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

His lordship’s illness increasing, the king, as a farther testimony of his affection and good- will, sent the earl of Buckingham and sir Francis Bacon on the 15th of March to signify his intention of honouring him with an earldom, accompanied with an annual pension. These honours he did not live to receive, but the king conferred the former upon his son, John Egerton, afterwards created earl of Bridgewater. The age in which he lived was a particular aera of the British annals, distinguished by many great and extraordinary public characters: but, whilst the misconduct or misfortune of a Devereux, a Raleigh, a Bacon, and a Coke, exposed them to public disgrace, or to an ignominious death; the prudence, discretion, and integrity of lord Ellesmere, secured him a safe and honourable retreat from this life; for, he died at York-house, in the Strand, on the 15th of March, 1617, in his seventy-seventh year, “in a good old age, and full of virtuous fame,” and in the words of Camden, “Forte quanto propius reipublicse mala viderat, ut integer honestum finem voluit.” To sum up his character, says bishop Hacket, the biographer of archbishop Williams, he was one “Qui nihil in vita nisi laudandum aut fecit, aut dixit, aut sensit.” He was buried at Doddleston, in Cheshire, on the 6th of April.

His lordship left four manuscripts of choice collections. 1. “The Prerogative Royal. 2. The Privileges of Parliament. 3. Proceedings in Chancery. 4. The Power of the Star-Chamber;” and, when he was lying upon his death-bed, to testify his affection to his chaplain Williams, he desired him to chuse what most acceptable legacy he should leave him; when Williams requested only these four books, and having been the principal instruments of his future fortunes, he so highly valued as to deem them a present fit to be offered to king James, to whom he gave them. In lord chancellor Egctrton’s life-time was printed in quarto, in sixteen sheets, Lond. 1609, his “Speech in the Exchequer-chamber,” in Robert C'alvine’s cause, son and heir-apparent of James lord Calvine, of Colcross, in the realm of Scotland, commonly called the case of the postnati. In 1641 was printed at London “The Previleges and Prerogatives of the high court of Chancery, written by the right honourable Thomas lord Ellesmere, late lord chancellor of England.” In 1651 there was published at London a small octavo book, entitled “Certaine Observations concerning the office of Lord Chancellor,” composed by the right honourable and most learned Thomas lord Ellesmere, late lord chancellor of England, small octavo, extracted chiefly from records. And Mr. George Paul published some papers found amongst the manuscripts of Mr. Laughton, of Cambridge, which were said to have been written with the lord chancellor Egerton’s own hand. These were entitled “The lord chancellor Egerton’s Observations on the lord Coke’s Reports, particularly in the debate of causes relating to the Right of the Church, the Power of the king’s Prerogative, the Jurisdiction of Courts, or the Interest of the Subject;” but it is not generally agreed that these papers are truly ascribed to lord chancellor Egerton. There is, however, in Mr. Hargrave’s collection of law manuscripts, a piece entitled “Abridgment of the lord Coke’s Reports under the lord Egerton’s own hand.” It contains a short account of each case in the eleven volumes of Reports published by lord Coke himself; and, probably, was a labour undergone by lord chancellor Egerton, as a preliminary to his observations on lord Coke’s Reports. There is also in Mr. Hargrave’s collection a piece with tbis title, “Observations upon lord Coke’s Reports, made by the lord chancellor Egerton, taken by me out of his own papers, written with his own hand.” These observations are not the same as those in print, but seem to be additional. Who the transcriber was does not appear.

, late bishop of Durham, a descendant of the preceding, was the son of Henry Egerton, bishop of Hereford (fifth son of John third earl of Bridgewater, by lady Jane Powlett, first daughter of Charles duke of Bolton), who marrying lady Elizabeth Ariana Bentinck, daughter of William earl of Portland, had by her one daughter and five sons, of whom John was the eldest. He was born in London, on the 30th of November, 1721, was educated at Eton school, and admitted a gentleman commoner in Oriel college, Oxford, upon the 20th of May 1740, under the tuition of the rev. Dr. Bentham, afterwards regius professor of divinity in that university, where he prosecuted his studies extensively and successfully for six or seven years. He was ordained deacon privately by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Worcester, in Grosvenor chapel, Westminster, on the 21st of Dec. 1745, and the following day he was ordained priest, at a general ordination holden by the same bishop in the same place. On the 23d he was collated by his father to the living of Ross in Herefordshire, and on the 28th was inducted by Robert Breton archdeacon of Hereford. On the 3d of January 1746 (a short time before his father’s death, which happened on the 1st of April following), he was collated to the canonry or prebend of Cublington, in the church of Hereford. Upon the 30th of May 1746, he took the degree of bachelor of civil law, for which he went out grand compounder. On the 21st of November 1748 he married Indy Anne Sophia, daughter of Henry de Grey, duke of Kent, by Sophia, daughter of William Bentinck, earl of Portland. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the king upon the lyth of March 1749; and was promoted to the deanery of Hereford on the 24th of July 1750. He was consecrated bishop of Bangor on the 4th of July 1756, at Lambeth; and had the temporalities restored to him upon the 22d, previously to which, on the 21st of May, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. by diploma, and he was empowered to hold the living of Ross, and the prebend of Cublington, with that bishopric, in commendam, dated the 1st of July. On the 12th of November 1768, he was translated to the see of Lichfield and Coventry, with which he held the prebend of Weldland, and residentiary ship of St. Paul’s, and also the two preferments before mentioned. He was inducted, installed, and enthroned at Lichfield by proxy, upon the 22d of November, and had the temporalities restored upon, the 26th. On the death of Dr. Richard Trevor, he was elected to the see of Durham, upon the 8th of July 1771, and was confirmed on the 20th in St. James’s church, Westminster. Upon the 2d of August following he was enthroned and installed at Durham by proxy. The temporalities of the see were restored to his lordship on the 15th of August, and on the 3d of September he made his public entry into his palatinate. On his taking possession of the bishopric, he found the county divided by former contested elections, which had destroyed the general peace: no endeavours were wanting on his part to promote and secure a thorough reconciliation of contending interests, on terms honourable and advantageous to all; and when the affability, politeness, and condescension, for which he was distinguished, uniting in a person of his high character and station, had won the affections of ll parties to himself, he found less difficulty in reconciling them to each other, and had soon the high satisfaction to see men of the first distinction in the county conciliated by his means, and meeting in good neighbourhood at his princely table. The harmony he had so happily restored, he was equally studious to preserve, which he effectually did, by treating the nobility and gentry of the county at all times with a proper regard, by paying an entire and impartial attention to their native interests, by forbearing to improve any opportunities of influencing their parliamentary choice in favour of his own family or particular friends, and by consulting on all occasions the honour of the palatinate. The same conciliating interposition he had used in the county, he employed in the city of Durham with the same success. At the approach of the general election in 1780 he postponed granting the Mew charter, which would considerably enlarge the number of voters, till some months after the election, that he might maintain the strictest neutrality between the candidates, and avoid even the imputation of partiality; and when he confirmed it, and freely restored to the city all its ancient rights, privileges, and immunities, in the most ample and advantageous form, he selected the members of the new corporation, with great care, out of the most moderate and respectable of the citizens, regardless of every consideration but its peace and due regulation; objects which he steadily held in view, and in the attainment of which he succeeded to his utmost wish, and far beyond his expectation. A conduct equally calculated to promote order and good government, he displayed, if possible, still more conspicuously in the spiritual than in the temporal department of his double office. Towards the chapter, and towards the body of the clergy at large, he exercised every good office, making them all look up to him as their common friend and father: and to those who had enjoyed the special favour of his predecessor, he was particularly kind and attentive, both from a sense of their merit, and that he might mitigate in some degree their loss of so excellent a friend and patron. In the discharge of all his episcopal functions, he was diligent and conscientious. He was extremely scrupulous whom he admitted into orders, in respect of their learning, character, and religious tenets. In his visitations, he urged and enforced the regularity, the decorum, and the well-being of the church, by a particular inquiry into the conduct of its ministers, encouraging them to reside upon their several henetices, and manifesting upon all opportunities, a sincere and active concern for the interests and accommodation of the inferior clergy. His charges were the exact transcripts of his mind. Objections have been made to some compositions of this kind, that they bear the resemblance of being as specious as sincere, and are calculated sometimes, perhaps, rather a little more to raise the reputation of their author as a fine writer, than to edify the ministry and advance religion. Of the charges his lordship delivered, it may truly be said, that, upon such occasions, he recommended nothing to his clergy which he did not practise in his life, and approve of in his closet.

