may be taken of the defence set up by the Roman Catholic historians. Dodd, alluding to his cruelties, says, that “Seeing he proceeded according to the statutes then in force, and by the direction of the legislative power, he stands in need of no apology on that score.” But the history of the times proves that Bonner’s character cannot be protected by a reference to the statutes, unless his vindicator can likewise prove that he had no hand in enacting those statutes; and even if this were conceded, his conduct will not appear less atrocious, because, not content with the sentence of the law carried into execution by the accustomed officers, Bonner took frequent opportunities to manifest the cruelty of his disposition by anticipating, or aggravating, the legal punishments. He sometimes whipped the prisoners with his own hands, till he was tired with the violence of the exercise; and on one occasion he tore out the beard of a weaver who refused to relinquish his religion; and that he might give him a specimen of burning, he held his hand to a candle, till the sinews and veins shrunk and burst. The fact is, that Bonner was constitutionally cruel, and delighted in the sufferings he inflicted. Granger very justly says, that “Nature seems to have designed him for an executioner,” and as, wherever he could, he performed the character, how can he be defended by an appeal to the statutes? The most remarkable circumstance in his history is the lenity shown to him after all this bloody career. There seems no reason to think that he would have even been deprived of his bishopric, had he consented to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a circumstance which is surely very extraordinary. His compliance, had he taken, that step, could have been only hypocritical, and what an object it would have been to have seen the duties and power of a protestant prelate intrusted to such a monster, and in that diocese, where so many families preserved the bitter remembrance of his cruelty.

, an eminent natural philosopher, was born at Geneva, on the 13th of March, 1720. His ancestors, who were compelled to emigrate from France, in 1572, after the dreadful slaughter of St. Bartholomew’s day, established themselves at Geneva, where his grandfather was advanced to the magistracy. His father, who preferred the station of a private citizen, paid unremitted attention to the education of his son, which the latter recompensed, at a very early period, by the amiableness of his disposition, and the rapid progress he made in general literature. When about sixteen years of age, he applied himself, with great eagerness, to the perusal of “Le Spectacle de la Nature,” and this work made such a deep impression on his mind, that it may be said to have directed the taste and the studies of his future life. What that publication had commenced, was confirmed by the work of La Pluche; but having accidentally seen the treatise of Reaumur upon insects, he was in a transport of joy. He was very impatient to procure the book, but, as the only copy in Geneva belonged to a public library, and as the librarian was reluctant to entrust it in the hands of a youth, it was with the utmost difficulty that he could obtain his end. By the possession of this treasure, our assiduous youth was enabled to make several new and curious experiments, which he communicated to Reaumur himself; and the high applause he gained, from so great a naturalist, added fresh vigour to his assiduity.

In compliance with his father’s desires, he applied himself, though with much reluctance, to the study of the law. The works of Burlamaqui pleased him the most, on account of the perspicuous and philosophic manner in which the subject was treated; the institutes of Heineccius gave him some courage also, as he perceived order and connection; but the Roman law terrified him. Notwithstanding his application to these authors, he still continued attached to natural history, and was very active in making experiments. Some experiments respecting treelice happening to be communicated by Reaumur to the academy of sciences, occasioned an epistolary correspondence between M. Bonnet and that great naturalist, a circumstance, doubtless, very flattering to a youth of twenty years, and the letter of Reaumur was accompanied with a present of that very book which he had borrowed, with so much difficulty, two years before.

Animated by such distinguished marks of approbation, he diligently employed every moment he could steal from the study of jurisprudence to the completion of his natural history of the tree-louse; to experiments on the respiration of caterpillars and butterflies, which he discovered to be effected by stigmata, or lateral pores; to an examination of the construction of the tinea, or tapeworm; in frequent correspondence with Reaumur; and in assisting Trembley in his discoveries and publication concerning millepedes, &c. Having, in 1743, obtained the degree of doctor of laws, he relinquished a pursuit which he had commenced with so much reluctance. In the same year he was admitted a member of the royal society of London, to which he had communicated a treatise on insects. Bonnet being now liberated from his other pursuits, applied himself, without intermission, to collecting together his experiments and observations concerning the tree-louse and the worm, which he published in 1744, under the title of “Insectology.” This work acquired deserved approbation from the public, and was honoured by the commendation of the celebrated B. de Jussieu. He was reproached, however, as some other naturalists have deserved, with having paid too little attention to the delicacy of his reader, though his patience and accuracy were acknowledged to be deserving of praise. Such unremitted application and labour could not fail of becoming injurious to his health. Inflammations, nervous fever, sore eyes, &c. compelled him to relinquish the use of the microscope and the study of insects. This prevention was so extremely mortifying to a man of his taste and activity of mind, that he was thrown into a deep melancholy, which could only be subdued by the resolution inspired by philosophy, and the consolations of religion; these gradually roused him from a dejected state of mind. About the end of 1746, he was chosen member of the literary institution at Bologna, which introduced him to a correspondence with the celebrated Zanotti, who may be deemed the Fontenelle of Italy.

In 1747, he undertook a very difficult work on the leaves of plants; which, of all his publications in natural history, bore the strongest marks of originality, both with respect to the manner in which his experiments were made, and the discoveries resulting from them. But from this extreme attachment to natural history, he was gradually led to a study of a very different nature; and speculative philosophy now engaged his whole attention. The first result of his meditations in this department was his “Essay on Psychology,” in which the principal facts observable in human nature, and the consequences resulting from them, are stated in a concise and perspicuous manner. He contemplated man, from the first moment of his existence, and pursued the developement of his senses and faculties, from simple growth up to intelligence. This work, which was published without his name, met with great opposition, and was criticised with severity; but the censures were directed more against his expressions than his principles, nor were they of sufficient importance to impede the general acceptance of the performance. His “Analysis of the mental faculties” was simply a developement of the ideas contained in the preceding work. It engaged his incessant attention for the space of five years; nor was it completed before 1759. It is somewhat singular, that both he and the abbe de Condilluc should have illustrated their principles by the supposition of a statue, organized like the human body, which they conceived to be gradually inspired with a soul, and the progressive enlargement of whose powers they carefully traced. In 1760 this work was published at Copenhagen by order and at the expence of Frederic V.; and it was followed in 1762 by “Considerations on organized bodies,” in which the author had three principal objects before him; the first was to give a concise view of every thing which appears interesting in natural history, respecting the origin, growth, and reproduction of organized bodies; the second was to confute the two different systems founded upon the Epigenesis; and the third was to explain the system of Germs, indicate the ground upon which it was founded, its correspondence with facts, and the consequences resulting from it. This work was received with much satisfaction by natural philosophers. The academy of Berlin, which had proposed the same subject, as a prize-question for 1761, declared that they considered this treatise as the offspring of close observation and profound reasoning; and that the author would have had an undubitable right to the prize, if he had confined his labours to the precise statement of the question, and Malesherbes reversed the interdict which the public censor had laid upon this book, as containing dangerous principles.

The “Contemplations of Nature” appeared in 1764. In this work, the author first enlarged upon the common conceptions entertained concerning the existence and perfections of God; and of the order and uniformity observable in the universe. He next descends to man, examines the parts of his composition, and the various capacities with which he is endowed. He next proceeds to the plants: assembles and describes the laws of their Œconomy; and finally, he examines the insects, indicates the principal circumstances in which they differ from large animals, and points out the philosophical inferences that may legitimately be deduced from these differences; and he concludes with observations respecting the industry of insects. This work being of a popular nature, the author spared no pains in bestowing upon it those ornaments of which it was susceptible. The principles which he thus discovered and explained, induced him to plan a system of moral philosophy; which, according to his ideas, consisted solely in the observance of that relation in which man is placed, respecting all the beings that surround him. The first branch would have comprehended various means, which philosophy and the medical science have discovered, for the prevention of disease, the preservation and augmentation of the corporeal powers, and the better exertion of their force: in the second, he proposed to show, that natural philosophy has a powerful tendency to embellish and improve our mind, and augment the number of our rational amusements, while it is replete with beneficial effects respecting the society at large. To manifest the invalidity of opinions, merely hypothetical, he undertook, in the third place, to examine, whether there were not truths within the compass of human knowledge, to which the most sceptical philosopher must be compelled to yield his consent, and which might serve as the basis of all our reasonings concerning man and his various relations. He then would have directed his attention to a first cause, and have manifested how greatly the idea of a deity, and supreme law-giver, favoured the conclusions which reason had drawn from the nature and properties of things; but his ill health, impaired by incessant labour, would not permit him to complete the design. His last publication was the “Palingenesis,” which treats of the prior existence and future state of living beings.

Of his publications in natural history, those deemed the most excellent, are, his Treatise on the best means of preserving Insects and Fish in cabinets of Natural History; a dissertation on the Loves of the Plants; sundry pieces on the experiments of Spallanzani, concerning the reproduction of the head of the Snail; a dissertation on the Pipa, or Surinam Toad; and different treatises on Bees.

In 1783, he was elected honorary member of the academy of sciences at Paris, and of the academy of sciences and the belles lettres at Berlin. Much of his time was employed in a very extensive correspondence with some of the most celebrated natural philosophers and others. Of this number were Reaumur; De Geer, the Reaumur of Sweden; Du Hamel; the learned Haller; the experimental philosopher Spallanzani; Van Swieten; Merian; and that ornament of Switzerland, the great Lambert. He entertained, however, the utmost aversion to controversy. He thought that no advantage to be obtained by it could compensate for the lo ss of that repose which he valued, with Newton, as the rem prarsus substantiakm. He never answered remarks that were made to the prejudice of his writings, but left the decision with the public: yet, ever ready to acknowledge his errors, he was sincerely thankful to every one who contributed to the perfection of his works. He was used to say, that one confession, “I was in the wrong,” is of more value than a thousand ingenious confutations. His literary occupations, and the care he was obliged to take of his health, prevented him from travelling. He delighted in retirement, and every hour was occupied in the improvement of his mind. The last twenty-five years of his life were spent in the same rural situation where he had passed the greater part of his early days; yet, notwithstanding the pursuit of literature was his supreme delight, he never refused to suspend his studies, when the good of his country seemed to demand his services.

He was chosen, in 1752, member of the grand council, in the republic of Geneva; and he assisted regularly at their deliberations, till 1768, where he distinguished himself by his eloquence, his moderation, united with firmness; by his good sense and penetration, in cases of difficulty; and by the zeal with which he endeavoured to reclaim his fellow citizens to that ancient simplicity of manners which had been so conducive to the welfare of the state, and to the love of virtue, so essential to the existence of genuine liberty. His conduct, in every case, was consistent with his principles. He took no pains to accumulate wealth, but remained satisfied with a fortune equal to his moderate wants, and to the exercise of his benevolence. The perfect correspondence between his extensive knowledge and virtuous deeds, procured him universal esteem.

In the year 1788, evident symptoms of a dropsy of the chest manifested themselves; and from this time he gradually declined. He sustained his indisposition with unremitted cheerfulness and composure. After various fluctuations, usual in that complaint, he died, on the 20th of May, 1793, in the seventy-third year of his age; retaining his presence of mind to the last moment; administering comfort to surrounding friends and relatives; and attempting to alleviate the distress of his disconsolate wife, in whose arms he expired.

As a demonstration of the high value placed upon his labours and talents, by the literati, we have only to add, that he was member of most of the learned societies of Europe. The latter part of his life was employed in revising his works, of which a complete edition was published at Neuchatel in 9 vols. 4to, or 18 vols. 8vo, containing, besides these already noticed, several smaller pieces in natural history and metaphysics. Notwithstanding the high praises bestowed on Bonnet by his countrymen, there are many parts of his works which must be read with caution, nor, where there is not much danger in his speculations, is he always a very conclusive reasoner.

, count, known in the latter part of his life by the name of Osman Bashaw, descended from a family related to the blood royal of France, was born in 1672, and entered himself at the age of sixteen, in the service of that crown, and married the daughter of marshal de Biron. He made the campaign in Flanders in 1690, but soon after left the French army, and entered into the Imperial service under prince Eugene, who honoured him with an intimate friendship. The intrigues of the marquis de Prie, his inveterate enemy, ruined his credit however at the court of Vienna, and caused him to be banished the empire. He then offered his service to the republic of Venice, and to Russia; which being de^ clined, his next tender was to the grand Signior, who gladly received him: it was stipulated that he should have a body of 30,000 men at his disposal; that a government should be conferred on him, with the rank of bashaw of three tails; a salary of 10,000 aspers a day, equal to 45,000 livres a year; and that in case of a war, he should be commander in chief. The first expedition he engaged in after his arrival at Constantinople, was to quell an insurrection in Arabia Petraea, which he happily effected; and at his return, had large offers made him by Kouli Khan, which he did not choose to accept. Some time after, he commanded the Turkish army against the emperor, over whose forces he gained a victory on the banks of the Danube. But success does not always protect a person against disgrace; for Bonneval, notwithstanding his service, was first imprisoned, and then banished to the island of Chio. The sultan, however, continued his friend; and the evening before his departure made him bashaw general of the Archipelago, which, with his former appointment of beglerbeg of Arabia, rendered him one of the most powerful persons in the Ottoman empire. In this island, he found a retirement agreeable to his wishes, but did not long enjoy it, being sent for back, and made topigi or master of the ordnance, a post of great honour and profit. He died in this employment, aged 75, in 1747; and wrote the memoirs of his own life, which were published in London in 1755, 2 vols. 12 mo, and give but an indifferent idea of his personal character.

, an eminent artist, was born at Ferra.ra in 1569, and died in 1632. He was the scholar of Bastaruolo, and the rival of Scarsellino, whose suavity of manner he attempted to eclipse by energy and grandeur. He studied at Bologna, for that purpose, the Carracci; at Rome, with nature and the antique, perhaps the Roman style; at Venice, Paolo, and at Parma, Corregio. In compositions of a few figures only, he resembles Lod. Carracci sometimes to a degree of delusion; but in works of numerous grouping, such as the “Feast of Herod,” and the “Nuptials of Cana,” at Ferrara, and chiefly in the “Supper of Ahasuerus,” at Ravenna, he rivals in abundance and arrangement the ornamental style of Paolo. At St. Maria in Vado at Ferrara, his science in Corregiesque fore-shortening and forcible effects of chiaroscuro, fixed and astonished the eye of Guercino. His cabinet pictures possess a high degree of finish. That such powers should not hitherto have procured Bonone an adequate degree of celebrity in the annals of painting, proves only, that no felicity of imitation can ever raise its possessors to the honours of originality and invention.

, an ancient prelate of the fourth century, is known in church history as the heretical bishop of Naissus in Dacia, though some authors say of Sardica, the metropolis of that province. In the year 391 he was accused of crimes against the canons of the chnrch and the law of God, and was reported for heresy at the council of Capua, which met the latter end of that year. The particulars of his crimes cannot now be known, but his heresy may be gathered from St. Augustin and St. Ambrose. He had, before, been condemned by Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died A. D. 384. The council of Capua committed the hearing of his cause to the bishops of Mecodon, his neighhours, under their metropolitan Anysius, bishop of Thessalonica. The bishops assembled, agreeably to the order of the council, and Bonosus appeared before them; after examination, they were so well convinced of the truth of the charge, that they immediately suspended him from all episcopal functions; at the same time writing a letter to Syricius bishop of Rome, declaring their abhorrence of the detestable error, that the virgin Mary should have other children than Christ. Bonosus died A. D. 410; but his doctrine did not die with him, being maintained by some 200 years after his death. Pope Gregory makes mention of the Bonosians in the latter end of the sixth century.

, a native of Perugia, and author of the first history of music in the Italian language with which we are acquainted, was an able professor, of considerable learning, who flourished about the middle of the seventeenth century. His work, which has for title “Historia Musica di Gio. And. Angelini Bontempi,” was published at Perugia, in small folio, 1695. It is become somewhat scarce, which enhances its value with collectors of books; but Dr. Burney’s opinion is unfavourable. He says that with great parade of his learning, science, and acquaintance with the Greek theorists, that are come down to us, he leaves us in as utter darkness concerning the practice of ancient music as ever, and has furnished us with but little information concerning the modern of his own time, with which, however, as a contrapuntist, he seems to have been perfectly well acquainted. Indeed, by the frequent use he makes of scientific terms, his book, when casually opened, has more the appearance of a dry mathematical treatise, than the history of an elegant art. The most curious and interesting part of his work is, the account which he gives of the discipline of the college of singers in the service of the pontifical chapel, and of the great masters who then flourished at Rome, who had distinguished themselves in writing “Alia Palestrina” for the church: secular music was then but little cultivated, and less respected there, till operas and oratorios had made some progress in polishing melody, and in the just accentuation and expression of words.

, a lady who was born at Paris in 1718, and died in the same city April 18, 1768, had received from nature a good understanding and an excellent taste, which were cultivated by a suitable education. She possessed the foreign languages, and was mistress of all the delicate turns of her own. It is to her that the French are indebted for a translation, said to be accurate and elegant, of Thomson’s Seasons, 1759, 12mo. Madame Bontems had a select society that frequented her house, and though she had a great talent for wit, she only made use of it for displaying that of others. She was not less esteemed for the qualities of her heart than those of her mind.

, professor in medicine at the university of Leyden in the latter part of the sixteenth century, was a man of profound erudition, and critically versed in the Greek language. He was born at Ryswick, a small village of Guelderland, and died at Leyden, Sept. 15, 1599, sixty-three years old. Bontius is the inventor of a composition of pills, which, from his name, are called Pilulæ tartareæ Bontii. The Dutch for a long time kept this composition a secret; but they have been analysed by the industry of some physicians, and the ingredients are now well known. He wrote some commentaries on Hippocrates, but published no part of them. He left two sons, both eminent in the medical art, James and Reyner.

, called by some, John, a native of Leyden, was educated in philosophy and medicine under his father, Gerard; and being sent to the East Indies, practised physic at Batavia about the middle of the seventeenth century. On his return to Europe he wrote several valuable works on the diseases and practice of medicine of India, These are, “De conservanda Valetudine, ac dieta sanis in India observandis;” “Methodus modendi, qua oportet in India orientali uti;” “Observationes selectse ex dissectione cadaverum ac autopsia descriptae.” He also published curious observations relating to the botany and natural history of those regions, especially the vegetables used in medicine and diet, in his work entitled “De Medicina Indorum,” in 1642, and afterwards, with Alpinus’s work, “De Medicina Ægyptiorum,” 1718, 4to. He also published “Historia Nat. et Med. Indise orientalis,” 1658, fol. His brother Reyner was many years professor of medicine at Leyden, and rector of the university. He died in 1623.

, a nonjuring clergyman of great piety and learning, son of the rev. John Bonwicke, rector of Mickleham in Surrey, was born April 29, 1G52, and educated at Merchant Taylors school. Thence he was elected to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1668, where he was appointed librarian in 1670; B.A. 1673; M. A. March 18, 1675; was ordained deacon May 21, 1676; priest, June 6 (Trinity Sunday), 1680; proceeded B. D. July 21, 1682; and was elected master of Merchant Taylors school June 9, 1686. In 1689, the college of St. John’s petitioned the Merchant Taylors company, that he might continue master of the school (which is a nursery for their college) for life; but, at Christmas 1691, he was turned out for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, and was afterwards for many years master of a celebrated school at Headley, near Leatherhead in Surrey, where he had at one time the honour of having the poet Fenton for his usher, and Bowyer (who was afterwards the learned printer) for a scholar.

Mr. Nichols has in ms. a curious correspondence of Mr. Bonwicke with Mr. Blechynden, on occasion of his ejection from the Merchant Taylors school, with many of his college exercises, and letters to his father. Some letters, which convey an admirable idea of his unaffected piety and goodness, may be seen in the Life of Bowyer. A copy of his verses, whilst fellow of St. John’s, is printed in an Oxford collection, on the death of king Charles II. 1685. By his wife (Elizabeth Stubbs) Mr. Bonwicke had twelve children, one of whom furnished the subject of a very interesting little volume, entitled “A Pattern for Young Students in the University, set forth in the Life of Mr. Ambrose Bonwicke, some time scholar of St. John’s College, Cambridge,” 1729, 12mo, of which Mr. Nichols has given an excellent analysis, with additions, in his late Literary History.

, one of those impostors who amused the public in the seventeenth century, was born at Manchester in 1601, and was bred a haberdasher in Lawrencelane, London, but quitted this employment and followed that of a writing-master at Hadley in Middlesex, and was afterwards for some time clerk to the sitting aldermen at Guildhall. He in a few years rendered himself so eminent, that he was appointed licenser of mathematical books, under which were included all those that related to the celestial sciences. Lilly tells us, that he once thought him the greatest astrologer in the world; but it appears that he afterwards sunk in his esteem, and that he thought himself a much greater man. We are told by the same author, that “he had a curious fancy in judging of thefts, and was as successful in resolving love questions,” which was a capital branch of his trade. George Wharton, who was formerly one of his astrological friends, had a great quarrel with him, which occasioned his publishing “MercurioCrelico Mastix; or an Anti-caveat to all such as have heretofore had the misfortune to be cheated and deluded by that great and treacherous impostor John Booker; in an answer to his frivolous pamphlet, entitled Mercurius Coelicus, or a Caveat to all the people of England;” Oxon. 1644, 4to. The only work of Booker’s worth notice is, his “Bloody Irish Almanac,” which contains some memorable particulars relative to the war in Ireland. He died April 1667, and his books were sold to Elias Ashmole, who, as Lilly informs us, and we may readily believe, gave more for them than they were worth.

, a portrait-painter, was born at Dort, in 1669, and after having been for some time a disciple of Arnold Verbuis, placed himself under Godfrey Schalcken, who recommended to him, after having received his instructions for six years, to study nature. By following this advice, Boonen obtained the reputation of a great master at the age of twenty-five years. His style of colouring was extremely good; the attitudes of his figures were elegantly disposed; his touch neat. The whole possessed such harmony, and his portraits maintained such a striking likeness, that he was ranked among the ablest artists of his time; he had a number of admirers, and a greater demand for works than he was able to execute. He had the honour of painting the portraits of the czar of Muscovy, of Frederick I. king of Prussia, of the victorious duke of Marlborough, as well as of many of the princes of Germany, and most of the noblemen who attended the czar. His health was impaired by his excessive application, and he died rich in 1729.

, of a noble family, was born at Gorcum, in Holland, in 1604. After taking his degree of doctor in medicine, he came to England, and was in such estimation for his skill in his profession, that he was made physician to king Charles I. On the death of that prince he settled in Dublin, but died soon after, viz. in 1650. In 1630 he published “Heures de Recreation,” 4to, in the Dutch language; and in 1640, “Philosophia Naturalis reformata,” which are not, however, much esteemed. His brother Arnold, likewise a physician, was well versed in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac languages. After taking his degree of doctor in medicine, he came also to London; but on the breaking out of the troubles here, he removed to Ireland, where he practised with success and reputation for some years. Tired at length with the hurry and confusion incident to civil commotions, and having experienced some losses, he went to Paris, and there passed the remainder of his life in retirement and study. He died in 1653. He published, in 1649, “Observationes Medicae de affcctibus a veteribus omissis,” 12mo. Haller gives a particular account of this volume, which contains many interesting and curious observations.

, a pious and popular dissenting minister of the Baptist persuasion, was born at Blackwell in Derbyshire, May 20, 1734, of poor parents, who were unable to give him any education. He spent a considerable part of his youth in the farming business, and that of the stocking frame, but appears to have during this time read much, and at length began to preach among the sect called the general baptists, throughout the towns and villages in his neighbourhood. In his twenty-third year he married; and this producing a numerous family, he opened a school at Button-Ash field. At this time he held the doctrine of universal redemption, and disliked predestination to such a degree as to ridicule it in a poem (of which he was afterwards ashamed), but he now changed his sentiments and became a zealous Calvinist in that and othei points supposed to constitute the Calvinistic system. The consequence of this change was, an avowal and defence of his new opinions in his first publication, “The Reign of Grace,” in which he was encouraged hy the late rev. Henry Venn, vicar of Huddersfield, who wrote a recommendatory preface to it. It appeared in 1768, and led to a new and important aera in his life, being so much approved by the congregation of particular baptists in Prescot-street, Goodman’s fields, whose pastor was just dead, that they invited Mr. Booth to succeed him. This invitation he accepted, and in Feb. 1769, took possession of his pulpit, after being regularly ordained for the first time. Here he appears for some years to have spent what time he could spare from his public labours in laying in a stock of knowledge; and although he always lamented the want of a regular education, his proficiency, and the extent of his reading were so great as in some measure to redeem his time, and place him on a footing, both as a scholar, preacher, and writer, with the ablest of his brethren. He knew Greek and Latin usefully, if not critically: the Greek Testament he went through nearly fifty times by the simple expedient of reading one chapter every day. General science and literature, history, civil and ecclesiastical, he investigated with acuteness in the ablest writers, English, French, Dutch, and German; and his works show that he particularly excelled in a knowledge of controversial divinity, and of those arguments, pro and con, which were connected with his opinions as a baptist. After exercising his ministry in Prescot-street for nearly thirty-seven years, he died Monday, Jan. 27, 1806, and his memory was honoured by a tablet and inscription in his meeting-house, recording his virtues and the high respect his congregation entertained for him. Besides the work already mentioned, he published, 1. “The Death of Legal Hope, the Life of Evangelical Obedience,” 1770, 12mo. 2. “The Deity of Jesus Christ essential to the Christian Religion,” a translation from Abbadie, and occasioned by the subscription controversy, 1770. 3. “An Apology for the Baptists in refusing communion at the Lord’s Table to Pscdobaptists,” 1778. 4. “Paedobaptism examined, on the principles, concessions, and reasonings of the most learned Psedobaptists,” 1784, and enlarged 1737, 2 vols. a work which his sect consider as unanswerable. He published also some lesser tracts and occasional sermons.

, a celebrated tragic actor, was born in the county palatine of Lancaster, 1681. At the age of nine years he was put to Westminster school, under the tuition of the famous Dr. Busby, where he soon discovered an excellent genius and capacity. He had a peculiar turn for Latin poetry, and had fixed many of the finest passages of the antients so firmly in his memory, that he could repeat them with such propriety of emphasis, and gracefulness of action, as to charm every body who heard him. Thence it was, that when, according to custom, a Latin play was to be acted, one of the first parts was given to young Booth; who performed it in such a manner as gained him universal applause, and particular respect from the doctor. This first gave him an inclination for the stage. His father intended him for the church: but when Barton reached the age of seventeen, and was about to be sent to the university, he stole away from school, and went over to Ireland in 1698, with Mr. Ashbury, master of the company. Here he was soon distinguished greatly by his theatrical abilities, especially in tragedy, for which he seemed to be formed by nature; for he had a grave countenance and a good person, with a fine voice and a manly action. When he had been three seasons in Dublin, in which time he had acquired a great reputation, he resolved to return to England; which he accordingly did in 1701, and was recommended to Mr. Betterton, who behaved to him with great civility, and took him into his company. The first character in which he appeared on the English stage, was that of Maximus, in the tragedy of Valentinian; and it was scarce possible for a young actor to meet with a better reception. The Ambitious Stepmother coming on soon after, he performed the part of Artaban, which added considerably to the reputation he had acquired, and made him esteemed one of the first actors. Nor was his fame less in all the succeeding characters which he attempted; but he shone with greatest lustre in the tragedy of Cato, which was brought on the stage in 1712. “Although Cato (says Mr. Cibber) seems plainly written upon what are called whig principles, yet the tories at that time had sense enough not to take it as the least reflection on their administration; but, on the contrary, seemed to brandish and vaunt their approbation of every sentiment in favour of liberty, which, by a public act of their generosity, was carried so high, that one day while the play was acting, they collected 50 guineas in the boxes, and made a present of them to Booth, with this compliment For his honest opposition to a perpetual dictator, and his dying so bravely in the cause of liberty.” The reputation to which Booth was now arrived seemed to entitle him to a share in the management of the theatre; but this perhaps his merit would never have procured, had it not been through the favour of lord Bolingbroke, who, in 1713, recalling all former licences, procured a new one, in which Booth’s name was added to those of Gibber, Wilks, and Dogget. Dogget, however, was so much offended at this, that he threw up his share, and would not accept of any consideration for it; but Gibber tells us, he only made this a pretence, and that the true reason of his quitting was his dislike to Wilks, whose humour was become insupportable to him. When Booth came to a share in the management of the house, he was in the thirty-third year of his age, and in the highest reputation as an actor: nor did his fame as a player sink by degrees, as sometimes has happened to those who have been most applauded, but increased every day more and more. The health of Booth, however, beginning to decline, he could not act so often as usual; and hence became more evident the public favour towards him, by the crowded audiences his appearance drew, when the intervals of his distemper permitted him to tread the stage: but his constitution broke now very fast, and he was attacked with a complication of distempers, which carried him off, May 10, 1733.

His character as an actor has been celebrated by some of the best judges. Mr. Aaron Hill, a gentleman, who by the share he had in the management of the play-house, could not but have sufficient opportunities of becoming well acquainted with his merit, has given us a very high character of him. “Two advantages (says this gentleman) distinguished him in the strongest light from the rest of his fraternity; he had learning to understand perfectly whatever it was his part to speak, and judgment to know how far it agreed or disagreed with his character. Hence arose a peculiar grace, which was visible to every spectator, though few were at the pains of examining into the cause of their pleasure. He could soften, and slide over with a kind of elegant negligence, the improprieties in a part he acted; while, on the contrary, he would dwell with energy upon the beauties, as if he everted a latent spirit, which had been kept back for such an occasion, that he might alarm, awaken, and transport in those places only where the dignity of his own good sense could be supported by that of his author. A little reflection upon this remarkable quality will teach us to account for that manifest languor, which has sometimes been observed in his action, and which was generally, though I think falsely, imputed to the natural indolence of his temper. For the same reason, though in the customary rounds of his business he would condescend to some parts in comedy, he seldom appeared in any of them with much advantage to his character. The passions which he found in comedy were not strong enough to excite his fire, and what seemed want of qualification, was only absence of impression. He had a talent at discovering the passions, where they lay hid in some celebrated parts, by the injudicious practice of other actors, which when he had discovered, he soon grew able to express: and his secret for attaining this great lesson of the theatre was an adaption of his look to his voice, by which artful imitation of nature, the variations in the sound of his words gave propriety to every change in his countenance. So that it was Mr. Booth’s peculiar felicity to be heard and seen the same whether as the pleased, the grieved, the pitying, the reproachful, or the angry. One would almost be tempted to borrow the aid of a very bold figure, and, to express this excellence the more significantly, beg permission, to affirm, that the blind might have seen him in his voice, and the deaf have heard him in his visage. His gesture, or, as it is commonly called, his action, was but the result and necessary consequence of his dominion over his voice and countenance; for having, by a concurrence of two such causes, impressed his imagination with such a stamp and spirit of passion, he ever obeyed the impulse by a kind of natural dependency, and relaxed or braced successively into all that fine expressiveness, with which he painted what he spoke without restraint or affectation.”

Mr. Gibber has also taken particular notice of Booth, nor has he omitted either his excellencies or defects: this writer, speaking of Wilks and him, says, “they were actors so opposite in their manner, that if either of them could have borrowed a little of the other’s fault, they would both have been improved by it. If Wilks had sometimes too great a vivacity, Booth as often contented himself with too grave a dignity. The latter seemed too much to heave up his words, as the other to dart them to the ear with too quick and sharp a vehemence. Thus Wiiks would too frequently break into the time and measure of the harmony by too many spirited accents in one line; and Booth, by too solemn a regard to harmony, would as often lose the necessary spirit of it: so that (as I have observed) could we have sometimes raised the one and sunk the other, they had both been nearer the mark. Yet this could not be always objected to them; they had their intervals of unexceptionable excellence, that more than balanced their errors. The master-piece of Booth was Othello; then he was most in character, and seemed not more to animate and please himself in it than his spectators. It is true he owed his last and highest advancement to his acting Cato; but it was the novelty and critical appearance of that character, that chiefly swelled the torrent of his applause; for, let the sentiments of a declaiming patriot have all the sublimity of poetry, and let them be delivered with all the utmost grace and elocution, yet this is but one light wherein the excellence of an actor can shine; but in Othello we may see him in the variety of nature. In Othello, therefore, I may safely aver, that Booth shewed himself thrice the actor that he could in Cato, and yet his merit in acting Cato need not be diminished by this comparison. Wilks often regretted, that in tragedy he had not the full and strong voice of Booth, to command and grace his periods with. But Booth used to say, that if his ear had been equal to it, Wilks had voice enough to have shewn himself a much better tragedian. Now, though there might be some truth in this, yet these two actors were of so mixed a merit, that even in tragedy the superiority was not always on the same side. In sorrow, tenderness, or resignation, Wilks plainly had the advantage, and seemed more pathetically to feel, look, and express his calamity. But in the more turbulent transports of the heart, Booth again bore the palm, and left all competitors behind him.”