Some years before his death, his health not permitting him to go into the more distant parts of his diocese, he gave a commission to Dr. Law, then bishop of Cioufert and KilmaccUiagh, assisted by the archdeacon, to visit and confirm in Northumberland, confining his personal attendance to the county of Durham. The preferments in his disposal he gave with a truly pastoral care: with many of them he rewarded the provincial clergy, on account of their learning and other merits. In a remarkable instance, in which he wished to prefer a particular friend, he declined indulging his inclination, from a conviction, that the person he was desirous to promote, was not entirely orthodox in his tenets; making a covenant with himself that his affection should not press upon his duty. Such was the wise ceconomy preserved by his lordship, that the expence attending his hospitality and munificence was no obstruction to his well-directed benefactions. Besides many gifts and charities bestowed on indigent clergymen and their families, and other deserving characters in distress, with a delicacy that gave them a double value, and which, during his life, were industriously concealed, he continued to his death all the bounties he had annually given in his two former dioceses of Bangor, and of Lichfield and Coventry, as well as all the numerous benefactions of his predecessors at Durham, increasing those to the sons of the clergy, whom he was particularly solicitous to support, and those to the infirmary at Newcastle. To St. Anne’s chapel in. Auckland, to the schools of Wolsingham, Norton, and many other places, he gave particular benefactions; and, whenever it was practicable, he made it a condition of his consent, upon the inclosure of waste lands, that twenty or thirty acres should be given to the living, where it was small, over and above the allotment to which it was entitled. To the county in general, he was a great benefactor, as well as to the copyholders in particular. He promoted the inclosure of Walling Fen in Howdenshire, which could never have been accomplished without his interposition, on account of the many opposite interests concerned in it, by which six thousand acres were drained and cultivated, and now present the agreeable and useful prospect of numerous farms and cottages, a new town, and a navigation from Market Weighton to the Humber.

He applied to parliament to exonerate the copyholders of Lanchester-fell, and Hamsteel’s-fell, of the lord’s right to the timber, a measure highly useful and liberal; in consequence of which, many trees are planted on a surface of nearly thirty thousand acres, and are become already ornamental to the country, and will in time be useful to the nation. He cpnsemed to an act of parliament for infranchising certain copyholds in the manor of Howdenshire, for the accommodation and convenience of the tenants, by enabling them to convey their lands with more ease and safety, and at the same time without prejudice to the lord. In the great flood of November 1771 the whole of the bridge over the Tyne, between Newcastle and Gateshead, was either swept away, or so much damaged as to render the taking it down necessary. Of the expence of rebuilding it, the see of Durham was subject to onethird, and the corporation of Newcastle to the remainder. Parliament enabled the bishop to raise, by life annuities chargeable upon the see, a sum sufficient for rebuilding his proportion. The surveyors for the bishop and corporation disagreeing, the bridge is not rebuilt upon a regular plan; which was so contrary to his lordship’s wishes, that he offered to advance to the corporation the amount of his one-third, that they mi^ht undertake the management of the whole, and finish it uniformly; which proposal was not accepted. In the progress of this business, he not only consented that his expence should be enlarged, but likewise that his income should be diminished; for he agreed to the widening of the new bridge, by which the expences of rebuilding were increased; and then, to alleviate the losses of his tenants who had houses on the old bridge, he gave them full leases for building upon the new, without taking any tine: but as building upon the new bridge would impair the beauty of it, and be an inconvenience to the public, he gave up his own interests in the sites of the houses, on condition that his tenants should have an equivalent on another spot, upon agreeing not to build upon the new bridge; and he then procured it to be enacted by parliament, that no houses should, in future, be built upon the new bridge, though the renewal of the leases of the buildings that otherwise might have been erected thereon, would have produced him a considerable income. The important rights of property, which had been long in dispute between the see and the respectable family of C layering, were brought by his means to an amicable conclusion and the rights of boundary, which his predecessors had long been litigating, were fully ascertained and when, by authority of parliament, he granted a lease of the estates in question, for Un.<. lues, he gave the fine he received for the lease to his lessee of the mines, in consideration of the expences which were formerly incurred by him in defending the right It may truly be considered as no small proof of his moderation, that notwithstanding for nearly seventeen years he held the bishopric of Durham, in which the rights of property are so various and extensive, the persons with whom he had to transact business so numerous, and in their expectations, perhaps, not always reasonable, he had during that whole period but one Jaw-suit: and though there are in these times certainly no improper prejudices in favour of the claims of the church, that law-suit was, by a jury of the county, determined in his favour. It was instituted to prevent the onus of repairing the road between Auckland park and the river Wear from being fixed upon his successors, to whose interests he was always properly attentive. He adjusted the quota of the land tax of the estates in London belonging to the see, procuring to himself and his successors an abatement of 13-20ths of what had been before unduly paid; and he greatly increased the rents of the episcopal demesnes at Stockton. His additions and improvements at the episcopal palaces, offices, and grounds, did equal credit to his taste and liberality. Exclusively of such as he made in the castle and offices at Durham, by fitting up the great breakfast-room, now used as a drawing-room, and by enlarging and repairing the stables and their dependencies; at Auckland-castle, where he chiefly resided, his improvements were equally well judged, and much more various and expensive. At the north-east entrance of Auckland demesne, which, in the approach from Durham, opens the extensive and magnificent scene of the park and castle, he built a porter’s lodge and a gateway, and ornamented these with large plantations: and the new apartments at the south of the castle, which were begun by his predecessors, he completed, and made into a magnificent suite of rooms. The great room he fitted up, and new furnished the chapel. The steward’s house, as well as the offices and stables, he enlarged, repaired, and altered into regular buildings; and he lowered the walls of the court and bowling-green, to the great beauty of the scenery from the house. With the monies arising from the sale of the rents and fines in Howdenshire, he bought the Park closes, the Haver closes, and other grounds adjoining to the park, with some houses and tenements in Auckland; he considerably extended the park wall, intending to continue it round the whole the kitchen garden he greatly enlarged, and secured it by a stone pier from the river Gaunless he built another stone pier and wall, to cover part of the park from the ravages of the river Wear; he embanked against the Gaunless in its whole course through the park, and formed in it many beautiful falls. He ornamented the park and demesne lands with various plantations, draining and improving the whole with much judgment, and especially the park farm, which he inclosed. Ail the grounds he kept in the very neatest order, employing the oldest and most indigent persons in the neighbourhood. In Belbourne wood, he cut several walks and ridings, and totally rebuilt the lodge-house and farm, which presents a beautiful object to the castle. Notwithstanding all these expences, he was liberal and indulgent to his tenants, remitting many fines, and taking no more than one year’s rent for a renewal of seven years, or one life; attempts, however, were sometimes made to abuse his lenity and indulgence.