Besides his professional merit, Booth was a man of letters, and an author in more languages than one. He had a taste for poetry, which discovered itself when he was very young, in translations from several Odes of Horace; and in his riper years, he wrote several songs and other original poems, which were very far from injuring his reputation. He was also the author of a mask or dramatic entertainment called “Dido and JEneas,” that was very well received upon the stage; but his best performance was a Latin inscription to the memory of a celebrated actor, Mr. William Smith, one of the greatest men of his profession, and of whom Mr. Booth always spoke in raptures. This short elogy has much strength, beauty, and elegance. In his private life he had many virtues, and few of the failings so common to his profession. He had no envy in his composition, but readily approved, and as readily rewarded, merit, as it was in his power. He was something rough in his manner, and a little hasty in his temper, but very open and free to speak his sentiments, which he always did with an air of sincerity, that procured him as much credit with people at first sight, as he had with those to whom he had been long known. He was kind to all the players whose circumstances were indifferent, and took care not to make them uneasy, either in point of salary or of usage. He was no great speaker in company, but when he did, it was in a grave lofty way, not unlike his pronunciation on the stage. He had a great veneration for his parents while they were living, and was also very useful to his brother and sister after their decease. Booth was twice married; first in 1704, to Miss Frances Barkham, daughter of sir William Barkham, of Norfolk, bart. who died in 1710, without issue; and secondly, to Mrs. Santlowe, an actress, who. survived him forty years, and in 1772, erected a monument to his memory in Westminster abbey. In 1737 she married Mr. Goodyer,a gentleman of fortune in Essex.

, Lord Delamer, the son of William Booth, esq. and grandson of sir George Booth, bart. rendered himself remarkable by heading an insurrection in Cheshire, about a year after the death of Oliver Cromwell. He received a commission from king Charles II. under his signet and sign-manual, bearing date July 22, 1659, by which he was constituted commander in chief of all forces to be raised for his majesty’s service in Cheshire, Lancashire, and North Wales. A duplicate of this was dated at Brussels, Aug. 9, the same year, but sir George did not openly profess to act by the king’s authority, or with a view to his restoration, but only in opposition to the tyranny of the parliament. He assembled about four thousand men, took possession of Chester, and was joined by the earl of Derby, sir Thomas Middleton, and major Brook. Bui the parliamentary forces pursued sir George and his adherents so closely, that they could not avoid coming to an action; and, after a sharp contest, on the 19th of August, 1659, Lambert totally routed sir George Booth’s troops, pursued them a considerable way, and killed and took many of them. Ludlow informs us, that “Sir George Booth, after his defeat, put himself into a woman’s habit, and with two servants hoped to escape to London, riding behind one of them. The single horseman going before, went to an inn on the road; and, as he had been ordered, bespoke a supper for his mistress, who, he said, was coming after. The pretended mistress being arrived, either by alighting from the horse, or some other action, raised a suspicion in the master of the house, that there was some mystery under that dress. And thereupon resolving to make a full inquiry into the matter, he got together some of his neighbours to assist him, and with them entered the room vyhere the pretended lady was. But sir George Booth suspecting their intentions, and being unwilling to put them to the trouble of a farther search, discovered himself. Whereupon they took him into their custody, and sent him up to London, where the parliament committed him prisoner to the Tower.” Sir George made applications to many of the parliament and council, by his friends, for favour; was examined by Haselrig and Vane, who referred his examination to the council of state; and applications were made from the lord Say, and others, to save his life.

He was afterwards set at liberty, upon giving bail; and being member of parliament for Chester, he was the first of the twelve members sent by the house of commons, in May 1660, to carry to king Charles II. the answer of that house to his majesty’s letter, as appears by the journals of the house of commons, May 7, 1660. And on the 13th of July following, the house of commons ordered, that the sum of ten thousand pounds should be conferred on him, as a mark of respect for his eminent services, and great sufferings for the public. In this resolution the lords afterwards concurred. It appears, that the first motion was for twenty thousand pounds, which the house of commons was about to agree to, had not sir George Booth himself, in his place, requested of the house, that it might be no more than ten; declaring, that what he had done was purely with intention of serving his king and country, as became him in duty to do, without view of any reward. After the restoration, his services were also considered as so meritorious, that the king gave him liberty to propose six gentlemen to receive the honour of knighthood, and two others to have the dignity of baronet conferred on them. He was also himself created baron Delamer of Dunham-Massey; and on the 30th of July, 1660, he was appointed custos rotulorum for the county of Cheshire, but on the 30th of May, 1673, he resigned this office to Henry, his son and heir. “After this,” says Collins, “he not being studious to please the court in those measures which were taken in some parts of that reign, both he and his family were soon afterwards disregarded by the king, and ill used by his successor king James the Second.” His lordship died at Dunham-Massey, in the 63d year of his age, on the 8th of August, 1684, and was buried in a very splendid manner at Bowdon, in the burial-vault of the family. He was twice married: his first wife was the lady Catherine Clinton, daughter and co-heir to Theophilus earl of Lincoln, who died in child-bed in 1643, by whom he had issue one daughter, Vere, who Belied unmarried at Canonbury-house, in 1717, in the seventy-fourth year of her age, and was buried in Islington church. His second wife was the lady Elizabeth Grey, eldest daughter of Henry earl of Stamford, by whom he had issue seven sons and five daughters. His eldest son, William, died young, and he was succeeded in his honours and estate by his second son, Henry, who is the subject of the following article.

, earl of Warrington, and baron Delamer of Dunham Massey, an upright senator and distinguished patriot, was born on the 13th of January, 1651. He was the second son of the preceding George lord Delamer, by the lady Elizabeth Grey. In the life-time of his father, he was custos rotulorum for the county palatine of Chester, and also knight of the shire for that county, in several parliaments during the reign of king Charles ths Second. He very early rendered himself conspicuous by his zeal for the protestant religion, and the liberties of his country. When the bill for excluding the duke of York from the throne was brought into parliament, Mr. Booth was very active in the promotion of it, and also made a spirited speech in support of the necessity of frequent parliaments, and against governing by favourites; and he opposed, with a becoming spirit, the unjust and arbitrary power assumed by the privy council, of imprisoning men contrary to law.

As he was solicitous for frequent parliaments, so he was also anxious that they should be preserved incorrupt. He was, therefore, desirous of procuring an act for the punishment of those who had received bribes from the court, as members of that parliament which was styled the pensionparliament. He proposed, that a bill should be brought in, by which these prostituted senators should be rendered incapable of serving in parliament for the future, or of enjoying any office, civil or military; and that they should be obliged, as far as they were able, to refund all the money that they had received for secret services to the crown.

He made likewise a speech in parliament against the corruption of the judges, in which he affirmed, that, in a variety of cases, they had sold, denied, or delayed justice. “Our Judges,” said he, “have been very corrupt and lordly, taking bribes, and threatening juries and evidence; perverting the law to the highest degree, turning the law upside down, that arbitrary power may come in upon their shoulders.” He therefore recommended, that an inquiry should be made into their conduct, and that such of them as were found guilty might receive the punishment they merited.

Mr. Booth was also extremely zealous against the papists; and this circumstance, together with the vigorous opposition that he made in parliament to the arbitrary measures of the court, occasioned him to be put out of the commission of the peace, and removed from the office of custos rotulorum of the county of Chester. In 1684, by the death of his father, he became lord Delamer; but about this time he was committed close prisoner to the Tower of London. The pretence probably was, that he was suspected of being concerned in some practices against the crown; but we have met with no particular account of the accusation against him: and as no parliament was then, sitting, it may be presumed, that less attention was paid to any illegality in the proceedings respecting him. He was, however, set at liberty, after a few months imprisonment. But soon after the accession of king James II. he was again committed prisoner to the Tower. After being confined for some time, he was admitted to bail; but was, shortly after, a third time committed to the Tower. This was on the 26th of July, 1685; and a parliament being assembled in the November following, on the first day of the session he stated his case in a petition to the house of peers. He represented to their lordships, that the king, by his proclamation, had required him. to appear before him in council within ten days. He had accordingly surrendered himself to lord Sunderland, then principal secretary of state; and being brought before his majesty, then sitting in council, he was neither confronted by any person who accused him, nor otherwise charged with any kind of treason, but only questioned about some inferior matters, and which were of such a nature, that, if he had been really guilty of them, he ought by law to have been admitted to bail: notwithstanding which, he had been committed close prisoner to the Tower, by a warrant from the secretary of state, in which he was charged with high, treason. After some debate, it was resolved, that the lords with white staves should wait upon his majesty, “to know the reason why the lord Delamer, a member of their house, was absent from his attendance there.” The day following, the earl of Rochester, lord treasurer, reported to the house, “That he, with the other lords, having waited on his majesty with their message, his majesty was pleased to answer, That the lord Delamer stood committed for high treason, testified upon oath; and that his majesty had already given directions, that he should be proceeded against according to law.”

After the parliament was broken up, lord Delamer was brought to his trial, before a select number of the peers, on the 14th of January, 1685-6. The peers who tried him were, the dukes of Norfolk, Somerset, Beaufort, and Grafton the earls of Rochester, Sunderland, Mulgrave, Oxford, Shrewsbury, Huntingdon, Pembroke, Bridgwater, Peterborough, Scarsdale, Craven, Feversham, Berkeley, Nottingham, and Plymouth; the viscounts Falconberg and Newport; and the lords Ferrers, Cromwell, Maynard, Dartmouth, Godolphin, and Churchill. Jefferies, then lord chancellor, was appointed lord high steward on the occasion. He was known to be a personal enemy of lord Delamer, who had arraigned in parliament the conduct of Jefferies as chief justice of Chester. Lord Delamer, after the indictment against him was read, objected against the jurisdiction of the court; alleging, that he ought not to be tried by a select number of the peers, but by the whole body of the house of peers in parliament, because the parliament was then only under a prorogation, and not dissolved. But his plea was overruled. In Jefferies’s charge to the peers, previous to the opening of the evidence against lord Delamer, he threw out some hints relative to the share his lordship had in promoting the bill of exclusion, and introduced an eulogium on the conduct of king James the Second. The only positive evidence against lord Delamer was one Thomas Saxon, a man of a very bad character, and who in the course of the trial was proved to be perjured. Jefferies maintained, that there was no necessity, in point of law, that there should be two positive witnesses to convict a man of treason; and that where there was only one positive witness, additional circumstances might supply the place of a second. Lord Delamer made a very able defence; and by the lords who were appointed to try him he was unanimously acquitted.

After this he lived for some time in a retired manner, at his seat at Dunham-Massey; but matters being at length ripe for the revolution, he exerted himself in the promotion of that great event. Upon the prince of Orange’s landing, he raised, in a very few days, a great force in Cheshire and Lancashire, with which he marched to join that prince. On his first appearance in arms, besides assigning other reasons for his conduct, he is said to have made this declaration: “I am of opinion, that when the nation is delivered, it must be by force, or miracle: it would be a great presumption to expect the latter; and, therefore, our deliverance must be by force; and I hope this is the time for it.” After he had joined the prince, he was sent by his highness, together with the marquis of Halifax, and the earl of Shrewsbury, on the 17th of December, 1688, with a message to king James, intimating to him, that he must remove from Whitehall. Lord Delamer, though little attached to that prince in his prosperity, was too generous to insult him in his distress; and therefore, on this occasion, treated him with respect. And James was so sensible of this instance of his lordship’s civility to him, that, after his retirement into France, he said, that <c the lord Delamer, whom he had used ill, had then treated him with much more regard than the other two lords, to whom he had been kind, and from whom he might better have expected it."

Lord Delamer, however, had no inclination that an accommodation should take place between king James and the nation. For in a debate in the house of peers, the 3 1st of January, 16S8-9, relative to declaring the throne vacant, lord Delamer said, that “it was long since he thought himself absolved from his allegiance to king James; that he owed him none, and never would pay him any; and, if king James came again, he was resolved to fight against him, and would die single with his sword in his hand, rather than pay him any obedience.” It is intimated by sir John Dalrymple, that lord Delamer was not sufficiently expeditious in joining the prince of Orange when he first landed in England; and that gentleman affirms, that this was never forgiven by king William: but this is an assertion unsupported by any proper evidence. It is certain, that his services in the promotion of the revolution were thought so meritorious at that period, that on the 13th of February, 1688-9, he was sworn a privy counsellor; on the 9th of April following, he was appointed chancellor and under treasurer of the exchequer; on the 12th of the same month, made lord-lieutenant of the city and county of Chester; and on the 19th of July made custos rotulorum of the same county. These last offices, together with that of privy counsellor, he enjoyed for life: but he continued in the others only for about a year. The reason appears to have been, that lord Delamer seems to have wished for more retrenchments of the regal prerogative, than were made at the revolution. That he was desirous of some new limitations of the prerogative, is evident from a protest signed by him, relative to a clause proposed to be added to the bill of rights. He also signed a protest respecting an amendment to the bill for recognizing king William and queen Mary.

Though lord Delamer was removed from the administration, it was thought necessary to confer on him some mark of royal favour. Accordingly, by letters-patent, bearing date at Westminster, April 17, 1690, he was created earl of Warrington, in the county of Lancaster, to continue to him and the heirs-male of his body. A pension likewise of two thousand pounds per annum was granted to him, for the better support of that dignity. And it was said, in the preamble of the patent for his earldom, that it was conferred on him, “for his great services in raising and bringing great forces to his majesty, to rescue his country and religion from tyranny and popery.” On the 3d of January, 1692-3, the earl of Warrington signed a protest against the rejection of the bill for incapacitating persons in office under the crown, either civil or military, from sitting in the house of commons. Two other protests were also signed by him on different occasions. But this patriotic peer did not live long to enjoy his new dignity; for he died at London on the 2d of January, 1693-4, having not quite completed the forty-second year of his age. He was interred in the family vault in Bowdon church, in the county of Chester, on the 14th of the same month. Mr. Granger says, that lord Delamer was “a man of a generous and noble nature, which disdained, upon any terms, to submit to servitude; and whose passions seemed to centre in the love of civil and religious liberty.” In every part of his life, indeed, he appears to have been actuated by the same principles; and in his “Advice to his Children,” printed in his works, he says, “There never yet was any good man who had not an ardent zeal for his country.” He was not only illustriously distinguished by his public spirit, and his noble ardour in defence of the liberties of his country; but in his private life he appears to have been a man of strict piety, and of great worth, honour, and humanity. He married Mary, sole daughter and heiress to sir James Langham, of Cottesbrooke, in the county of Northampton, knight and baronet, by whom he had four sons, and two daughters. His first son died an infant, and his second son, George, upon the death of his father, became earl of Warrington. He died on the 2d of August, 1758, and leaving no heirs male, the earldom became extinct, but was revived in his daughter’s husband.

The works of Henry earl of Warrington, the subject of this article, were published in 1694, in one volume 8vo. They consist chiefly of speeches made by him in parliament, prayers used by his lordship in his family, some short political tracts, and the case of William earl of Devonshire. He published also, “The late lord Russel’s case, with observations upon it,” 1689, fol.

The son of the preceding, who, we have just mentioned, died in 1758, has obtained a place among the royal and noble authors, for having published, but without his name, “Considerations upon the institution of Marriage, with some thoughts concerning the force and obligation of the marriage contract; wherein is considered, how far divorces may or ought to be allowed. By a gentleman. Humbly submitted to the judgment of the impartial,” Lond. printed for John Whiston, 1739. Jt is an argument for divorce on disagreement of temper, which was the aim of Milton in his “Tetrachordon,” and would, if we may conjecture from the effects of the experiment in a neighbouring nation, create more dissoluteness and misery than it was intended to remove. He also wrote a letter to the writer of the “Present state of the Republic of Letters” in, August 1734, vindicating his father from some reflections cast on him in Burnett’s “History of his own times.” His only daughter married Henry earl of Stamford, in whose son, the title of Earl of Warrington was revived in 1796.