It is not always that men distinguished in public appear to advantage in their private characters. We shall consider the life of our prelate in both these views, and each will throw a lustre upon the other. In the following sketch we mean to delineate such select traits only as are not common to all other men, but were more peculiar in him. His person was tall and well formed, it had both elegance and strength; his countenance was ingenuous, animated, and engaging. By nature he was endowed with strong and lively parts, a good temper, “and an active disposition. Descended from noble ancestors, and initiated from his birth in the most honourable connections, his manners and sentiments were cast from an early age in the happiest mould, and gave all the advantages of that ease and propriety of behaviour, which were so very observable even in the most indifferent actions of his life. In his address there was a peculiar mixture of dignity and affability, by which he had the remarkable art both of encouraging those who were diffident, and checking those who were presumptuous. The vivacity of his spirits and conversation, and the peculiar propriety of his manners, made him universally admired and caressed. His memory was accurate and extensive. In describing the characters, and in relating the anecdotes and transactions with which he had been acquainted, he took particular delight; and this, when his health permitted, he did with much spirit, and often with the utmost pleasantry and humour; but scrupulously taking care that the desire of ornamenting any narrative should never in the smallest degree induce him to depart from the truth of it. With so rare and happy a talent for description, with a mind stored with much information, and a memory very retentive, he was one of the most instructive and entertaining of companions; his conversation was enriched with pertinent and useful observations, and enlivened by genuine wit and humorous anecdote. He had a very peculiar art of extricating himself with much immediate address from those little embarrassments which perplex and confound many, and which often occur in society from thf awkwardness of others, or from a concurrence of singular and unexpected circumstances. When pressed by improper questions, instead of being offended with them himself, or giving offence by his replies, be had a talent of returning very ready and very dextrous answers. In every sort of emergency, as well in personal danger as in difficulties of an inferior nature, he shewed an uncommon presence of mind. He possessed a great reach of understanding, and was singularly gifted with a quick and ready judgment, deciding rightly upon the instant when it was necessary. No man was better qualified, or at the same time more averse to give his opinion; which, upon many occasions, he found a difficulty in avoiding, its value being so well known, that it was often solicited by his friends; and, when he was prevailed upon, he delivered it rather with the humility of one who asked, than with the authority of one who gave advice. In forming his friendships, he was as cautious as he was steady and uniform in adhering to them. He was extremely partial to the friendships of his youth, and made a particular point of being useful to those with whom he had been thus early connected. In all the domestic relations of life he was exemplary, as a husband, a master, and a parent. Instead of holding over his children an authority founded upon interest, during his life he put them into possession of a great part of such fortunes as they would have inherited from him upon his death, willing to have their obedience proceed not merely from a sense of duty, but from gratitude, and from pure disinterested affection. Though he was ever disinclined to write for the public, yet his merit as a scholar was, however, well known, and properly estimated, by such of his private friends as were them” selves distinguished by their erudition, particularly by archbishop Seeker, Benson bishop of Gloucester, Butler bishop of Durham, the late lord Lyttelton, the late lord Egremont, the late Mr. George Grenville, Mr. William Gerard Hamilton, Mr. Ansty, Mr. Richard Owen Cambridge, Mr. Garrick, Mr. Stillingfleet, Mr. J. Nourse, author of several pieces of poetry in Dodsley’s collection, Dr. Croxall, sir William Draper, &c. &c. His only publications were three sermons one preached before the lords, the llth of February, 1757, being a general fast another before the lords, the 30th of January, 1761 and a third before the society for the propagation of the gospel, on the 18th of February, 1763. In the early part of his life he was fond of those manly exercises which give strength and vigour both to the body and mind, without suffering them to interrupt his studies; a practice, which thus regulated, instead of being injurious, is serviceable to learning, and which men eminent for their judgment have lamented was not more cultivated and improved. His usual relaxations were such as exercised the understanding; chess was his favourite amusement, and he played well at that game. The Greek and Latin tongues were familiar to him. He spoke the French and Italian languages; and wrote, and spoke his own with purity and precision. Of books he had a competent knowledge, and collected a good library. In every thing he had a pure taste. In history, anecdotes, and memoirs, in the belles-lettres, in the arts and sciences, and in whatever else may be supposed to fall within the circle of polite education, he was by no means uninstructed.

It is understood that his grace before be came of age, digested the plans which he afterwards prosecuted with such success, and proceeded to put them in execution as soon as he obtained possession of his paternal inheritance. Among other estates, the duke had one at Worsley, in Lancashire, rich in coal-mines, but, owing to the expence of land-carriage, of inconsiderable value: desirous, therefore, of working those mines to greater advantage, he projected a canal from his estate at Worsley, to the rich and flourishing town of Manchester. With this view he applied to the ingenious Mr. Brindley, who had previously manifested unusual talents; and that artist, after surveying the ground, pronounced the execution of the work to be practicable. As, however, we have detailed the early history of this undertaking in our article of Bkindley, (vol. VII.) it may suffice to refer to it; and briefly notice in this place that the duke caused a bill to be introduced into Parliament in 1758-9, which met with uncommon opposition in its progress, though it ultimately passed both houses; and further powers, as well for the purpose of effecting the original design, as for extending the line of navigation, being afterwards found necessary, application was again made to parliament, and they were much more readily obtained than the former. This canal begins at Worsley-Mill, about seven miles from Manchester, where his grace cut a bason capacious enough to hold all his boats and a body of water to serve as a reservoir for his navigation. The canal enters a hill by a subterraneous passage of nearly a mile in length, that admits flat-bottom boats, which are toweci along by hand-rails to the coal-works: this passage afterwards divides into two; is in some places cut through the solid rock, in others arched with brick; and is provided with several air-funnels, cut to the top of the hill. At the entrance, the arch is about six feet wide,and in some parts of sufficient breadth to admit of boats passing each other. Five or six of those boats, which carry seven tons each, are drawn by one horse to Manchester. In other places, the canal is carried over public roads by means of ardhes; and where the road is too high, it is gradually lowered, and rises on the opposite side. But one of the most arduous works accomplished on this canal is the aqueduct over the river Irwell, where the canal runs forty feet over the river, and where the barges are seen passing on the former, and the vessels on the latter in full sail under them. This aqueduct begins three miles from Worsley, and is carried for more than two hundred yards over a valley. When the works approached the river, several artists pronounced their completion impracticable; and one went so far as to call it “building a castle in the air.” Had the duke attended to these opinions, without doubt delivered by men of skill and penetration, he would have relinquished his purpose; but his own sagacity, and his confidence in the assurances of Mr. Brindley, determined him to persevere; and the aqueduct over the river Irwell will for ages remain as a monument of the public spirit of his grace the late duke of Bridgewater, and of the rare abilities of the artist; while it may also read a salutary lecture on the imbecility of human judgment and human foresight.

In order to the prosecution, as well as to the completion, of the whole undertaking, it must be obvious to every one at all acquainted with the construction of canals, even now, when their principles are so well understood, that, under all the unforeseen difficulties and discouraging circumstances of the case, it was only such a man as Mr. Brindley, blessed, as he was, with a peculiarly fertile genius, and honoured with the confidence, and supported by the wealth, of his illustrious patron, who could have successfully persevered in it. Assailed by clashing interests, by inveterate prejudices, by adverse opinions, and by the most discouraging predictions, he must have possessed a very superior mind not to have yielded to them. Indeed, no obstacle, however unexpected or considerable, seems to have been capable of impeding him in the execution of his plan; and the ingenuity and contrivance displayed throughout were wonderful.

, the founder of Queen’s college, Oxford, rector of Burgh or Brough in Westmoreland, and confessor to Philippa, Edward lll.'s queen, deserves a more ample notice than at this distance of time can be procured; nor have we arty particulars to add to the account given in another place. His descent appears to have been honourable, and more than once the county of Cumberland was represented in parliament by a member of the house. They had considerable estates in different parts of that county; and we find that either the founder of the college, or one of the family of the same name, received of Edward III. in exchange for the manor of La I e ham in Middlesex, the manor of Uavenwick or Renwick, in Cumberland, which had been forfeited to the king’s father Ldward II. on the attainder of Andrew de Harcla, earl of Carlisle, in 1323. This manor is now the property of the college.

It is probable that Robert de Egglestield was born at Egglesfeld, a hamlet in the parish of Brigham, in the county of Cumberland, where the family was certainly possessed of property in the time of Henry III. In the reign of Edward III. they came into the possession of Alueburgh hall, or Netherhall, in the parish of Cross Canonby in the same county, which from that time was their principal residence. Here they lived in high estimation, until, in the reign of Philip and Mary, Elizabeth, eldest sister and coheiress of Richard Egglesfield, esq. was married to John Senhouse, of Sealscale hall, esq. This marriage brought the property into the family of Senhouse, in which it has ever since continued.

, an ingenious botanical painter, the son of the prince of Baden Durlach’s gardener, was born in 1710, and very early shewed a taste for drawing, and painting the flowers of the garden. Although he received no instructions, yet such was his proficiency, that, whilst a very young man, he had painted 500 plants with a skill and accuracy that was almost unexampled, under the disadvantages of so total a want of instruction as this young artist had experienced. His merit, however, remained long unknown, or at least ineffectually noticed, until it was discovered by a gentleman of curiosity and judgment, who visited the garden of which his father was the superintendant. Fortunately for young Ehret, this stranger was a physician and a friend of the celebrated Dr. Trew, of Norimberg, to whom he justly supposed these paintings would be acceptable. Ehret by this means was introduced to Trew, who immediately purchased the whole 500 paintings, and generously gave him double the price at which the young artist had modestly valued them.

, of the Palatinate, an able writer against the Jews, was born at Manheim, in 1654, was educated at Heidelberg, and afterwards, at the expence of the elector palatine, travelled in Holland and England. At Amsterdam he applied himself to the study of the Arabic, and copied the Alcoran with his own hand from three manuscripts. In 1693 when the palatinate was invaded, he retired to Francfort, with the electoral regency, and was made keeper of the archives. He was next advanced to the office of registrar of the electoral chancery at Heidelberg, and afterwards appointed professor of the oriental languages. He had also an invitation to succeed Leusden at Utrecht, but declined it, and died at Heidelberg, Dec. 20, 1704. Having very much studied the Talmudical writings, he was desirous to convince the Jews of their folly in preferring the oral to the written law, the traditions of men to the precepts of God, and the Talmud to the Holy Scriptures. With this view he took great pains to collect all the fables, allegories, and contradictions in the Talmud and other rabbinical works, and published this collection in 2 vols. 4to, at Francfort, under the title of “Judaism discovered,” but the Jews had interest enough at the court of Vienna to interdict the sale of it. At length the king of Prussia ordered it to be reprinted at Konigsberg in 1711, at his sole expence, and with great liberality gave a part of the impression to the heirs of Eisenmenger, to recompense them for their loss. In 1743, an abridgement of this work was published in English by the rev. John Peter Stehelin, London, 2 vols. 8vo, under the title “The Traditions of the Jews, or the Doctrines and Expositions contained in the Talmud, and other Rabbinnical writings,” &c. This is a work of great curiosity, and the first in which the English public was made acquainted with the traditions of the Jews.

, the gallant defender of Gibraltar, was the son of sir Gilbert Eliott of Stobbs in Roxburghshire. The ancient and honourable family of Eliott of Stobbs, as well as the collateral branch of Eliott of Min to in the same county, and of Eliott of port Eliott, in Cornwall, are originally from Normandy. Their ancestor M. Aliott came over with William the conqueror, and held a distinguished rank in his army. There is a traditionary anecdote in the family relating to an honourable distinction in their coat, which, as it corresponds with history, bears the probability of truth. When William set foot on the English land, he slipped and fell on the earth. On springing up again, he exclaimed, that it was a happy omen; he had taken seisin of the country whereof he was to become lord. Upon this, Aliott drevr his sword, and swore by the honour of a soldier, that he would maintain, at the hazard of his blood, the right of his lord to the sovereignty of the land of which he had thus taken possession. On the event of conquest, king William added to the arms of Aliott, which were a baton Or, on a field Azure, an arm and sword as a crest, with the motto, “Per saxa, per ignes, fortiter & recte.”