, or Boquinus, a French divine, and one of the contributors to the reformation, was born in Aquitaine, and educated in a monastery at Bourges, of which he became prior, and in high estimation with his brethren. Having, however, perused some of the writings of Luther, Bucer, &c. he imbibed their sentiments, and went to Wittemberg, where he became acquainted with Luther and Melancthon, and at Basil he attended the lectures of Myconius, Carlostadt, and Sebastian Muncer. Melancthon afterwards recommended him as a proper person to supply Calvin’s place at Strasburgh, who had gone back to Geneva; and there he gave lectures on the epistle to the Galatians, and soon after had for his coadjutor Peter Martyr. Boquine being at some distance of time invited by his brother, who was a doctor in divinity, and not an enemy to the reformation, removed to Bourges, in. hopes that the French churches were friendly to his doctrine, and there he publicly read and expounded the Hebrew Bible. About this time, Francis, king of France, being dead, the queen of Navarre came to Bourges, when Boquine presented her with a book he had written on the necessity and use of the Holy Scriptures, which she received very graciously, allowed him a yearly stipend out of her treasury, and appointed him to preach a public lecture in the great church of Bourges, with the consent of the archbishop. He remained in like favour with her successor, king Henry’s sister; but the enemies of the reformation threatening his life, he was obliged to desist from his labours, and went back to Strasburgh, where he was appointed pastor to the French church. This office, however, he filled only about four months, and in 1557 went into Heidelberg, at the invitation of Otho Henry, prince elector Palatine, who was carrying on the reformation in his churches. Here he was appointed professor of divinity, and continued in this office about twenty years, under Otho and Frederic III. After the death of the latter in 1576, the popish party again prevailing, drove him and the rest of the reformed clergy from the place, but almost immediately he was invited to Lausanne, where he remained until his death in 1582. He left various works, the dates of which his biographers have not given, except the following “Oratio in obitum Frederici III. Comit. Palatini,” Leyden, 1577, 4to; but their titles are, 1. “Defensio ad calumnias Doctoris cujusdam Avii in Evangelii professores.” 2. “Examen libri quern Heshusius inscripsit.de praesentia corporis Christi in coena Domini.” 3. “Theses in ccena Domini.” 4. “Exegesis divinsc communicationis.” 5. “Adsertio veteris, ac veri Christianismi adversus novum et fictum Jesuitismum.” This appears to have been one of his ablest works, and was translated into English under the title, “A defence of the old and true profession of Christianitie against the new counterfeite sect of Jesuites, by Peter Boquine, translated by T. G.” London, 1581, 8vo, by John Wolf, city printer. 6. “Notatio praecipuarum causarum diuturnitatis controversial de crena Domini,” &c.

a painter, engraver, and antiquary, was born at Brussels in 1583, but when in his third year, the war obliged his parents to remove into Germany. From his earliest years he discovered a taste for painting, which induced his father to place him under Giles Van Valkenberg. He afterwards studied in Italy, and travelling over Germany, settled first at Franhendal, and in 1627 at Francfort on the Maine. His paintings, principally fruit and flowers, were much admired, but he perhaps had more reputation as an antiquary, in which capacity, the earl of Arundel sent him into Italy to Mr. Petty, who was then collecting for his lordship, and retained him in his service as long as he lived. After the death of this patron, Vander Borcht was employed by the prince of Wales (afterwards Charles II.) and lived in esteem at London several years, till he returned to Antwerp, where he died in 1660. As an engraver we have some few etchings by him; among the rest the “Virgin and Child,” a small upright print, from Parmigiano, engraved at London in 1637; a “Dead Christ, supported by Joseph of Arimathea,” from the same master, and “Apollo and Cupid,” a small upright oval from Perin del Vago.

, a celebrated French mathematician and natural philosopher, was born at Dax, in the department of the Landes, May 4, 1733. His mother was Maria Theresa de Lacroix, and his father John Anthony Borda, whose ancestors had acquired considerable distinction in the French army. He began his studies in the college of the Barnabites at Dax, where he gave early indications of his future genius. He was a considerable time after put under the charge of the Jesuits of La Fleche, and by his ardour for study and superior talents, frequently carried off the prizes which were held out as the reward of youthful genius. This induced the Jesuits to endeavour to press him into their order, but his attachment to geometry was too powerful to be weakened by their persuasions. He encountered afterwards a more formidable opposition from his father, who was hostile to the prosecution of what he called unprofitable studies, and endeavoured to please him by proposing to enter into the engineer service of the army, where the objects of his profession would necessarily require a knowledge of geometry and physics. His father, however, having eleven children, and being obliged to support two of his sons who were already in the army, was anxious that Charles should look forward to some situation in the magistracy, which might be obtained without much expence and trouble. To these views Borda reluctantly submitted; but after having thus lost some of the most precious years of his youth, a friar, who was a particular friend of his father, obtained, by earnest solicitation, that he should be allowed to devote himself to his favourite science; and, every restraint being now removed, he was in 1753, when only twenty years of age, introduced to D'Alembert, who advised him to remain in the capital, and look forward to a situation in the academy. Borda accordingly entered the light horse, and continuing his mathematical studies, he became professor to his comrades.

In 1756, he laid before the academy a memoir on the motion of projectiles, which was particularly mentioned in the history of its proceedings; and in the same year he was appointed an associate of the academy. In the following year he was called into active service, and was present at the battle of Hastembeck, July 26, 1757, as aid-de-camp to M. de Maillebois. He willingly returned, however, from a species of duty which interrupted the progress of his studies; and, upon his arrival at Paris, he became a candidate for a situation in the engineer service: and such was the estimation in which his talents were held, that he was received without examination, and immediately employed as an inspector of the dock-yards. This new appointment was highly favourable for calling into action the peculiar talents of Borda. It inspired him with a fondness for every thing that related to the naval service: and, what seldom happens to the man of genius, he found himself in a situation in which he was led both by his profession and by his inclination to the same line of study.

The first object of his research was an examination of the theories of the resistance of fluids, a subject intimately connected with the advancement and perfection of naval architecture. The experiments upon this subject made by the academy of sciences, were by no means fitted to determine the resistance of bodies that were wholly immersed in the fluid. Borda, however, employed a method which was susceptible of great accuracy, and had also the advantage of ascertaining accurately the velocity of the motion. The surfaces upon which his experiments were made were of various forms, and the experiments were made both in air and water. The results of these inseresting experiments are given at length in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1763 and 1767. The apparatus, however, employed by Borda, was not of his own invention. A machine of the same kind had been used some time before by our ingenious countryman, Benjamin Robins, in his admirable experiments on the resistance of air. Yet we are indebted to Borda for many ingenious experiments and observations on the motion of fluids through different orifices. He prepared a theory of the motion of fluids different from that which had been given by Bernoulli and D'Alembert, and he made new experiments on the vena contracta.

In 1767, he published an excellent dissertation in the Memoirs of the Academy, entitled “Memoire sur les Roues Hydrauliques,” shewing that an undershot wheel produces a maximum effect when its velocity is one-half that of the current, though in practice the velocity is never more than three-eighths that of the current. He proved, after Deparcieux, from theory, before Smeaton had determined it by experiment, that the effect of overshot wheels increases with the slowness of their motion: that they are capable of raising, through the height of the fall, a quantity of water equal to that by which they are driven; that undershot vertical wheels produce only three-eighths of this effect; that horizontal wheels produce about one-half of this effect with plain float-boards, and a little more than one half with curvilineal float-boards. This memoir was followed by another, in 1768, on the construction of water-pumps. About this time Borda’s attention was directed to isoperimetrical problems, in which he obtained the same results as Lagrange, though by a different method. His last work, in the Memoirs of the Academy, was a dissertation on the “Theory of Projectiles.”

These labours induced M. Prasslin, the minister of the marine, to wish for the aid of his talents in the French navy, and after some opposition from official etiquette, he appointed him sub-lieutenant, in which character he first appeared in 1768; but nothing occurred of consequence until 1771, when the French and English were employed in many inventions for the discovery of the longitude at sea, and the French government having determined to try the accuracy of some improved chronometers, the academy of sciences appointed Borda and Pingre to sail for that purpose in the Flora frigate. The result of their voyage was published at Paris in 1778, entitled, “Voyage fait par ordre du Roy en 1771 et 1772, &c.” 2 vols. 4to. He was afterwards employed to determine the position of the Canary Isles, and being promoted to the rank of lieutenant, sailed in 1776, and in the course of his voyage, performed its immediate object, with others. Being appointed majorgeneral to the naval armament which served under Count D'Estaign in America, his experience led him to discover many defects in the construction of vessels, which he thought might be easily remedied. He considered the want of uniformity in the construction of ships, which were to act together, as a great defect, because a great discordance arose in their movements and in the exeeution of signals. Upon his return to France he communicated this idea to government, who immediately resolved to carry it into effect, and his profound knowledge and patriotic exertions did not fail to be acknowledged not only by France, but by the best-informed men in England. The reputation which he had now acquired enabled him to be further serviceable to his country, by drawing up a plan for the schools of naval architecture, of which he may justly be termed the founder, as he not only suggested the idea, but formed the scheme for regulating these seminaries, and laid down the rules for the instruction of the pupils admitted into them.

As a naval officer, however, Borda acquired little fame, and being captured by the English, though after a very brave resistance, he determined to devote the remainder of his days to science and philosophy. During his voyage along with Pingre in 1771, Borda found by experience that Hadley’s quadrant was susceptible of great improvement. The celebrated Tobias Mayer had already endeavoured to remove its imperfections, but the merit of this Borda’s biographer has transferred to him, declaring that Mayer’s idea was never carried into effect, which is completely false; one of Mayer’s circles was made for Admiral Campbell by Bird; and Mayer had himself used an instrument for measuring terrestrial angles upon the repeating principle, which is described in “Commentaries of the Royal Society of Gottingen” for 1752. Borda having examined, with the utmost attention, the construction proposed by Mayer, pointed out its defects, and in a great measure removed them by a circle of his own invention in 1777, known by the name of the “Circle of Borda,” but still it was not without its numerous imperfections, and it was reserved to our ingenious countryman Troughton to bring to perfection one of the happiest inventions that was ever made.

To Borda France is indebted for the invention of the mensuration-rod, with which the new station -lines were lately ascertained. He was also a zealous promoter of the reform in weights and measures; and in order to assist in this, he published “Tables of Sines in the decimal sy.stern,” at his own expence. One of his last labours was, the accurate determination of the length of the pendulum vibrating seconds at Paris. Such were the acknowledged reputation and patriotism of Borda, that the highest offices in the state were not deemed too great for merit such as his; and we accordingly find the name of a man who had been decorated with the cross of merit during the monarchy, entered in the list of candidates for the office of Director under the republic. This occurred in 1797, and on the 20th of February 1799, the National Institute lost one of its greatest ornaments and most assiduous supporters, in consequence of his death, which was occasioned by a dropsy, that cut him off Feb. 20, 1799, in the 64th year of his age.

At the interment of his corpse, nearly the whole of his colleagues attended. Notwithstanding a heavy rain, upwards of one hundred members of the National Institute walked on foot to Montmartre, two a-breast, with a black crape round their arms, and with the eyes of nearly all suffused in tears. On their arrival at the place of interment, Bougainville, a man no less distinguished in arms than in letters, spoke an oration in honour of the deceased.

, or as he styles himself in Latin, Andreas Perforatus, was a very singular character, and the reputation he acquired among his contemporaries must be considered in a great measure as a proof of the ignorance and credulity of the times. He was born at Pevensey in Sussex about 1500, and was educated at Oxford; but before he had taken a degree, entered among the Carthusians in or near London. He afterwards left them, and studied physic at Oxford; and then travelled over most parts of Europe and Africa. On his return he settled at Winchester, where he practised physic with considerable reputation, and in this capacity he is said to have served Henry VIII. In 1541 and 1542 he was at Montpellier, where he probably took the degree of doctor, in which he was soon after incorporated at Oxford. He lived then for some time at Pevensey, and afterwards returned to Winchester, still observing all the austerities of the order to which he formerly belonged; though he has been accused of many irregularities. It is certain that his character was very odd and whimsical, as appears from the books he wrote; yet he is said to have been a man of great wit and learning, and an “especial physician.” That he was not of consequence eminent enough to rank with the first of his profession, may be inferred from his dying insolvent in the Fleet, April 1549. Bale intimates that he hastened his end by poison on the discovery of his keeping a brothel for his brother bachelors. His works are very various in their subjects; one of the most considerable is intituled, “A book of the introduction of knowledge,” black letter, imprinted by William Coplande, without date. He there professes to teach all languages, the customs and fashions of all countries, and the value of every species of coin. This is a motley piece, partly in verse and partly in prose; and is divided into thirty-nine chapters, before each of which is a wooden cut, representing a man in the habit of some particular country. His well known satire on the Englishman, who, to express the inconstancy and mutability of his fashions, is drawn naked with a cloth and a pair of sheers in his hand, is borrowed from the Venetians, who characterised the French in that manner. Before the 7th chapter is the effigies of the author, under a canopy, with a gown, a laurel on his head, and a book before him. The title of this chapter shews how the author dwelt in Scotland and other islands, and went through and round about Christendom. An edition of this singular work was printed in London in 1542. His “Breviary of Health,” which is a very trifling, coarse, and weak performance, was published in 1.547, and is supposed by Fuller to be the first medical piece written in English. As a specimen of the style, take what follows, which is the beginning of the Prologue, addressed to physicians: “Egregious doctors and maisters of the eximious and arcane science of physicke, of your urbanity exasperate not yourselves against me for making this little volume.” This work, with a second part called the “Extravagants,” was reprinted in 4to, 1575. He was also author of the following; “Compendyouse Regimente, or Dietary of Healthe made in Mounte Pyllor,” an edition of which was printed several years after his death, in 1562. A famous jest book called the “Merrye tales of the madmen of Gotham;” “The historye of the miller of Abingdon and the Cambridge scholars,” the same with that related by Chaucer in his Canterbury Tales; a book of “Prognostics,” and another of Urines, &c. It is said that the phrase “Merry Andrew” is derived from him.

, a French historical and miscellaneous writer of considerable fame, was born at Paris in 1734, of an opulent family, and devoted himself in his youth to high life and the fine arts. From being first valet de chambre to Louis XV. he became his favourite > and on the death of that monarch, he obtained the place of farmer-general, the duties of which unpopular office he performed with great assiduity, employing his leisure hours in cultivating music and general literature. He became one of the most celebrated composers of songs, and his “Recueil d'airs,” 4 vols. 8vo, ornamented with fine engravings, is in high esteem. He composed also the music of the opera of “Adela de Ponthieu,” which was performed with considerable success. Happening to read in De Bure, that there had been only thirty copies published of the Collection of antient paintings of Rome, coloured after Bartoli’s designs, he made inquiry for the coppers, had them repaired, and published a second edition of that work. His other works are: 1.“Essais sur la Musique ancienne et moderne,” 1780, 4 vols. 4to, a vast mass of useful materials, but many parts of it are written in the spirit of system and partiality, and many valuable passages of considerable length are borrowed from Dr. Burney and other authors of eminence, without any acknowledgment. The best part is that which treats of the French lyric music and poetry. 2. “Essai sur l‘histoire chronologique de plus de quatrevingts peuples de l’antiquité,” 1783, 8vo. 3. “Memoires historiques, de Coucy,” 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “Pieces interessantes pour servir a l'histoire des regnes de Louis XIII. et de Louis XIV.” 12mo. 5. “Lettres sur la Suisse,” 1781, 2 vols. 8vo. 6. “Abregè chronologique des principaux faits arrives depuis Henoch jusqu'a. Jesus Christ,” 1789, 8vo. 7. “Recueil de vers dedies à Adelaide par le plus heureux des epoux,” 16 mo, a tribute to conjugal happiness, so seldom celebrated by poets. La Borde also published a translation of Swinburne’s Travels; a fine edition of the Historical Romances of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, printed by Didot, in 11 vols, 12mo.; “Tableaux topographiques et pittoresques de la Suisse,” with letter-press and beautiful engravings by Robert: and lastly, in 1792, “L'Histoire abregée de la mer du Sud,” 3 vols. 8vo, containing an analysis of all the voyages to that sea from the time of Goneville, in the fifteenth century, to that of our countryman, Capt. Riou, in 1789. In this also he urges the Spaniards to widen the passage of Nicaragua, which is only three leagues, and make it navigable, and a communication between the North and South Seas, pointing out the advantages this would be attended with in voyages from Europe to China. During the Convention, la Borde retired to Rouen where he hoped to be overlooked, but the spies of the reigning tyrants discovered him, and conducted him to Paris, where he was beheaded July 22, 1791. His wife was the authoress of some “Poems” imitated fnjm the English, and printed by Didot in 1785, 18mo.

, regius professor and director of the academy of surgery, veteran associate of the academy of sciences of Paris, and member of the imperial academy of Florence, was born at Paris April 10, 1728. His father, who was also a surgeon, destined him for the same profession, which had long been followed by the branches of his family, but began with giving him the ordinary course of a learned education that he might acquire the languages in which the most celebrated anatomists of former ages wrote, and some of those principles of philosophy which are the foundation of all sciences and arts. Young Bordenave’s proficiency fully answered his father’s expectations, and he soon fdled the distinguished situations already mentioned, and contributed many valuable papers to the Memoirs of the academy of surgery, on extraordinary cases which occurred in his practice: the treatment of gunshot wounds, and anatomical subjects. He also in 1757 made some experiments to illustrate Haller’s opinion on the difference between sensible or irritable parts, and wrote a work in defence of that celebrated anatomist’s opinion on the formation of the bones, against that of Duhamel. He also, in 1768, translated Haller’s Elements of Physiology for the use of his students, but he had previously, in 1756, published a new work on the same subject, admired for precision of method. Bordenave had long wished for a place in the academy of sciences, and in 1774 was elected a veteran associate. This title, it seems, indicates that the party has been chosen contrary to the statutes, and that the academy did not choose him of their own will; but for this he was not to blame, as such an election was totally contrary to his wish. In a short time, however, the academicians were reconciled, and Bordenave enriched their memoirs with some important papers. Bordenave also became echevin, or sheriff, of Paris, an office never before conferred on a surgeon, but. which he filled in a manner highly creditable, and directed his attention, as a magistrate, chiefly to the health of the city. On the birth of Louis XVII. he was honoured with the ribbon of the order of St. Michael, in consideration of his talents and services, but did not long enjoy this honour, being seized with an apoplexy, which after eight days proved fatal, March 12, 1782. Besides the works already noticed, he published, “Dissertations sur les Antiseptiques,” 1769, 8vo; and “Memoires sur le danger des Caustiques pour la cure radicale des Hernies,” 1774.

a French physician of considerable eminence, was born at Iseste, in Beam, in 1693. After being initiated in the study of medicine by his father, he went to Montpellier, where he was admitted doctor in that faculty in 1719. Invited, in 1723, to Pan, the capital of the province, he acquired so much reputation, as to be appointed physician to the military hospital at Bareges, and inspector of the mineral waters there. To the waters he paid great attention, and in 1750, he published a small treatise, shewing the effects he had experienced from them in a variety of diseases. He lived to an advanced age, but the precise time of his death is not known.

, son to the preceding, was born Feb. 22, 1722, at Iseste in the valley of Ossan inBearn, and at the age of twenty, for his degree of bachelor in the university of Montpellier, where he was then a student, he held a thesis “De sensu generice considerate,” which contains the ground-work of all the publications he afterwards gave. Such early knowledge determined his professors to dispense with several acts usual before admission to practice. In> 1743, he was created M. D. at Montpellier, and two years after succeeded his father, as inspector of the mineral waters, and professor of anatomy. In 1747, he was made corresponding member of the royal academy of Sciences at Paris, whither he soon after went, and where he acquired great reputation. Having taken out his licence in that city in 1754, he was appointed physician to the hopital de la charite. He died of an apoplexy, Nov. 24, 1776. A deep melancholy, occasioned by the flying gout, was the fore-runner of his end. He was found dead in his bed. One of the faculty, jealous of his fame, and who had tried to ruin him by a prosecution, said on the occasion: “I should never have thought he would have died in a horizontal position.” But a witty lady retorted by observing “that death was so much afraid of him, that he was obliged to catch him napping.” The facility with which he exercised his profession, his reluctance to give medicines, and his great confidence in nature, sometimes drew upon him the reproach that he had not much faith in medicine; but his doubts were so much the less blameable, as he was continually occupied in rendering the resources of his art more certain. He never disputed at all towards the latter end of his life, because probably he had disputed much to no purpose in his youth. Nobody knew better how to doubt, and he had little confidence in his own knowledge, and trusted with difficulty to that of others. Seeing the great number of courses of lectures in all branches of science, advertised every day, he observed once to a friend: “Will no one ever give a course of good sense?” As he expressed himself at times with rather too much acerbity on the merits of others, some of his professional brethren have called his own into question. His works, however, sufficiently attest his abilities. The principal are, 1. “Chylificationis historia,” 1742, reprinted at Paris, 1752, 12mo. with his “Recherches sur les Glandes.” He thought he observed a duct passing from the thyroid gland to the trachaea; an opinion which he repeats in another of his works, but without sufficient ground. 3. “Dissertatio physiologica de sensu generice considerate,” Monspelii, 1743, 8 vo; Paris, 1751, with his “Chylificationis historia.” 4. “Lettres contenant des essais sur l'histoire des Eaux minerales du Beam, &c. 1746, 12mo.” In these he treats of the properties of the waters, and of the geography of Beam. 5. “Recherches anatomiques sur la position des Glandes, et sur leur actions,” Paris, 1751, 8vo. 6. “Recherches sur le pouls par raport aux crises,” Paris, 1756, 12mo; in which he has gone much beyond Solano in his discrimination of pulses, and beyond what can be followed in practice. 7. “Recherches sur le tissu mnqueux, et l'organecellulaire,” Paris, 1766, 12mo. Haller accuses him of disingenuity in attributing to himself the discovery of some properties of the cellular membrane, which had been before described by him and others, but allows the work to have, on the whole, considerable merit.

, brother to Theophilus, and educated under his father and him, was born at Pau, in 1737. Having taken his degree of doctor in medicine at Montpellier, in 1756, he returned to Pau, and was appointed to supply the place of his brother, as inspector of the waters there. In 1757, he published “De sensibilitate et contractibilitate partium in corpore humano sano,” Monspell.; and in 1760, “Precis d'observations sur les Eaux de Bareges,” &c. 12mo, collected principally from the works of his father, brother, and other writers on the subject. “Recherches sur les maladies chroniques, leur rapports avec les maladies aigues,” &c. 1775, 8vo; principally with the view of shewing the utility and the manner of administering mineral waters in the cure of chronical complaints.

, an Italian artist, was born at Trevigi, in 1513, and at eight years of age was conducted to Venice, where he was carefully educated by one of his relations. At a proper age he was placed as a disciple with Titian, under whom he made so happy a progress, that he did not continue with him many years; especially as he observed that Titian was not so communicative as he wished, or indeed had just reason to expect, and he lamented that Giorgione was not then alive to instruct him, because he preferred the manner of that master to all others. However, to the utmost of his power, he studied and imitated the style of Giorgione, and very soon rose into such reputation, that he was appointed to paint a picture in the church of St. Nicholas, when he was only eighteen years of age. Some time after he received an invitation to Vincenza, to adorn a gallery with paintings in fresco, part of which had been formerly enriched by the hand of Titian, with a design representing the “Judgment of Solomon.” Bordone engaged in the undertaking with an inward satisfaction, as his work was to be contrasted with the work of his master; and he composed the history of “Noah and his Sons,” which he finished with his utmost care; nor was it esteemed inferior to the work of Titian, both performances seeming to have been the product of one pencil. He likewise finished several considerable works at Venice and Trevigi, and in each city painted many portraits of the nobility and persons of distinction. But, in the year 1538, he entered into the service of Francis I. of France, and added continually to his reputation, by every historical subject and portrait which he finished, as they were excellently designed, and had a charming tone of colour to recommend them. On his quitting France, he visited the principal cities of Italy, and left a number of memorable works, as monuments of his extraordinary abilities. His colouring has all the appearance of nature, nor can any thing be more lively or more admired than the portraits of Bordone. Several of them are still preserved in the Palazzo Pitti, at Florence, of which the colouring is excessively clear, fresh, and truly beautiful. He died in 1588 according to Vasari, but in 1578 according to Felibien and Argenville.

, a French physician, naturalist, and chemist, was born at Castres, in Languedoc, about 1620. After studying medicine, he received his doctor’s degree, as is supposed, in 1641, and began practice at his native place. He collected a very fine museum of natural curiosities, of which he published a catalogue, “Catalogue des Raretes de Pierre Borel de Castres,” ibid. 1645, 4to. Niceron thinks he published this to get a name and practice: it appears, indeed, from the dedication of his “Bibliotheca Chimica,” that he was not rich, as he there complains that he could not afford to print his works. In 1653, he came to Paris, and some time after was appointed physician to the king, but it is thought this was merely an honorary title, and we are not certain whether he remained afterwards at Paris. He was, however, elected in 1674 into the academy of sciences, as a chemist. Niceron says he died in 1689, but a letter addressed to Bayle in 1678 speaks of him as then just dead. He published, 1. “Les Antiquites, Raretes, &c. de la ville et comte de Castres, &c.” Castres, 164y, 8vo. 2. “Historiarum et observationum Medico-Physicarum, centuria prima et secunda,” ibid. 1653, 8ro, and often reprinted. 3. “Bibliotheea chimica, sen catalogus librorum philosophicorum hermeticorum, in quo quatuor millia circiter authovum chemicorum, &c. cum eorum editionibus, usque ad annum 1653 continentur,” Paris, 1654; Heidelberg, 1656, 12mo. In this work he gives the titles of these chemical works, but very rarely the dates. 4. “De vero Telescopii Inventore, cum brevi omnium conspicillorum historia,” &c. Hague, 1655, 4to. 5. “Tresor des Recherches et Antiquity’s Gauloises, reduites en ordre alphabetique, et enrichies de beaucoup d'origines, epitaphes, et autres choses rares et curieuses, coin me aussi de beaucoup de mots de la langue Thyoise ou Theutfranque,” Paris, 1655, 4tq. This is a very curious and rare work, much prized by the French antiquaries. 6. '“Poeme a, la louange de I'lmprimerie.” 7. “Carmina in laudem regis, reginae, etcardinalis Mazarini,” 4to. 8. “Auctarium ad Vitam Peirescii,” in the Hague edition of that life published in 1655, 4to. 9. “Commentum in antiquum philosophum Syrum,” 1655. 10. “Hortus seu Armamentarium simplicium Plantarum et Animalium ad artem medicam spectantium,” &c. Castres, 1667, 8vo. 11.“De Curationibus Sympatheticis,” printed in the “Theatrum Sympatheticum,” Nurimberg, 1662, 4to. 12. “Discours nouveau, prouvant la Pluralite des Mondes,” Geneva, 8vo, and translated into English by D. Sashott, Lond. 1658. 13. “Vitae Renati Cartesii compendium,” Paris, 1656, 8vo. Borel appears to have been a man of great learning, and indefatigable in his researches, but in medicine somewhat credulous. His antiquarian productions are most esteemed.

, a celebrated philosopher and mathematician, was born at Naples the 28th of January, 1608. He was professor of philosophy and mathematics in some of the most celebrated universities of Italy, particularly at Florence and Pisa, where he became highly in favour with the princes of the house of Medici. But having been concerned in the revolt of Messina, he was obliged to retire to Rome, where he spent the remainder of his life under the protection of Christina queen of Sweden, who honoured him with her friendship, and by her liberality towards him softened the rigour of his hard fortune. He continued two years in the convent of the regular clergy of St. Pantaleon, called the Pious Schools, where he instructed the youth in mathematical studies. And thi’s study he prosecuted with great diligence for many years afterward, as appears by his correspondence with several ingenious mathematicians of his time, and the frequent mention that has been made of him by others, who have endeavoured to do justice to his memory. He wrote a letter to Mr. John Collins, in which he discovers his great desire and endeavours to promote the improvement of those sciences: he also speaks of his correspondence with, and great affection for, Mr. Henry Oldenburgh, secretary of the royal society; of Dr. Wallis; of the then late learned Mr. Boyle, and lamented the loss sustained by his death to the commonwealth of learning. Mr. Baxter, in his “Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul 3” makes frequent use of our author’s book “De Motu Animalium,” and tells us, that he was the first who discovered that the force exerted within the body prodigiously exceeds the weight to be moved without, or that nature employs an immense power to move a small weight. But he acknowledges that Dr. James Keil had shewn that Borelli was mistaken in his calculation of the force of the muscle of the heart; but that he nevertheless ranks him with the most authentic writers, and says he is seldom mistaken: and, having remarked that it is so far from being true, that great things are brought about by small powers, on the contrary, a stupendous power is manifest in the most ordinary operations of nature, he observes that the ingenious Borelli first remarked this in animal motion; and that Dr. Stephen Hales, by a course of experiments in his “Vegetable Statics,” had shewn the same in the force of the ascending sap in vegetables. After a course of unceasing labours, Borelli died at Pantaleon of a pleurisy, the 31st of December 1679, at 72 years of age, leaving the following works: 1. “Delle cagioni dellefebri maligni,” 1649, 12mo. 2. “Euclides restitutus,” &c. Pisa, 1658, 4to. 3. “Apollonii Pergaei conicorum, libri v. vi. & vii. paraphraste Abalphato Aspahanensi nunc primum editi,” &c. Floren. 1661, fol. 4. “Theoriæ Medicorum Planetarum ex causis physicis deductae,” Flor. 1666, 4to. 5. “De Vi Percussionis,” Bologna, 1667, 4to. This piece was reprinted, with his famous treatise “De Motu Animalium,” and that “De Motionibus Naturalibus,” in 1686. 6. “Osservazione intorno alia virtu ineguali degli occhi.” This piece was inserted in the Journal of Rome for the year 1669. 7. “De motionibus naturalibus e gravitate pemlentibus,” Regio Julio, 1670, 4to. 8. “Meteorologia Ætnea,” &c. Regio Julio, 1670, 4to. 9. “Osservazione dell' ecclissi lunare, fatta in Roma,” 1675. Inserted in the Journal of Rome, 1675, p. 34. 10. “Elementaconica Apollonii Pergoei et Archimedis opera nova et breviori methodo demonstrata,” Rome, 1679, 12mo, at the end of the 3d edition, of his Euclides restitutus. 11. “De Motu Animaiium: pars prima, et pars altera,” Romae, 1681, 4to. This was reprinted at Leyden, revised and corrected; to which was added John Bernouilli’s mathematical meditations concerning the motion of the muscles. “12. At Leyden, 1686, in 4to, a more correct and accurate edition, revised by J. Broen, M. D. of Leyden, of his two pieces” De vi percussionis, et de motionibus de gravitate pendentibus,“&c. 13.” De renum usu judicium:“this had been published with Bellini’s book” De structura renum," at Strasburgh, 1664, 8vo.

, D. D. a pious and learned divine of the seventeenth century, and brother to sir William Boreman, clerk of the green cloth to Charles II. was fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, S. T. P. per literas regias, 1661, and afterwards rector of St. Giles’s in the Fields, London. He died in November, 1675, at Greenwich, where he was buried. He published, I. “The Churchman’s Catechism: or the Church’s plea for Tithes,” Lond. 1651, 4to. 2. “The Triumphs of learning over ignorance, and of truth over falsehood; being an answer to four queries, first, whether there be any need of universities,” &c. ibid. 1653, 4to. 3. “A Panegyrick and Sermon at the funeral of Dr. Comber, master of Trinity college, and dean of Carlisle,” 1654, 4to. 4. “Life and death of Freeman Sonds, esq.” and “Relation of sir George Sonds’ narrative of the passages on the death of his two sons,” ibid. 4to. This Freeman Sonds was executed for the murder of his brother. 5. “Life and death of Alice dutchess Dudley,” ibid. 1669, 4to; and two or three occasional sermons.

, was born at Florence in 1515 of a noble family, and became a Benedictine monk in 1531. He was one of the persons appointed to correct the Decameron of Boccace, by order of the council of Trent, and performed this curious task for the edition of Florence, 1573, 8vo. But the best known of his works, and which did him the most honour, is that entitled, “Discovsi di M. Vincenzo Borghini,” printed at Florence 1584 and 1585, in 2 vols. 4to, and reprinted at the same place in 1755, with annotations. In these dissertations he treats of the origin of Florence, and of several interesting particulars of its history, of its families, of its coins, &c. Borghini died in 1680, after having refused, through humility, the archbishopric of Pisa, which was offered to him some time before his death. His only promotion was that of prior of the hospital of St. Maria degh Innocenti in Florence. Another writer of the same name [IlAFAELLO Borghini], was author of several comedies, and of a tract on painting and sculpture, in some estimation, under the title of “Riposo della Pittura, e della Scukura,” published at Florence in 1584, 8vo.

, a monster of ambition and cruelty, was a natural son of pope Alexander VI. What year he was born in, we do not find: but he was at his studies in the university of Pisa, when Alexander was elected pope, in August 1492. Upon the news of his father’s advancement, he banished all thoughts of his former private condition of life; and, full of ambition, as if himself was to be made emperor of the world, he hastened directly to Rome, where Alexander received him with formality and coldness, but whether it was real or but affected, is not easy to determine. Cscsar, however, took it to be real; and, greatly disgusted as well as disappointed, went immediately and complained to his mother Vanozza, who bid him not be cast down; and told him, that she knew the pope’s mind better than any body, and for what reasons his holiness had given him that reception. In the mean time the courtflatterers solicited the pope to make Cæsar a cardinal, which he absolutely refused; but, that he might not seem altogether forgetful of him, he created him archbishop of Valenza, a benefice which his holiness had enjoyed in his younger days. This preferment was by no means acceptable to Cæsar, yet he affected to be content, since the pope, he found, Was determined to confer the best of his secular dignities on his eldest son Francis, who at that time was made duke of Gandia by Fertlinand king of Castile and Arragon.