Mr. Eliott returned in his seventeenth year to his native country of Scotland, and was in the same year, 1735, introduced by his father, sir Gilbert, to lieutenant-colonel Peers of the 23d regiment of foot, or royal Welsh fuzileers, then lying in Edinburgh. Sir Gilbert presented him as a youth anxious to bear arms for his king and country. He was accordingly entered as a volunteer in that regiment, and continued for a twelvemonth or more. At this time he gave a promise of his future military talents, and shewed that he was at least a soldier in heart. From the 23d he went into the engineer corps at Woolwich, and made great progress in that study, until his uncle, colonel Eliott, introduced him as adjutant of the 2d troop of horsegrenadiers. In this situation he conducted himself with the most exemplary attention, and laid the foundation of that discipline which has rendered those two troops the finest corps of heavy cavalry in Europe. With these troops he went upon service to Germany, in the war before last, and was with them in a variety of actions, particulars’ at the battle of Dettingen, where he was wounded. In this regiment he first bought the rank of captain and major, and afterwards purchased the lieutenant-colonelcy from colonel Brewerton, who succeeded to his uncle. On arriving at this rank he resigned his commission as an engineer, which he had enjoyed along with his other rank, and in which service be had been actively employed very much to the advantage of his country. He bad received the instructions of the famous engineer Bellidor, and made himself completely master of the science of gunnery. Had he not so disinterestedly resigned his rank in the engineer department, he would now by regular progression have been at the head of that corps. Soon after this he was. appointed aid-de-camp to king George II. and was already distinguished for his military skill and discipline. In 1759 be quitted the second troop of horse grenadier guards, being selected to raise, form, and discipline the first regiment of light horse, called after him Eliott’s. As soon as they were raised and formed, he was appointed to the command of the cavalry, in the expedition on the coasts of France, with the rank of brigadier- general and after this he passed into Germany, where he was employed on the staff, and greatly distinguished himself in a variety of movements, while his regiment displayed a strictness of discipline, an activity, and enterprise, which gained them signal honour; and indeed they have been the pattern regiment, both in regard to discipline and appointment, to the many light dragoon troops that have been since raised in our service. From Germany he was recalled for the purpose of being employed as second in command in the memorable expedition against the Havannah. The circumstances of that conquest are well known. It seems as if our brave veteran had always in his eye the gallant Lewis de Velasco, who maintained his station to the last extremity, and, when his garrison were flying from his side, or falling at his feet, disdained to retire or call for quarter, but fell gloriously exercising his sword upon his conquerors. A circumstance which occurred immediately after the reduction shews, that in the very heat and outrages of war the general was not unmindful of the rights of humanity. He was particularly eminent among the conquerors of the Havannah, for his disinterested procedure, and for checking the horrors of indiscriminate plunder. To him, therefore, appeals were most frequently made. A Frenchman, who had suffered greatly by the depredations of the soldiery, made application to him, and begged, in bad English, that he would interfere to have his property restored. The petitioner’s wife, who was present, a woman of great spirit, was angry at the husband for the intercession, and said, “Comment pouvez vous demander de grace a uu homme qui vient vous de‘pouilliefr N’en esperez pas.” The husband persisting in his application, his wife grew more loud in the censure, and said, “Vous n'étes pas François!” The general, who was busy writing at the time, turned to the woman, and said smiling, “Madame, ne vous échauffez pas; ce que votre mari demande lui sera accordé!”—“Oh, faut-il pour surcroit de malheur,” exclaimed the woman, “que le barbare parle le François!” The general was so very much pleased with the woman’s spirit, that he not only procured them their property again, but also took pains to accommodate them in every respect; and such was through life the manly characteristic of the general: if he would not suffer his troops to extend, for the sake of plunder, the ravages of war, he never impoverished them by unjust exactions. He would never consent that his quarter-master’s place should be sold, “not only,” says he, “because I think it the reward of an honest veteran soldier; but also because I could not so directly exercise my authority in his dismission should he behave ill.”

On the peace, his gallant regiment was reviewed by his majesty in Hyde-park—when they presented to the king the standards which they had taken from the enemy. The king, gratified with their high character, asked general Eliott what mark of his favour he could bestow on his regiment equal to their merits. He answered, that his regiment would be proud if his majesty should think that by their services they were entitled to the distinction of royals. It was accordingly made a royal regiment, with this flattering title, The 15th, or king’s royal regiment of light dragoons. At the same time the king expressed a desire to confer a mark of his favour on the brave general; but he declared, that the honour and satisfaction of his majesty’s approbation of his services were his best reward.

During the peace he was not idle. His great talents in the various branches of the military art gave him ample employment; and in the year 1775 he was appointed to succeed general A'Court as commander in chief of the forces in Ireland. But he did not continue long on this station; finding that interferences were made by petty authority derogatory of his own, he resisted the practice with becoming spirit; and not choosing to disturb the government of the sister kingdom, on a matter personal to himself, he solicited to be recalled, and accordingly was so, when he was appointed to the command of Gibraltar, in a fortunate hour for the safety of that important fortress. The system of his life, as well as his education, peculiarly qualified him for this trust. He was perhaps the most abstemious man of the age. His food was vegetables, and his drink water. He neither indulged himself in animal food nor wine. He never slept more than four hours at a time; so that he was up later and earlier than most other men. He had so inured himself to habits of hardness, that the things which are difficult and painful to other men, were to him his daily practice, and rendered pleasant by use. It could not be easy to starve such a man into a surrender, nor to surprise him. Mis wants were easily supplied, and his watchfulness was beyond precedent. The example of the commander in chief in a besieged garrison has a most persuasive efficacy in forming the manners of the soldiery. Like him his brave followers came to regulate their lives by the most strict rules of discipline before there arose a necessity for so doing; and severe exercise, with short diet, became habitual to them by their own choice. The military system of discipline which he introduced, and the preparations which he made for his defence, were contrived with so much judgment, and executed with so much address, that he was able, with a handful of men, to preserve his post against an attack, the constancy of which, even without the vigour, was sufficient to exhaust any common set of men. Collected within himself, he in no instance destroyed, by premature attacks, the labours which would cost the enemy time, patience, and expence to complete; he deliberately observed their approaches, and seized on the proper moment, with the keenest perspection, in which to make his attack with success. He never spent his ammunition in useless parade, or in unimportant attacks. He never relaxed from his discipline by the appearance of security, nor hazarded the lives of his garrison by wild experiments. By a cool and temperate demeanour, he maintained his station for three years of constant investment, in which all the powers of Spain were employed. All the eyes of Europe were on his garrison, and his conduct justly raised him to a most elevated place in the military annals of the present day.

He was undoubtedly one of the most useful persons of his age in the infant state of America; -and such was his charity that he distributed all he received from his own congregation among the Indians. He wrote several pamphlets, giving accounts of the “Progress of the Gospel among the Indians in New England,” 4to, which were regularly sent over to the corporation in London, and printed by them. He published also an “Indian Grammar,” Camb. 1666, 4to; and “The Logiek Primer for the use of the Indians,” 1672, 16mo. We are also told that he was the author of a tract or volume called “The Christian Republic,” which is said to have been published in England about 1660, but that the governor and council of Massachusetts, conceiving that it militated against the established governments, and especially against the monarchy of the mother country, insisted upon its being suppressed, and that the author should retract his sentiments. This he is said to have done, by allowing that a government by king, lords, and commons, has nothing in it hostile to Christianity. Other works ace ascribed to him, which, we do not find mentioned by any of his biographers.

, queen of England, one of the most celebrated sovereigns of this or of any country, was the daughter of Henry VIII. by his queen Anne Boleyn, and born in the year 1533. JShe was educated in the principles of the protestant religion, and was distinguished for her attainments in classical literature. By the last will of her father, she was nominated third in order of succession, but by the influence of the duke of Northumberland, she was by an act of Edward VI. excluded from the crown, to which nevertheless she attained on the death of her sister Mary. During, however, the reign of that sister, she was treated with the utmost indignity and severity, committed to the Tower, and threatened with still greater calamities. Her confinement in this fortress was short, for even the judges of Mary could find no plea against her, and she was sent from thence to Woodstock, where, though kept in safe custody, she was treated with much respect. Her sufferings and her principles endeared her to the nation, and she became so extremely popular that it was, in a short time, deemed impolitic to put any restraint upon her. When set at liberty she chose study and retirement, and was very submissive to the will of her sister. Attempts were made to draw her into some declarations respecting her religion, which might be laid hold of; but in every instance she acted with so much prudence and caution as to give her enemies no advantage of that kind, and seemed to comply with the external forms of the established religion, though it was well known, she was attached to that of the reformation.

Deprived thus of a foreign ally, Elizabeth looked for resources in the loyalty of her people; but among them she had enemies, and several conspiracies were formed against her life, for which some persons, particularly Francis Throgmorton and William Parry, were condemned and executed. Such attempts, incited by the popish party, served to increase the severity of the laws against persons of that communion. Popish priests were banished the kingdom; those who harboured or relieved them were declared guilty of felony, and many were executed in consequence of these laws. Babington’s conspiracy was perhaps yet more formidable, but being discovered, the conspirators were executed, and the fate of Mary, queen of Scots, was precipitated by the share, or supposed share, she had in it. The conduct of Elizabeth, after Mary’s execution, forms a part of her character too important to be omitted. When informed of that event, she affected the utmost surprize and indignation. Her countenance changed, her speech faultered, she stood some time fixed, like a statue, in mute astonishment, and afterwards burst into loud lamentations. She put herself in deep mourning, was seen perpetually bathed in tears, and surrounded only by her female attendants. If any of her ministers approached her, she chased them from her, with the most violent expressions of rage and resentment. They had, all of them, she 'said, been guilty of an unpardonable crime, in putting to death her dear sister and kinswoman, contrary to her fixed purpose, with which they were sufficiently acquainted. In order to appease the king of Scots, to whom she soon wrote a letter of apology, she committed Davison to prison, and commanded him to be tried in the star-chamber for sending off the warrant for Mary’s execution. (See Davison.) James, of Scotland, notwithstanding Elizabeth’s apology, discovered the highest resentment at the death of his mother, and refused to admit into his presence sir Robert Gary, whom the queen had sent as her ambassador. He likewise recalled his ambassadors from England, while the states of Scotland, being assembled, professed that they were ready to spend their lives and fortunes in revenge of his mother’s death, and in defence of his title to the crown of England: but Elizabeth, by frequent messengers and persuasions, aided, perhaps, by James’s peaceable disposition, prevailed on him to return to his amicable correspondence with the court of England.

In the midst of all this danger the queen appeared undismayed, issued her orders with tranquillity, animated her people to a steady resistance; and the more to excite the martial spirit of the nation, appeared on horseback at Tilbury, exhorting the soldiersto their duty, and promising to share with them the same dangers and the same fate. On this occasion the words of her address are said to have been these: “My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear I have always so behaved myself, that, under God, I have placed my chief strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects. And therefore I am coma amongst you at this time; not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart of a king, and of a king: of England too and think foul scorn that Parma, or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms. To which, rather than any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom, never prince commanded a more, noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” On hearing this, an attachment to her person became a kind of enthusiasm among the soldiery; and they asked one another, whether it were possible that Englishmen could abandon the glorious cause, could display less fortitude than appeared in the female sex, or could ever by any dangers be induced to relinquish the defence of their heroic princess.

The Lizard was the first land made by the armada, about sun-set; and as the Spaniards took it for the Ramhead, near Plymouth, they bore out to sea with an intention of returning next day, and attacking the English navy. They were descried by Fleming, a Scotch pirate, who was roving in these seas, and who immediately set sail to inform the English admiral of their approach, another event which contributed extremely to the safety of the fleet. EffinL,ham, the English admiral, had just time to get out of port, when he saw the Spanish armada coming full sail towards him, disposed in the form of a crescent, and stretching the distance of seven miles from the extremity of one division to that of the other The writers of that age, says Hume, whose narrative we have partly followed, raise their style by a pompous description of this spectacle; the most magnificent that had ever appeared upon the ocean, infusing equal terror and admiration into the minds of all beholders. The lofty masts, the swelling sails, and the towering prows of the Spanish galleons, seem impossible to be justly painted, but by assuming the colours of poetry; and an eloquent historian of Italy, Bentivoglio, in imitation of Camden, has asserted, that the armada, though the ships bore every sail, yet advanced with a slow motion, as if the ocean groaned with supporting, and the winds were tired with impelling, so enormous a weight. The truth, however, is, that the largest of the Spanish vessels would scarcely pass for third-rates in the present navy of England; and they were so ill-framed, or so ill-governed, that they were quite unwieldy, and could not sail upon a wind, nor tack on occasion, nor be managed in stormy weather by the seamen. Neither the mechanics of ship-building, nor the experience of mariners, had attained so great perfection as could serve for the security and government of such bulky vessels; and the English, who had already had experience how unserviceable they commonly were, beheld without dismay their, tremendous appearance.

Effingham gave orders not to come to close fight with the Spaniards, where the size of the ships, he suspected, and the number of the soldiers, would be a disadvantage to the English but to cannonade them at a distance, and to wait the opportunity which winds, currents, or various accidents must afford him, of intercepting some scattered vessels of the enemy. Nor was it long before the event answered expectation. A great ship of Biscay, on board of which was a considerable part of the Spanish money, took fire by accident; and while all hands were employed in extinguishing the flames, she fell behind the rest of the armada; the great galleon of Andalusia was detained by the springing of her mast; and both these vessels were taken, after some resistance, by sir Francis Drake. As the armada advanced up the channel, the English hung upon its rear, and still infested it with skirmishes. Each trial abated the confidence of the Spaniards, and added courage to the English; and the latter soon found, that even in close fight the size of the Spanish ships was no advantage to them. Their bulk exposed them the more to the fire of the enemy; while their cannon, placed too high, shot over the heads of the English. The alarm having now reached the coast of England, the nobility and gentry hastened out with their vessels from every harbour, and reinforced the admiral. The earls of Oxford, Northumberland, and Cumberland, sir Thomas Cecil, sir Robert Cecil, sir Walter Raleigh, sir Thomas Vavasor, sir Thomas Gerrard, sir Thomas Blount, with many others, distinguished themselves by this generous and disinterested service of their country. The English fleet, after the conjunction of those ships, amounted to an hundred and forty four sail.