Alexander VI. had five children by his mistress Vanozza; Francis and Cæsar, already mentioned, two other sons, and a daughter named Lucretia. Francis was a gentleman of good disposition and probity, and in every respect opposite to his brother Cæsar; but Cæsar seems to have possessed abilities superior to those of Francis: which made a certain historian say, “that Cæsar was great among the wicked, and Francis good among the great.” Cæsar however was the mother’s favourite, as having a temper and principles more conformable to hers: for which reason, at the time when Alexander was undetermined on which of these brothers he should bestow the cardinal’s cap, Vanozza declared herself in favour of Cæsar, who was accordingly made a cardinal in the second year of Alexander’s pontificate. From this time he acted in concert with his father, and was an useful instrument in executing all the schemes of that wicked pope, as he had no scruples of honour or humanity, nor was there any thing too atrocious for him to perpetrate, to promote his insatiable ambition. This is said to have even incited him to the murder of his elder brother Francis, duke of Gandia. All the secular dignities, which then were much more coveted than the ecclesiastical, were heaped upon Francis, which obstructed Cæsar’s projects so entirely, that he was resolved at all adventures to remove him. TJjfle story is, that in 1497, hiring assassins, he caused him to be murdered, and thrown into the Tiber; where his body was found some days after, full of wounds and extremely mangled. The pope was afflicted to the last degree; for though he made use of Cæsar as the abler, he loved Francis as the better man. He caused therefore strict inquiry to be made after the murderers; upon which Vanozza, who for that and other reasons was justly suspected to be privy to the affair, went privately to the pope, and used all the arguments she could, to dissuade him from searching any further. Some say, that she went so far as to assure his holiness, that if he did not desist, the same person who took away his son’s life would not spare his own. The whole of this story, however, appears doubtful; nor, indeed, is there any positive proof that Borgia was even privy to his brother’s death. Gordon, only, has asserted it with accompanying proofs, but the latter -appear to be historic fictions. It cannot be necessary to add to Cesar’s crimes. He now, however, succeeded to his brother’s fortunes and honours, began to be tired of ecclesiastical matters, and grew quite sick of the cardinalate, and therefore determined to throw it off as soon as possible, that he might have the greater scope for practising the excesses, to which his natural ambition and cruelty prompted him: for cruel as well as ambitious he was in the highest degree. Numbers he caused to be taken off by poison or the sword; and it is recorded, that assassins were constantly kept in pay by him at Rome, for the sake of removing all who were either obnoxious or inconvenient to him. Getting rid of the cardinalate, he was soon after made duke of Valentinois by Lewis XII. of France: with whom he entered into a league for the conquest of the Milanese. From this time he experienced various turns of fortune, being sometimes prosperous, sometimes unfortunate. He very narrowly escaped dying of poison in 1503; for, having con-, certed with the pope a design of poisoning nine newly created cardinals at once (or, as some say, only one cardinal), in order to possess their effects, the poisoned wine destined for the purpose was by mistake brought to themselves and drank. The pope died of it; but Cæsar, by the vigour of his youth, and the force of antidotes, after many struggles, recovered. He only recovered, however, to outlive his fortune and grandeur, to see himself depressed, and his enemies exalted; for he was soon after divested of all his acquisitions, and sent a prisoner to Spain, in order to free Italy from an incendiary, and the Italian princes from those dangers which his turbulent and restless spirit made them fear, even though he was unarmed. From Spain he escaped to Navarre to king John his brother-in-law, where he met with a very friendly reception. From hence he designed to go into France; and there, with the assistance of Lewis, to try if he could once more re-establish his fortune, but Lewis refused to receive him, not only because he and Spain had concluded a truce, but because they were also at enmity with the king of Navarre. The French king also, in order to gratify Spain, had confiscated Cæsar’s duchy of Valentinois, and taken away the yearly pension which he had from France. So that this fallen tyrant, in a poor and abandoned condition, without revenue or territory, was forced to be dependent upon his brother-in-law, who was then at war with his subjects. Borgia served as a volunteer in that war; and, while the armies were engaged in battle, and fighting under the walls of Viana, was wounded, and died in consequence, March 12, 1507. On his death-bed he is said to have exclaimed, “I had provided in the course of my life for every thing but death; and now, alas! I am to die, though completely unprepared for it.” Cæsar Borgia took these words for his device, “Aut Cæsar aut nihil;” which gave occasion to the following epigrams:

Too well, alas! his life and death evince.

“Of this extraordinary character,” says Mr. Roscoe, “it may with truth be observed, that his activity, courage, and perseverance, were equal to the greatest attempts. la the pursuit of his object he overlooked or overleaped all other considerations: when force was ineffectual, he had recourse to fraud; and whether he thundered in open hostility at the gates of a city, or endeavoured to effect his purpose by negociation and treachery, he was equally irresistible. If we may confide in the narrative of Guicciardini, cruelty, rapine, injustice, and lust, are the only particular features in the composition of this monster: yet it is diificult to conceive that a man so totally unredeemed by a single virtue, should have been enabled to maintain himself at the head of a powerful army: to engage in so eminent a degree the favour of the people conquered: to form alliances with the first sovereigns of Europe: to destroy or overturn the most powerful families of Italy, and to lay the foundations of a dominion, of which it is acknowledged that the short duration is to be attributed rather to his ill-fortune and the treachery of others, than either to his errors or his crimes. If, however, he has been too indiscriminately condemned by one historian, he has in another met with as zealous and as powerful an encomiast, and the maxims of the politician are only the faithful record of the transactions of his hero. On the principles of Machiavelli, Borgia was the greatest man of the age. Nor was he, in fact, without qualities which in. some degree compensated for his demerits. Courageous, magnificent, eloquent, and accomplished in all the exercises of arts and arms, he raised an admiration of his endowments which kept pace with and counter-balanced the abhorrence excited by his crimes. That even these crimes have been exaggerated, is highly probable. His enemies were numerous, and the certainty of his guilt in some instances gave credibility to every imputation that could be devised against him. That he retained, even after he had survived his prosperity, no inconsiderable share of public estimation, is evident from the fidelity and attachment shewn to him on many occasions. After his death, his memory and achievements were celebrated by (Strozza) one of the most elegant Latin poets that Jtaly has produced. The language of poetry is not indeed always that of truth; but we may at least give credit to the account of the personal accomplishments and warlike talents of Borgia, although we may indignantly reject the spurious praise, which places him among the heroes of antiquity, and at the summit of fame.”

The evidence of a poet is certainly inconclusive, and although the “personal accomplishments and warlike talents” may be proved, and have not been lessened, yet they weigh little against those crimes which stand uncontradicted, and form one of the vilest characters in history.

, a learned Roman cardinal, was born of a noble family at Velletri, in 1731; and as the second son of the family, was from his birth destined for the clerical dignities. In youth he appears to have been studious, and particularly attentive to historic and diplomatic science, and modern and ancient languages. In 1770, he was appointed secretary to the congregation of Propaganda, the purposes of which are to furnish missionaries to propagate Christianity, on popish principles; and into this college children are admitted from Asia and Africa, in order to be instructed in religion, and to diffuse itj on their return, through their native countries. A more fit person could not be selected than Borgia, as he had both zeal and learning. In 1771, the abbe Amaduzzi, director of the printing-house of the college, procured the casting of the Malabar types, and published some works in that language, as well as in those of the Indians of Ava and of Pegu. By the care of this new secretary also, an Etruscan alphabet was published, which soon proved of the highest benefit to Passeri: for, by its means, this celebrated antiquary, in the latter part of his life, could better explain than he had ever done some Etruscan monuments of the highest interest. About this time he began to lay the foundation of the family museum at Velletri, which, before 1780, exhibited no less than eighty ancient Egyptian statues in bronze or marble, many Etruscan and Greek idols, numerous coins, inscriptions, &c. To form some idea of the total of this museum, it may be observed that only a small part of it, relative to Arabic antiquity, was the subject of the description which, in 1782, was published under the title of “Musaeum Cusicum.” He had long before this published “Monumento di Giovanni XVI. summo Pontifice illustrate,” Rome, 1750, 8vo. “Breve Istoria dell‘ antica citta di Tadino nell’ Umbria, &c.” ibid. 1751, 8vo. “Dissertatione sopra un‘ antica Iscrizione rinuentanelP Isoladi Malta nell’ anno 1749,”Fermo, 1751, and “Dissertatione FUologica sopra un' antica gemma in tagliata.”

About 1782, he gave a new proof of his attention to the interests of learning and religion, on the following occasion. An island, near Venice, is inhabited by Armenian monks; and those fathers make no use of any language but their own, printing rituals and devotional books in Armenian, and carrying on a considerable commerce in such books through the East. No one, however, had thought of going to pass some time among these fathers, with a view of learning their language, until Borgia, foreseeing the advantages that might result from it, sent one Gabriele, a Capuchin, to spend some time with these monks in learning the Armenian; and afterwards engaged him to go on a mission to Astracan, to preach in Armenian, and to avail himself of that opportunity to compile an Italian-Armenian, and Armenian-Italian Dictionary, father Gabriele fulfilled these injunctions, and, on his return, he delivered the Dictionary into the hands of the librarian of the Propaganda.

In 1788 he published his “Vindication of the rights of the Holy See on the kingdom of Naples,” 4to, a work now of little importance, and relating to a dispute which will probably never be revived. On the 30th of March, 1789, he was promoted to the rank of cardinal, and about the same time was appointed prefect of the congregation of the Index; and, what was more analogous to his pursuits, he held the same office in the Propaganda, and in the congregation for the correction of the books of the oriental churches. After these promotions, he continued to be the liberal patron of all who had any connection either with his offices or with his literary pursuits, until Italy was inTaded by the French, when, like the greater part of his colleagues, he was involved in losses and dangers, both with respect to his fortune and to his pursuits. He forfeited all his benefices, and was near witnessing the destruction of all the establishments committed to his care, especially the Propaganda. He was soon, however, extricated from his personal difficulties; and, by his timely measures, the invaluable literary treasures of the Propaganda were also saved. He was allowed a liberal pension from the court of Denmark, and he soon obtained the removal of the establishment of the Propaganda to Padua, a city which, being then under the dominion of the emperor <?f Germany, was thought to be sheltered from robbery. Here he remained till the death of pope Pius VI. after which he repaired, with his colleagues, to Venice, to attend the conclave; and, a new pope being elected, he returned to Rome. When the coronation of the emperor of France was ordered, cardinal Borgia was one of those individuals who were selected by the pope as the companions of his intended journey to Paris, but having caught a, violent cold on his way, he died at Lyons, Nov. 23, 1804. Cardinal Stephen Borgia was not much favoured by nature with respect to person. He was so clumsy, and his motions so much embarrassed, as to have little of the appearance of a person of birth and rank. He was far, also, from being nice in his house or equipage. These little defects, however, were compensated by the superior qualities of his mind. From, the time of Alexander Albani, no Roman cardinal had so many distinguished connections and correspondents in every part of Europe: and a great similarity (elegance of manners excepted) was remarked between the character of that illustrious prelate and his own. The Borgian ms. so called by Michaelis, is a fragment of a Coptic-Greek manuscript, brought by a monk from Egypt, consisting of about twelve leaves, and sent to cardinal Borgia. The whole of it is printed in “Georgii Fragmentum Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum,” Rome, 1789, 4to.

, a painter and engraver, was born at Rome, in 1630, and learned design from Giulio Borgianni his brother; but improved himself by studying the capital performances of the ancient and modern artists, which he was enabled to contemplate every day in his native city. Having had an offer from a nobleman, of travelling with him in a tour through Europe, he willingly accepted it, from a desire of being acquainted with the different customs and manners of different nations. But his progress was stopped by his falling in love with a young woman in Spain, to whom he was afterwards married; and finding his circumstances reduced to a narrow compass, he applied himself to his profession with double diligence, to procure a comfortable support. His endeavours were soon successful; and he was happy enough to find many friends, admirers, and employers, and was accounted one of the best painters in Spain. After the death of his wife, having then no attachment to that country, he returned to Rome, and painted some historical subjects larger than life; but the figures being above his accustomed size, shewed a want of correctness in several of the, members, which made his pictures not quite acceptable to the refined taste of the Roman school. He was, however, engaged in some great works for the chapels and convents, and also to paint portraits, by which he acquired honour, and lived in affluence. He died in 1681, of a broken heart, in consequence of the ill treatment he received, through the envy and villainy of one Celio, a painter, who proved a most malicious competitor, and to whom he had been often preferred, by the best judges of painting at Rome; but he died lamented and pitied by every worthy man of his profession. As an engraver, he is probably best known to many of our readers, for his engravings of the Bible histories, which were painted by Raphael in the Vatican, commonly called “Raphael’s Bible,” small plates, length-ways, dated 1615, which are very slight, and seem to be the hasty productions of his point. Mr. Strutt says, that his most finished etching is “a dead Christ,” a small square plate, the figure greatly foreshortened, and behind appear the two Mary’s and St. John, who is kissing one of the hands of our Saviour. His etchings are, in general, in a bold, free manner, and more finished than usual, when considered as the works of a painter, but in some the drawing is not correct.

, son of sir John Borlace, master of the ordnance, and one of the lords justices of Ireland, was born in the seventeenth century, and educated at the university of Dublin. Then he travelled to Leyden, where he commenced doctor of physic in 1650, and was afterwards admitted to the same degree at Oxford. At last he settled at Chester, where he practised physic with great reputation and success; and where he died in 1682, Among several books which he wrote and published, are, 1. “Latham Spaw in Lancashire: with some remarkable cases and cures effected by it,” Loud. 1670, 8vo, dedicated to Charles earl of Derby. 2. “The Reduction of Ireland to the Crown of England: with the governors since the conquest by king Henry II. anno 1172, and some passages in their government. A brief account of the rebellion, ann. Dom. 1641. Also the original of the university of Dublin, and the college of physicians,” Lond. 1675, a large octavo. 3. “The History of the execrable Irish Rebellion, traced from many preceding acts to the grand eruption, Oct. 23, 1641; and thence pursued to the act of settlement, 1672,” Lond. 1680, folio. Wood tells us, that much of this book is taken from another, entitled “The Irish Rebellion; or, The History of the beginnings and first progress of the general rebellion raised within the kingdom of Ireland, Oct. 23, 1641,” Lond. 1646, 4to, written by sir John Temple, master of the rolls, one of his majesty’s privy council in Ireland, and father of the celebrated sir William Temple. 4. “Brief Reflections on the earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs of his engagement and carriage in the War of Ireland. By which the government of that time, and the justice of the crown since, are vindicated from aspersions cast upon both,” Lond. 1682, 8vo.

, a learned English antiquary, was born at Pendeen, in the parish of St. Just, Cornwall, February 2, 1695-6. The family of that name, from which he was descended, had been settled at the place from whence they derived it (Borlase), from the time of king William Rufus. Our author was the second son of John Borlase, esq. of Pendeen, in the parish before mentioned, by Lydia, the youngest daughter of Christopher Harris, esq. of Hayne in the county of Devon; and was put early to school at Penzance, from which he was removed, in. 1709, to the care of the rev. Mr. Bedford, then a learned school-master at Plymouth. Having completed his grammatical education, he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, in March 1712-13; where, on the 1st of June 1719, he took the degree of master of arts. In the same year, Mr. Borlase was admitted to deacon’s orders, and ordained priest in 1720. On the 22d of. April, 1722, he was instituted, by Dr. Weston, bishop of Exeter, to the rectory of Ludgvan in Cornwall, to which he had been presented by Charles Duke of Bolton. On the 28th of July, 1724, he was married in the church of Illuggan, by his elder brother, Dr. Borlase of Castlehorneck, to Anne, eldest surviving daughter and coheir of William Smith, M. A. rector of the parishes of Camborn and Illuggan. In 1732, the lord chancellor King, by the recommendation of sir William Morice, bart. presented Mr. Borlase to the vicarage of St. Just, his native parish, and where his father had a considerable property. This vicarage and the rectory of Ludgvan were the only preferments he ever received.

When Mr. Borlase was fixed at Ludgvan, which was a retired, but delightful situation, he soon recommended himself as a pastor, a gentleman, and a man of learning. The duties of his profession he discharged with the most rigid punctuality and exemplary dignity. He was esteemed and respected by the principal gentry of Cornwall, and lived on the most friendly and social terms with those of his neighbourhood. In the pursuit of general knowledge he was active and vigorous; and his mind being of an inquisitive turn, he could not survey with inattention or indifference the peculiar objects which his situation pointed to his view. There were in the parish of Ludgvan rich copper works, belonging to the late earl of Godolphin. These abounded with mineral and metallic fossils, which Mr. Borlase collected from time to time; and his collection increasing by degrees, he was encouraged to study at large the natural history of his native county. While he was engaged in this design, he could not avoid being struck with the numerous m'onuments of remote antiquity that are to be met with in several parts of Cornwall; and which had hitherto been passed over with far less examination than they deserved. Enlarging, therefore, his plan, he determined to gain as accurate an acquaintance as possible with the Druid learning, and with the religion and customs of the ancient Britons, before their conversion to Christianity. To this undertaking he was encouraged by several gentlemen of his neighbourhood, who were men of literature and lovers of British antiquities; and particularly by sir John St. Aubyn, ancestor of the present baronet of that family, and the late rev. Edward Collins, vicar of St. Earth. In the year 1748, Mr. Borlase, happening to attend the ordination of his eldest son at Exeter, commenced an acquaintance with the Rev. Dr. Charles Lyttelton, late bishop of Carlisle, then come to be installed into the deanry, and the Rev. Dr. Milles, the late dean, two eminent antiquaries, who, in succession, have so ably presided over the society of antiquaries in London. Our author’s correspondence with these gentlemen was a great encouragement to the prosecution of his studies; and he has acknowledged his obligations to them, in several parts of his works. In 1750, being at London, he was admitted a fellow of the royal society, into which he had been chosen the year before, after having communicated an ingenious Essay on the Cornish Crystals. Mr. Borlase having completed, in 1753, his manuscript of the Antiof Cornwall, carried it to Oxford, where he finished the whole impression, in folio, in the February following. A second edition of it, in the same form, was published at London, in 1769. Our author’s next publication was, “Observations on the ancient and present state of the Islands of Scilly, and their importance to the trade of Great Britain, in a letter to the reverend Charles Lyttelton, LL. D. dean of Exeter, and F. R. S.” This work, which was printed likewise at Oxford, and appeared in 1756, in quarto, was an extension of a paper that had been read before the royal society, on the 8th of February 1753, entitled, “An Account of the great Alterations which the Islands of Scilly have undergone, since the time of the ancients, who mention them, as to their number, extent, and position.” It was at the request of Dr. Lyttelton, that this account was enlarged into a distinct treatise. In 1757, Mr. Borlase again employed the Oxford press, in printing his “Natural History of Cornwall,” for which he had been many years making collections, and which was published in April 1758. After this, he sent a variety of fossils, and remains of antiquity, which he 'had described in his works, to be placed in the Ashmolean museum; and to the same repository he continued to send every thing curious which fell into his hands. For these benefactions he received the thanks of the university, in a letter from the vice-chancellor, dated November 18, 1758; and in March, 1766, that learned body conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws, by diploma, the highest academical honour.