The armada had now reached Calais, and cast anchor before that place; in expectation that the duke of Parma, who had gotten intelligence of their approach, would put to sea and join his forces to them. The English admiral practised here a successful stratagem upon the Spaniards. He took eight of his smaller ships, and filling them with all combustible materials, sent them one after another into the midst of the enemy. The Spaniards fancied that they were fireships of the same contrivance with a famous vessel which had lately done so much execution in the Scheld near Antwerp; and they immediately cut their cables, and took to flight with the greatest disorder and precipitation. The English fell upon them next morning while in confusion; and besides doing great damage to other ships, they took oV destroyed about twelve of the enemy. By this time it was become apparent, that the intention for which these preparations were made by the Spaniards, was entirely frustrated. The vessels provided by the duke of Parma were made for transporting soldiers, not for fighting; and that general, when urged to leave the harbour, positively refused to expose his flourishing army to such apparent hazard; while the English were not only able to keep the sea, but seemed even to triumph over their enemy. The Spanish admiral found, in many rencounters, that while he lost so considerable a part of his own navy, he had destroyed only one small vessel of the English and he foresaw that by continuing so unequal a combat, he must draw inevitable destruction on all the remainder. He prepared therefore to return homewards; but as the wind was contrary to his passage through the channel, he resolved to sail northwards, and making the tour of the island, reach the Spanish harbours by the ocean. The English feet followed him during some time; and had not their ammuniiion fallen short, by the negligence of the offices in supplying them, they had obliged the whole armada to surrender at discretion. The duke of Medina had once taken that resolution; but was diverted from it by the advice of his confessor. This conclusion of the enterprize would have been more glorious to the English; but the event proved almost equally fatal to the Spaniards. A violent tempest overtook the armada after it passed the Orkneys; the ships had already lost their anchors, and were obliged to keep to sea; the mariners, unaccustomed to such hardships, and not able to govern such unwieldy vessels, yielded to the fury of the storm, and allowed their ships to drive either on the western isles of Scotland, or on the coast of Ireland, where they were miserably wrecked^ Not a half of the navy returned to Spain; and the seamen as well as soldiers who remained, were so overcome with hardships and fatigue, and so dispirited by their discomfiture, that they filled all Spain with accounts of the desperate valour of the English, and of the tempestuous violence of that ocean which surrounds them. Such was the miserable and dishonourable conduct of an enterprize which had been preparing for three years, which had exhausted the revenue and force of Spain, and which had long filled all Europe with anxiety or expectation, and which was intended to have destroyed the civil liberties, as well as the reformed religion, in England. Soon after this, which was one of the most important events in the history of Elizabeth, or any other sovereign of England, Elizabeth became the ally of Henry IV. in order to vindicate his title, and establish him firmly on the throne of France, and for some years the Englisii auxiliaries served in France, while several naval expeditions, undertaken by individuals, or by the queen, raised the reputation of England to an extraordinary height. At this period Robert Devereux earl of Essex, the queen’s favourite, highly distinguished himself; but the events of his unfortunate life have been already given. (See Devereux.)

In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with England, a new system of European power, with a view of controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his projects, and the French minister departed in admiration of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage, and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable, “feeding,” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable burden to her.” Few words she uttered, and they were all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them. Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed, much less to make trial of any remedies which they prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that, as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which continued some hours, and she expired gently, without farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign.

So dark a cloud, says Hume, overcast the evening of that day which had shone out with a mighty lustre in the eyes of all Europe. There are few great personages in history who have been more exposed to the calumnies of enemies, and the adulation of friends, than queen Elizabeth, and yet there is scarcely any whose reputation has been more certainly determined by the unanimous consent of posterity. The unusual length of her administration, and the strong features of her character, were able to overcome all prejudices; and obliging her detractors to abate much of their invectives, and her admirers somewhat of their panegyrics, have at last, in spite of political factions, and, what is more, of religions animosities, produced an uniform judgment with regard to her conduct. Her vigour, her constancy, her magnanimity, her penetration, vigilance, and address, are allowed to merit the highest praises, and appear not to have been surpassed by any person that ever filK d a throne; a conduct less rigoro.us, less imperious, more sincere, more indulgent to her people, would have been requisite to have formed a perfect character. By the force of her mind, she controlled all her more active and stronger qualities, and prevented them from running into excess. Her heroism was exempt from temerity, her frugality from avarice, her friendship from partiality, her active temper from turbulency and a vain ambition she guarded not herself with equal care or equal success from lesser infirmities the rivalship of beauty, the desire of admiration, the jealousy of love, and the sallies of anger.

When we contemplate her as a woman, adds Hume, we are apt to be struck with the highest admiration of her great qualities and extensive capacity, but we are apt also to require some more softness of disposition, some greater lenity of temper, some of those amiable weaknesses by which her sex is distinguished. But the true method of estimating her merit, is to lay aside all these considerations, and consider her merely as a rational being, placed in authority, and entrusted with the government of mankind. We may find it difficult to reconcile our fancy to her as a wife or mistress, but her qualities as a sovereign, though with some considerable exceptions, are the object of undisputed applause and approbation.

, daughter of Peter the great, by the revolution of 1741, renewed in her person the line of that monarch on the throne of Russia. Elizabeth was born in 1709, and when arrived at years of maturity, was extremely admired for her great personal attractions. Her beauty, as well as her exalted rank, and large dowry, occasioned her several offers, none of which, however, took effect; and she died in celibacy. During the life of her father Peter I. a negotiation had commenced for her marriage with Lewis XV. but although not seriously adopted by the court of France, it was never relinquished until the daughter of Stanislaus, titular king of Poland, was publicly affianced to the young monarch. By the will of Catharine, Elizabeth was betrothed to Charles Augustus, bishop of Lubec, duke of Sleswick and Holstein, and brother to the king of Sweden; but he died before the completion of the ceremony. In the reign of Peter II. she was demanded by Charles margrave of Anspach in 1741, by the Persian tyrant Kouli Kan; and at the time of the revolution, the regent Ann endeavoured to force her to espouse prince Louis of Brunswick, for whom she entertained a settled aversion. From the period of her accession she renounced all' thoughts of the connubial state, and adopted her nephew Peter. Her dislike to marriage, however, certainly did not proceed from any rooted aversion to the other sex; for she would freely and frequently own to her confidants, that she was never happy but when she was in love; if we may dignify by that name a capricious passion ever changing its object. The same characteristic warmth of temper hurried her no less to the extremes of devotion: she was scrupulously exact in her annual confessions at Easter of the wanderings of her heart; in expressing the utmost contrition for her frequent transgressions; and in punctually adhering both in public and private to the minutest ceremonies and ordinances of the church. With respect to her disposition and turn of mind, she is generally styled the humane Elizabeth, as she made a vow upon her accession to inflict no capital punishments during her reign; and is reported to have shed tears upon the news of every victory gained by her troops, from the reflection that it could not have been obtained without great bloodshed. But although no criminal was formally executed in public, yet the state prisons were filled with wretched sufferers, many of whom, unheard of and unknown, perished in clamp and unwholesome dungeons: the state inquisition, or secret committee appointed to judge persons suspected of high treason, had constant occupation during her reign many upon the slightest surmises were tortured in secret many underwent the knoot, and expired under the infliction. But the transaction which reflects the deepest disgrace upon her reign, was the public punishment of two ladies of fashion; the countesses Bestuchef and Lapookin: each received fifty strokes of the knoot in the open square of Petersburg: their tongues were cut out; and they were banished into Siberia. One of these ladies, Madame Lapookin, esteemed the handsomest woman in Russia, was accused of carrying on a secret correspondence with the French ambassador; but her real crime was, her having commented too freely on the amours of the empress. Even the bare recital of such an affecting scene, as that of a woman of great beauty and high rank publicly exposed and scourged by the common executioner, must excite the strongest emotions of horror; and forbid us to venerate the memory of a princess, who, with such little regard to her own sex, could issue those barbarous commands. But let us at the same time lament the inconsistency of human nature; and, in considering the character of Elizabeth, let us not deny that her heart, perhaps naturally benevolent, was eventually corrupted by power, and steeled with suspicion; and that although mercy might predominate whenever it did not interfere with her passions and prejudices; yet she by no means deserves the appellation of humane, the most noble attribute of a sovereign when it interposes to temper and mitigate the severity of justice. Elizabeth died in 1761, in the twenty-first year of her reign, and in the fifty-third year of her age; she expired in December (the 25th), the same month in which she was born, and in which she acceded to the throne. It is asserted on unquestionable authority, that it was impossible to obtain this tzarina’s consent for the execution of a felon who had even committed the most horrid species of premeditated murder, and that the master of the police used secretly to order the executioner to knoot to death those delinquents who were found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. It is a pity that she did not reserve her humanity, which in this instance was cruelty to her people, for more respectable objects. By way of conclusion to the present article, it will not be unapt to add the following anecdote, especially as it must at the same time give pleasure to the reader. Although the sovereign of this empire is absolute in the most unlimited sense of the word; yet the prejudice of the Russians in regard to the necessity of torture (and a wise legislator will always respect popular prejudices, be they ever so absurd and unreasonable) was so deeply rooted by immemorial usage, that it required great circumspection in the present tzarina not to raise discontents by an immediate abolition of that inhuman practice. Accordingly, the cautious manner in which it was gradually suppressed, discovered no less judgment than benevolence. In 17C2, Catherine II. soon after her accession, took away the power of inflicting torture from the vayvodes, or inferior justices, by whom it had been shamefully abused. In 1767, a secret order was issued to the judges in the several provinces, that whenever they should think torture requisite to force a criminal to confession, they should draw up the general articles of the charge, and lay the case before the governor of the province for his consideration: and all the governors had received previous directions to determine the case according to the principles laid down in the third question of the tenth chapter of her majesty’s instructions for a code of laws; wherein torture is proved to be no less useless than cruel. This, therefore, was a tacit abolition of torture, which has been since formally and publicly annulled. The prohibition of this horrid species of judicature, throughout the vast dominions of the Russian empire, forms a memorable aera in the annals of humanity.