Though Dr. Borlase, when he had completed his three principal works, was become more than sixty years of age, he continued to exert his usual diligence and vigour in quiet attention to his pastoral duty, and the study of the Scriptures. In the course of this study, he drew up paraphrases on the books of Job, and the books of Solomon, and wrote some other pieces of a religious kind, rather, however, for his private improvement, than with a view to publication. His amusements abroad were, to superintend the care of his parish, and particularly the forming and reforming of its roads, which were more numerous than in any parish of Cornwall. His amusements at home were the belles lettres, and especially painting; and the correction and enlargement of his “Antiquities of Cornwall,” for a second edition, engaged some part of his time; and when this business was completed, he applied his attention to a minute revision of nis “Natural History.” Alter this, he prepared for the press a treatise he had composed some years before, concerning the Creation and Deluge. But a violent illness, in January 1771, and the apprehensions of entangling himself in so long and close an attention as the correcting of the sheets, solely, and at such a distance from London, would require, induced him to drop his design, and to recal the manuscript from his bookseller, when only a few pages of it had been printed. From the time of his illness, he began sensibly to decline, the infirmities of old age came fast upon him; and it was visible to all his friends that his dissolution was approaching. This expected event happened on the 3 1st of August, 1772, in the 77th year of his age, when he was lamented as a kind father, an affectionate brother, a sincere friend, an instructive pastor, and a man of erudition. He was buried within'the communion rails in Ludgvan church, by the side of Mrs. Borlase, who had been dead above three years.

The Doctor had by his lady six sons, two of whom alone survived him, the rev. Mr. John Borlase, and the rev. Mr. George Borlase, who was Casuistical Professor and Registrar of the university of Cambridge, and died in 1809.

Besides Dr. Borlase’s literary connections with Dr. Lyttelton and Dr. Milles, before mentioned, he corresponded with most of the ingenious men of his time. He had a particular intercourse of this kind with Mr. Pope; and there is still existing a large collection of letters, written by that celebrated poet to our author. He furnished Mr. Pope with the greatest part of the materials for forming his grotto at Twickenham, consisting of such curious fossils as the county of Cornwall abounds with: and there might have been seen, before the destruction of that curiosity, Dr. Borlase’s name in capitals, composed of crystals, in the grotto. On. this occasion a very handsome letter was written to the Doctor by Mr. Pope, in which he says, “I am much obliged to you for your valuable collection of Cornish diamonds. I have placed them where they may best represent yourself, in a shade, but shining;” alluding to the obscurity of Dr. Borlase’s situation, and the brilliancy of his talents. The papers which he communicated at different times to the Royal Society are numerous and curious.

, Baron, an eminent mineralogist, was born of a noble family at Carlsburg, in Transylvania, Dec. 26, 1742. He came early in life to Vienna, and studied under the Jesuits, who, perceiving his abilities, prevailed on him to enter into their society, but he remained a member only about a year and a half. He then went to Prague, where, as it is the custom in Germany, he studied law, and having completed his course, made a tour through a part of Germany, Holland, the Netherlands, and France, and returning to Prague, he engaged in the studies of natural history, mining, and their connected branches, and in, 1770, he was received into the department of the mines and mint at Prague. The same year he visited the principal mines of Hungary and Transylvania, and during this tour kept up a correspondence with the celebrated Ferber, who, in 1774, published his letters. It was in this town, also that he so nearly lost his life, and where he was struck with the disease which embittered the rest of his days. It appears from his eighteenth letter to Mr. Ferber that, when at Felso-Banya, he descended into a mine, where fire was used to detach the ore, to observe the efficacy of this means, but too soon after the fire had been extinguished, and while the mine was full of arsenical vapours raised by the heat. How greatly he suffered in his health by this accident appears from his letter, in which he complained that he could hardly bear the motion of his carriage. After this he was appointed at Prague counsellor of the mines. In 1771, he published a small work of the Jesuit Poda, on the machinery used about mines, and the next year his “Lithophylacium Borneanum,” a catalogue of that collection of fossils, which he afterward disposed of to the lion. Mr. Greville. This work drew on him the attention of mineralogists, and brought him into correspondence with the first men in that study. He was now made a member of the royal societies of Stockholm, Sienna, and Padua; and in 1774, the same honour was conferred on him by the royal society of London.

During his residence in Bohemia, his active disposition induced him to seek for opportunities of extending knowledge, and of being useful to the world. He took a part in the work, entitled “Portraits of the learned men and artists of Bohemia and Moravia.” He was likewise concerned in the “Literary transactions, or Acta Litteraria, of Bohemia and Moravia,” and the editor of the latter pubr licly acknowledges in the preface, how much Bohemian literature is indebted to him. Prague and Vienna were both without a public cabinet for the use of the students: it was at his instigation that government was induced tq form one, which he assisted by his contributions and his labours. In 1775, he laid the foundation of a literary society, which published several volumes under the title of “Memoirs of a private Society in Bohemia.” His fame reaching the empress Mary Theresa, in 1776, she called him to Vienna to arrange and describe the Imperial collection, and about two years after, he published the splendid work containing the Conchology: in the execution of which he had some assistance. The empress defrayed the expences for a certain number of copies. On the death of this patron the work was discontinued, her successor, the femperor Joseph, not favouring the undertaking. He had likewise the honour of instructing the arch-duchess Maria Anna in natural history, who was partial to this entertaining study; and he formed and arranged for her a neat museum. In 1779, he was raised to the office of actual counsellor of the court-chamber, in the department of the tnines and mint. This office detained him constantly in Vienna, and engaged the chief part of his time.

The consequences of his misfortune at Felso-Banya began now to be felt in the severest manner; he was attacked with the most excruciating cholics, which often threatened a speedy termination of his life and miseries. In this depth of torment, he had recourse to opium, and a large portion of this being placed by his side, which he was ordered only to take in small doses, on one occasion, through the intensity of his pain, he swallowed the whole, which brought on a lethargy, of four and twenty hours; but when he awoke he was free of his pains. The disorder now attacked his legs and feet, particularly his right leg, and in this he was lame for the rest of his life, and sometimes the lameness was accompanied by pain. But his feet by degrees withered, and he was obliged to sit, or lie, or lean upon a sopha; though sometimes he was so well as to be able to sit upon a stool, but not to move from one room to the other without assistance.

His free and active genius led him to interest himself in all the occurrences of the times, and to take an active part in all the institutions and plans which professed to enlighten and reform mankind. With these benevolent intentions he formed connexions with the free-masons, whose views in this part of the world occasioned the laws and regulations made against masonry by the emperor Joseph. Under Theresa, this order was obliged to keep itself very secret in Austria; but Joseph, on his coming to the throne, tolerated it, and the baron founded in the Austrian metropolis, a lodge called the “True Concord,” a society of learned men, whose lodge was a place of rendezvous for the literati of the capital. The obstacles these gentlemen found, to the progress of science and useful knowledge, had the tendency to draw their attention to political subjects; and subjects were really discussed here which the church had forbidden to be spoken of, and to which the government was equally averse. At their meetings, dissertations on some subject of history, ethics, or moral philosophy, were read by the members; and commonly something on the history of ancient and modern mysteries and secret societies. These were afterward published in the Diary for Free-masons, for the use of the initiated, and not for public sale. In the winter they met occasionally, and held more public discourses, to which the members of the other lodges were allowed access. Aa most of the learned of Vienna belonged to this lodge, it was very natural to suppose, that many of the dissertations read here, were not quite within the limits of the original plan of the society. It was these dissertations which gave rise to another periodical work, which was continued for some time by the baron, and his brother masons. He was, likewise active in extirpating what he reckoned superstitions of various kinds, which had crept into the other lodges, and equally zealous in giving to these societies such an organization, as might render them useful to the public.

The baron, and many others of his lodge, belonged to the society of the illuminated. This, says his biographer, was no dishonour to him: the views of this order, at least at first, seem to have been commendable; they were the improvement of mankind, not the destruction of society. Such institutions are only useful or dangerous, and to be approved of or condemned, according to the state of society; and this was before the French revolution, and in a country less enlightened than almost any other part of Germany. But this was before the French revolution as a cause is before its effect, and there can be no doubt that much of the misery inflicted on Europe is to be traced to these societies. So zealous, however, was the baron in favour of the illuminati, that when the elector of Bavaria ordered all those in his service to quit this order, he was so displeased that he returned the academy of Munich the diploma they had sent him on their receiving him among them, publicly avowed his attachment to the order, and thought it proper to break off all further connexion with Bavaria, as a member of its literary society. The freemasons did not lung retain the patronage of their sovereign: the emperor Joseph soon became jealous of their influence, and put them under such restrictions, and clogged them with such incumbrances, as to amount almost to a prohibition; and the society found it necessary to dissolve.

What raised the baron more justly high in the public opinion, was his knowledge of mineralogy, and his successful experiments in metallurgy, and principally in the progress of amalgamation. The use of quick-silver in extracting the noble metals from their ores, was not a discovery of the baron’s, nor of the century in which he lived; yet he extended so far its application in metallurgy as to form a brilliant epoch in this most important art. After he had at great expence made many private experiments, and was convinced of the utility of his method, he laid before the emperor an account of his discovery, who gave orders that a decisive experiment on a large quantity of ore should be made at Schemnitz, in Hungary, in the presence of Charpentier from Saxony, Ferber from Russia, Elhujar from Spain, Poda, and other celebrated chemists, which met with universal approbation, and established the utility of his discovery. In 1786, Born published, at the desire of the emperor, his treatise on Amalgamation; and in the following year, a farther account of it was published by his friend Ferber. As a considerable saving in wood, time, and labour, attended his process, the emperor gave orders that it should be employed in the Hungarian mines; and as a recompence to the inventor, a third of the sum that should be saved by adopting his method was granted to him for ten years, and for ten years more the interest of that sum. Such, however, was the hospitality of Born, and his readiness to admit and entertain all travellers, and to patronize distressed talents of every kind, that his expences exceeded his income, and he was at last reduced to a state of insolvency. Amidst all his bodily infirmities and pecuniary embarrassments, and notwithstanding the variety of his official avocations, he was indefatigable in his literary pursuits; and in 1790, he published in two volumes, a “Catalogue methodique raisonné,” of Miss Raab’s collection of fossils, which is regarded as a classical work on that subject. He employed himself also in bleaching wax by a new chemical process, and in boiling salt with half the wood commonly used for that purpose. Whilst he was engaged in writing the “Fasti Leopoldini,” or a history of the reign of Leopold II. in classical Latin, and a work on Mineralogy, his disease rapidly advanced, and being attended with violent spasms, terminated his life on the 28th of August, 1791. His treatise on Amalgamation was translated into English, and published by R. E. Raspe, Lond. 1791, 4to, and his travels through the Bannat of Temeswar, &c. were published in 1787.

, a famous chemist, quack, and heretic, was a Milanese, and born in the beginning of the seventeenth century. He finished his studies in the seminary at Rome, where the Jesuits admired him as a prodigy for his parts and memory. He applied himself to chemistry, and made some discoveries; but, plunging himself into the most extravagant debaucheries, was obliged at last, in 1654, to take refuge in a church. He then set up for a pietist; and, affecting an appearance of great zeal, lamented the corruption of manners which prevailed at Rome, saying, that the distemper was come to the height, and that the time of recovery drew near: a happy time, wherein there would be but one sheepfold on the earth, whereof the pope was to be the only shepherd. “Whosoever shall refuse, said he, to enter into that sheepfold, shall be destroyed by the pope’s armies. God has predestinated me to be the general of those armies: I am sure, that they shall want nothing. I shall quickly finish my chemical labours by the happy production of the philosopher’s stone; and by that means I sball have as much gold as is necessary for the business. I am sure of the assistance of the angels, and particularly of that of Michael the archangel. When I began to walk in the spiritual life, I had a vision in the night, attended with an angelical voice, which assured me, that I should become a prophet. The sign that was given me for it was a palm, that seemed to me surrounded with the light of paradise.”

He communicated to his confidants, in this manner, the revelations which he boasted to have received: but after the death of Innocent X. finding that the new pope Alexander XII. renewed the tribunals, he despaired of succeeding, left Rome, and returned to Milan. There too he acted the devotee, and gained credit with several people, whom he caused to perform certain exercises, which carried a wonderful appearance of piety. He engaged the members of his new congregation, to take an oath of secrecy to him; and when he found them confirmed in the belief of his extraordinary mission, he prescribed to them certain vows, one of which was that of poverty; for the performance of which he very ingeniously caused all the money that every one had to be consigned to himself. The design of this crafty impostor was, in case he could get a sufficient number of followers, to appear in the great square of Milan; there to represent the abuses of the ecclesiastical and secular government; to encourage the people to liberty; and then, possessing himself of the city and country of Milan, to pursue his conquests. But his design miscarried, in consequence of the imprisonment of some of his disciples; and as soon as he saw that first step of the inquisition, he fled, on which they proceeded against him for contumacy in 1659 and 1660; and he was condemned as an heretic, and burnt in effigy, with his writings, in the field of Flora at Rome, on the 3d of January 1661. He is reported to have said, that he never was so cold in his life as on the day that he was burnt at Rome: a piece of wit, however, which has been ascribed to several others. He had dictated a treatise on his system to his followers: but took it from them as soon as he perceived the motions of the inquisition, and hid all his papers in a nunnery, from which they fell into the hands of the inquisition, and were found to contain doctrines very absurd and very impious.

Borri staid some time in the city of Strasburgh, to which he had fled; and where he found some assistance and support, as well because he was persecuted by the inquisition, as because he was reputed a great chemist. But this was not a theatre large enough for Borri: he went therefore to Amsterdam, where he appeared in a stately and splendid equipage, and took upon him the title of Excellency: people flocked to him, as to the physician who could cure all diseases; and proposals were concerted for marrying him to great fortunes, &c. But his reputation began to sink, as his impostures became better understood, and he fled in the night from Amsterdam, with a great many jewels and sums of money, which he had pilfered. He then went to Hamburgh, where queen Christina was, and put himself under her protection: persuading her to venture a great sum of money, in order to find out the philosopher’s stone. Afterwards he went to Copenhagen, and inspired his Danish majesty to search for the same secret; by which means he acquired that prince’s favour so far, as to become very odious to all the great persons of the kingdom. Immediately after the death of the king, whom he had cheated out of large sums of money, he left Denmark for fear of being imprisoned, and resolved to go into Turkey. Being come to the frontiers at a time when the conspiracy of Nadasti, Serini, and Frangipani, was discovered, he was secured, and his name sent to his Imperial majesty, to see if he was one of the conspirators. The pope’s nuncio, who happened to be present, as soon as he heard Borri mentioned, demanded, in the pope’s name, that the prisoner should be delivered to him. The emperor consented to it, and ordered that Borri should be sent to Vienna; and afterwards, having first obtained from the pope a promise that he should not be put to death, he sent him to Rome; where he was tried, and condemned to perpetual confinement in the prison of the inquisition. He made abjuration of his errors in the month of October, 1672. Some years after he obtained leave to attend the duke d‘Estree, whom all the physicians had given over; and the unexpected cure he wrought upon him occasioned it to be said, that an arch-heretic had done a great miracle in Rome. It is said also, that the queen of Sweden sent for him sometimes in a coach; but that, after the death of that princess, he went no more abroad, and that none could speak with him without special leave from the pope. The Utrecht gazette, as Mr. Bayle relates, of the 9th of September, 1695, informed the public, that Borri was lately dead in the castle of St. Arigelo, being 79 years of age. It seems that the duke d’ Estre*e, as a recompence for recovering him, had procured Borri’s prisou to be changed, from that of the inquisition to the castle of St. Angelo.

Some pieces were printed at Geneva in 1681, which are ascribed to him; as, 1. “Letters concerning Chemistry;” and 2. “Political reflections.” The first of these works is entitled, “La chiave del gabinetto;” the second, “Istruzioni politichi.” We learn from the life of Borri, that when he was at Strasburg, he published a letter, which went all over the world. Two other of his letters are said to have been printed at Copenhagen in 1699, and inscribed to Bartholinus; one of them, “De ortu cerebri, et usu medico;” the other, “De artificio oculorum humores restituendi.” The Journal des Savans, of the 2d of September, 1669, speaks fully of these two letters. Konig ascribes also another piece to him, entitled, “Notitia gentis Burrhorum.” Sorbiere saw Borri at Amsterdam, and has left us a description and character of him. He says, that “he was a tall black man, well shaped, who wore good clothes, and spent a good deal of money: that he did not want parts, and had some learning, was without doubt somewhat skilled in chemical preparations, had some knowledge in metals, some methods of imitating pearls or jewels, and some purgative and stomachic remedies: but that he was a quack, an artful impostor, who practised upon the credulity of those whom he stood most in need of; of merchants, as well as princes, whom he deluded out of great sums of money, under a pretence of discovering the philosopher’s stone, and other secrets of equal importance: and that, the better to carry on this scheme of knavery, he had assumed the mask of religion.”

, or Borch, a very learned physician, son of a Lutheran minister in Denmark, was born 1626, and sent to the university of Copenhagen in 1644, where he remained six years, during which time he applied himself chierly to physic. He taught publicly in his college, and Acquired the character of a man indefatigable in labour, and of excellent morals. He gained the esteem of Caspar Brochman, bishop of Zealand, and of the chancellor of the kingdom, by the recommendation of whom he obtained the canonry of Lunden. He was offered the rectorship of the famous school of Heslow, but refused it, having formed a design of travelling and perfecting his studies in physic. He began to practise as a physician during a most terrible plague in Denmark, and the contagion being ceased, he prepared for travelling as he intended; but was obliged to defer it for some time, Mr. Gerstorf, the first minister of state, having insisted on his residing in his house in the quality of tutor to his children. He continued in this capacity five years, and then set out upon his travels; but before his departure, he was appointed professor in poetry, chemistry, and botany. He left Copenhagen in November 1660, and, after having visited several eminent physicians at Hamburgh, went to Holland, the Low Countries, to England, and to Paris, where he remained two years. He visited also several other cities of France, and at Angers had a doctor’s degree in physic conferred upon him. He afterwards passed the Alps, and arrived at Rome in October 1665, where he remained till March 1666, when he was obliged to set out for Denmark, where he arrived in October 1666. The advantages which Borrichius reaped in his travels were very considerable, for he had made himself acquainted with all the learned men in the different cities through which he passed. At his return to Denmark he resumed his professorship, in the discharge of which he acquired great reputation for his assiduity and universal learning. He was made counsellor in the supreme council of justice in 1686, and counsellor of the royal chancery in 1689. This same year he had a severe attack of 'the stone, and the pain every day increasing, he wss obliged to be cut for it; the operation however did not succeed, the stone being so big that it could not be extracted. He bore this affliction with great constancy and resolution till his death, which happened in October 1690.

Borrichius died rich, and made a most liberal use of his money. After satisfying his relations (who were all collateral, as he had no family) with bequests to the amount of fifty thousand crowns, he left twenty-six thousand crowns to found a college for poor students, consisting of a house, completely furnished for sixteen students, with library, chemical laboratory, garden, &c. to be called the Medicean college. His principal medical productions consist of observations published in the Acta Haffniensia, and other similar collections, and of the letters sent by him while on his travels, to F. Bartholine, under whom he had been educated. The letters are the most valuable of those published by Bartholine in his “Epistolas Medicse;” but the works by which he acquired his principal celebrity, were “De ortu et progressu Chemise,” published in 1668, 4to; and his “Hermetis Ægyptiorum et Chemicorum sapientia, ab H. Conringio vindicata,” 1674. In this very learned and elaborate work, the author defends the character of the ancient Egyptians against the strictures of Conringius: attributing to them the invention and perfection of chemistry, and even of alchemy; persuading himself that among their secrets they possessed the art of transmuting metals. But either from infatuation, or a desire of victory, he cites several manuscripts, since known to be spurious, as genuine, and some written since the time of our Saviour, as of much higher antiquity. He shews, however, from undoubted authority, that the Egyptians were early acquainted with the medical properties of several of their plants; that they used saline, and even mineral preparations, some of them prepared by chemistry; that incubation, or the method of hatching eggs by artificial beat, was first used by them; in fine, that the art of medicine, invented by them, passed from them to the Grecians. Borrichius was also author of “Conspectus prcestantiorum scriptorum linguæ Latinæ;” 1698, 4to; “Cogitationes de variis linguae Latinas cetatibus,” 1675, 4to; “Analecta philologica, et judicium de lexicis Latinis Graecisque,” 1682, 4to; and various other philological works.

, an eminent Romish saint and cardinal, was born the 2d of October 1538, of a good family, in the castle of Arona, upon lake Major in the Milanese. He addicted himself at an early period to retirement and study. His maternal uncle, Pius IV. sent for him to the court of Rome, made him cardinal in 1560, and afterwards archbishop of Milan. Charles was then but 22 years of age, but conducted the affairs of the church with disinterested zeal and prudence. The Romans were at that time ignorant and lazy: he therefore formed an academy composed of ecclesiastics and seculars, whom, by his example and his liberality, he animated to study and to virtue. Each of them was to write upon some chosen subject, either in prose or verse, and to communicate to each other in frequent conferences the fruits of their studies. The works produced by this society have been published in many volumes, under the title of “Noctes Vaticanas,” their assemblies being held in the Vatican, and at night, after the business of the day was over. About the same time he also founded the college at Pavia, which was dedicated to St. Justina.

In the mean while, however, the young cardinal, in the midst of a brilliant court, went along with the torrent, fitted up grand apartments, furnished them magnificently, and kept splt-ntiid equipages. His table was sumptuously served; his house was never empty of nobles and scholars. His uncle, delighted with this magnificence, gave him ample revenues to support it. In a very short time he was at once grand penitentiary of Rome, archpriest of St. Mary Major; protector of several crowns, and of various orders, religious and military; legate of Bologna, of Romania, and of the marche of Ancona. It was at that time that the famous council of Trent was held. Much was said about the reformation of the clergy, and Charles, after having advised it to others, gave an example of it in his own conduct. He suddenly discharged no less than eighty livery servants, left off wearing silk, and imposed on himself a weekly fast on bread and water. From this beginning he soon proceeded greater lengths. He held councils for confirming the decrees of that of Trent, terminated partly by his means. He made his house into a seminary of bishops; he established schools, colleges, communities; re-modelled his clergy and the monasteries; made institutions for the poor and orphans, and for girls exposed to ruin, who were desirous to return to a regular life. His zeal was the admiration of good men, but was far from acceptable to the corrupt clergy. The order of the Humiliati, which he attempted to reform, excited against him a friar, Farina, a shocking member of that society, who fired a gun at the good man while he was at evening prayer with his domestics. The bail having only grazed his skin, Charles petitioned for the pardon of his assassin, who was punished with death, notwithstanding his solicitations, and his order was suppressed. These contradictions did not abate the ardour of the good archbishop. He visited the desolate extremities of his province, abolished the excesses of the carnival, preached to his people, and shewed himself every where as their pastor and father. During the ravages of a cruel pestilence, he assisted the poor in their spiritual concerns by his ecclesiastics and his personal attentions, sold the furniture of his house to relieve the sick, put up prayers and made processions, in which he walked barefoot, and with a rope round his neck. His heroic charity was repaid with ingratitude. The governor of Milan prevailed on the magistrates of that city to prefer complaints against Charles, whom they painted in the blackest colours. “They accused him (says Baillet) of having exceeded the limits of his authority during the time of the plague; of having introduced dangerous innovations; of having abolished the public games, the stage-plays, and dances; of having revived the abstinence on the first Sunday in Lent, in violation of the privilege granted to that town of including that day in the carnival.” They published an injurious and insulting manifesto against him: but, contented with the testimony of his own conscience, he resigned the care of his justification to the Almighty. At length, worn out by the labours of an active piety, he finished his course the 3d of November 1594, being only in his 47th year. He was canonized in 1610. He wrote a very great number of works on doctrinal and moral subjects, which were printed 1747 at Milan, in 5 vols. folio, and the library of St. Sepulchre in that city is in possession of thirty-one vols. of his manuscript letters. The clergy of France reprinted at their expence the Institutions he composed for the use of confessors. Among his works are many homilies and sermons, as he thought it incumbent on him to preach the word of God himself to his people, notwithstanding the various business and government of so large a diocese. The edition of “Ada Ecclesiae Mediolanensis,” Milan, 1599, fol. is much valued.

Upon the whole St. Charles Borromeo appears entitled to the praises bestowed on him. His piety, however mistaken in some points, was sincere, and he practised with perfect disinterestedness and true consistency what he recommended to others. His life was written by Austin Valerio, bishop of Verona, Boscape, bishop of Novara, and by Giussano, a Milanese priest; but the best life of him, and the most free from superstitious narrative, is that of the abbé Touron, “La Vie et l'esprit de St. Charles Borromeo,” Paris, 1761, 3 vols. 12 mo.

, cousin german to the preceding, and also a cardinal and archbishop of Milan, was first educated under St. Charles, who afterwards placed him in his newly-founded college at Pavia. Jn 1587, pope Pius V. made him a cardinal, and in 1595, Clement VIII. promoted him to the archbishopric of Milan. He died in 1632, leaving various pious works, written in Italian, the principal of which is “Sacri Ragionamenti,” Milan, 1632 1G46, 4 vols. folio, and “Ragionamenti Spiritual!,” ibid. 1673 1676; “De Piacere della mente Christiana,” ibid. 1625. All his works are said to be scarce, but literature was most indebted to him as the founder of the celebrated Ambrosian library at Milan, which was enriched in his time with ten thousand manuscripts collected by Antony Oggiati, whom he made librarian, and by a large collection of books from the Pinelli library.

, an eminent French architect, was born at Bissona in the diocese of Como in 1599, and acquired great reputation at Rome, where he was more employed than any architect of his time. A great number of his works are seen in that city, but the major part are by no means models for young artists. Thjey abound in deviations from the received rules, and other singularities; but, at the same time, we cannot fail of perceiving in them talents of a superior order, and strong marks of genius. It was in his violent efforts to outdo Bernini, whose fame he envied, that he departed from that simplicity which is the true basis of the beautiful, in order to give extravagant ornaments in that taste; which have induced some to compare his style in architecture to the literary style of Seneca or Marini. With his talents, had he studied the great masters in their greatest perfections, he would have been the first architect of his time, merely by following their track; but he unfortunately deviated into the absurdities of singularity, and has left us only to guess from the college of the Propaganda, and a few other buildings at Rome, what he might have been. Even in his own time, his false taste was decried, and it is supposed that the mortifications he met with brought on a derangement of mind, in one of the fits of which he put an end to his life in 1667. From a vain opinion of his superiority, he is said to have destroyed all his designs, before his death, lest any other architect should adopt them. There was published, however, in 1725, at Rome, in Italian and Latin, his “Description of the church of Vallicela,” which he built, with the plans and designs, and a plan of the church of Sapienza, at Rome.

, an artist of singular taste, was born at Bois-le-Duc. He seemed to have a peculiar pleasure in painting spectres, devils, and enchantments: and although he possessed considerable powers as a painter, both in freedom of touch and strength of colouring, his pictures rather excite a horror mixed with admiration than any degree of real delight. Among the singular objects which he chose, there is one which represents the Saviour delivering the Patriarchs from hell. The fire and flames are painted with great truth. Judas in the attempt of slyly escaping with the Saints, is seized in the neck by the devils, who are going to hang him up in the air. A most remarkable painting of this master’s hand, among several others in the Escurial, is an allegory of the pleasures of the flesh: in which he represents the principal figure in a carriage drawn by monstrous imaginary forms, preceded by demons, and roll owed by death. As to his manner, it was less still than tnat of most of the painters of his time; and his draperies were in a better taste, more simple, and with less sameness, than any of his contemporaries. He painted on a white ground, which he so managed as to give a degree of transparence to his colours, and the appearance of more warmth. He laid on his colours lightly, and so placed them, even at the first touch of his pencil, as to give them their proper effect, without disturbing them: and his touch was full of spirit. Bos was also an engraver, and, as Strutt thinks, the first artist who attempted to engrave in the grotesque style. His engravings have that stiffness which so strongly characterises the works of the early German masters, and prove that he possessed a great fertility of invention, though perhaps but little judgment. He died in 1500.

, a learned philologist, was born at Worcum in Friesland, Nov. 23, 1670. His father who was rector or principal regent of the schools, and accustomed to mark the early appearance of talents, soon discovered his son’s aptitude for learning, and taught him Greek and Latin. His mother, a woman of abilities, and aunt to Vitringa, when she saw the latter, then a very young man, advanced to the professorship of Oriental languages, exclaimed with maternal fondness that she hoped to see her son promoted to a similar rank. In this, however, she was not gratified, as she died before he had finished his studies. When he had gone through the ordinary course of the classes in his father’s school, he continued adding to his knowledge by an attentive perusal of the Greek and Latin authors, and had many opportunities for this while he lived with a man of rank, as private tutor to his children. Cicero, above all, was his favourite Latin, author, whom he read again and again. In 1694 he went to the university of Franeker, where his relation, Vitringa, encouraged him to pursue the Greek and Latin studies, to which he seemed so much attached. In October 1696 he was permitted to teach Greek in the university, and in February of the following year, the curators honoured him with the title of prelector in that language. In 1704, when the Greek professorship became vacant by the death of Blancard, Mr. Bos was appointed his successor, and on taking the chair, read a dissertation on the propagation of Greek learning by their colonies, “de eruditione Graecorum per Colonias eorum propagata.” About the end of 1716 he was attacked with a malignant fever, ending in a consumption, a disorder he inherited from his mother, which terminated his life Jan. 6, 1717. Bos was a man of extensive classical learning, a solid judgment, and strong memory. In his personal character he was candid, amiable, and pious; in his studies so indefatigable that he cegretted every moment that was not employed in them. About five years before his death he married the widow of a clergyman, by whom he left two sons.

He published, 1. “Exercitaciones Philologicæ, in quibus Novi Fœderis nonnulla loca è profants maximè auctoribus Græcis iiiustrantur,” Franeker, 1700, 8vo; and in 1713 much enlarged, particularly with an ingenious etymological dissertation, on which, as well as on the work itself, Le Clerc bestows high praise in his “Bibliotheque Choisie,” vol. XV. and his “Bibl. Anc. et Moderne,” vol. 11. 2. “Mysterii Ellipsios Grcecas expositi Specimen,” ibid. 1702, 12 mo. There have been many editions of this useful work to Greek students. 3. “Observatiunes Misceilanex ad loca quaedam cum Novi Fcederis, turn externorum Scriptorum Græcorum,” ibid. 1707, 8vo. 4. An edition of the “Septuagint,” 1709, 2 vols. 4to, with Prolegomena, &c. which Breitinger, who published another edition in 1730— 1732, has criticised with considerable seventy in the “Journal Litteraire,” vol. XVIII. which the reader may compare with what is said of Breitinger’s edition in vol. XL of the “Bibliotheque Raisonnee.” 5. “Antiquitatum Gritearum, praecipne Atticarurh, brevis Descriptio,” Franeker, 1713, 12mo. Of this there have been several editions, as it became a school book. That of Leisner, at Paris, 1769, was in 1772 translated into English by our countryman, the late rev. Percival Stock'dale, and published in octavo, in hopes that it might supply young scholars with a manual more useful than Potter’s Antiquities, but it did not answer the translator’s expectations in this respect. 6. “Animadversiones ad Scriptores quosdam Graccos. Accedit specimen animadversionum Latinarum,” Franeker, 1715, 8vo. The same year he published a new edition of Weller’s Greek Grammar, adding two chapters on accentuation and syntax, shorter and more methodical than those of Weller. F. H. Schcefer published a variorum edition of his “Ellipses,” in 1809, Leipsic. Saxius only, of all his biographers, notices a work by Bos which appears to have been his first, “Thomre Magistri Dictionum Atticarurh Ecloga,” Franeker, 1698, 8vo.

, an artist, was born at Bois-le-Duc, and having been carefully instructed in the art of painting by the artists of his native city, he applied himself entirely to study after nature, and rendered himself very eminent for truth of colouring and neatness of handling. His favourite subjects were flowers and curious plants, which he usually represented as grouped in glasses, or vases of chrystal, half filled with water, and gave them so lively a look of nature, that it seemed scarcely possible to express them with greater truth or delicacy. In representing the drops of dew on the leaves of his subjects, he executed them with uncommon tnnsparence, and embellished his subjects with butterflies, bees, wasps, and other insects, which, Sandrart says, were superior to any thing of that kind performed by his contemporary artists. He likewise painted portraits with very great success.