, the son of the preceding, was born at Hamburgh, Feb. 16, 1666. He learned of his father the first elements of painting; from whom he went to Amsterdam, and studied under Michael Van Musscher. Struck with the beauty of the works of Lairessc, he was fortunate enough to gain admission to his school in 1686, None conld be more assiduous than this disciple in follow^ ing the lessons of his master, whether in copying his works and those of others, or in painting from nature. The genius of the young painter was encouraged by Lairesse: one year of his instructions qualified him for composing freely, without following any other model than nature, and without having in view the manner of any one; his own is grand and noble, and his back grounds are of a fine architecture: among them are to be found the most valuable remains of the Ægyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. If the scene of his composition was to be laid in one of these countries, he likewise introduced bas-reliefs relative to the time: he was a man of genius, and had a mind well stored with literature, and his pictures are therefore interesting both to painters and scholars. At Amsterdam he painted several cielings and large subjects for ornaments to the public halls and grand apartments. The elector of Mcntz took so much pleasure in contemplating his works, that he ordered of him two very large pictures, owe representing the Death of Alexander, the other the nuptials of Thetis and Peleus; which are both highly celebrated. The elector was so satisfied with them, that be amply paid the artist, and made him a rich present besides: he also appointed him his principal painter, but which title Elliger refused, as well as the pension that was attached to it, preferring his liberty, as he said, to an honourable bondage; and soon after retired to his own country. Typography was embellished with the ingenious compositions of his hand but this took up so much of his time, that he had but little for applying to grand works he made pictures in small sixes, not unworthy of being placed in the first cabinets. This good artist may justly boast also of the “Banquet of the Gods,” a large picture, sufficient, of itself to immortalize his name. But this man, to amiable, and so much esteemed, soon fell into intemperance and contempt, and his works no longer resembled those of his former years, scarcely any of them rising above mediocrity. He died Nov. 24, 1732, in the sixtysixth year of his age. In the cabinet of M. Half-Wassenaer, at the Hague, was lately his very fine picture representing Alexander dying.

, an English divine, whose writings, in the opinion of a recent biographer, deserve to be more extensively known than, it is apprehended, they now are, or ever have been, was the son of Mr. Ellis, steward to Dr. Barnaby Potter, bishop of Carlisle, and wasjborn in 1630, near Penrith in Cumberland. He became a servitor of Queen’s college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Tully, in 1649, and was afterwards a tabarder; and when master of arts, became a fellow of the college.

He received several donations towards his subsistence at Oxford from unknown hands, with anonymous letters informing him that those sums were in consideration of his father’s sufferings, and to encourage his progress in his studies; and he received several such presents and letters, both before and after his heingin orders, without his knowing whence they came; but after the restoration, he had some reason to believe he owed them to. Dr. Jeremy Taylor, and Dr. Hammond, being part of those collections of money put into their hands by charitable and welldisposed persons for the support and encouragement of such as had been plundered or oppressed by the republican government. Mr. Ellis, when he had taken orders, was patronized by William, marquis, and afterwards duke of Newcastle, who presented him to the rectory of Kirkhy in Nottinghamshire, of which he was a most laborious, useful, and exemplary minister. In 1693 he was appointed, by archbishop Sharp, a prebendary in the collegiate church of Southwell, merely in reward of his merits and usefulness. He died in 1700, aged about seventy. His writings in practical theology are distinguished for eminent and fervent piety, soundness of doctrine, and a vigorous, unaffected, and manly style. The principal are, 1. “The Gentile Sinner, or England’s brave gentleman characterised, in a letter to a friend,” 1660, 12mo, a work which was written in a fortnight, in the early part of the author’s life, and has considerable merit both in design and exe^ cution. It has gone through many editions. 2. A “Ca^ techism,” 1674, reprinted in 1738, 8vo, by ibr Rev. John Veneer, rector of St. Andrews, Chichester, with a life of the author, and other additions, by Veneer. 3. “The vanity of Scoffing-, in a letter to a witty gentleman,” 1674, 4to. 4. “Christianity in short, or the short way to be a good Christian,” 1682, 12mo, oftener reprinted than any of his works. He published some other pious, and some controversial tracts of less importance, enumerated by Wood, several single sermons, and two pieces of poetry, one on the death of George Pitt, esq. Oxford, 1653, 4to, the other on the Restoration, London, 1660, fol.

, F. R. S. an eminent naturalist, is thought to have been born in London, about 1710, but of his early life and occupations no certain information has been obtained, except that he was engaged in mercantile pursuits. He imbibed a taste for natural history, probably when young, made collections of natural curiosities, and by attentive observation and depth of thought soon rose superior to the merit of a mere collector. It is to him we owe the discovery of the animal nature of corals and corallines, which is justly said to form an epocha in natural science. The first collection he made of these new-discovered animals, after being presented to, and examined by the royal society, was deposited in the British museum, where it till remains. His mind was originally turned to the subject by a collection of corallines sent him from Anglesey, which he arranged upon paper so as to form a kind of natural landscape. But although the opinion he formed of their being animals was confirmed by some members of the royal society, as soon as he had explained his reasons, he determined to make farther observations, and enlarge his knowledge of corallines on the spot. For this purpose he went, in August 1752, to the isle of Sheppy, accompanied by Mr. Brooking, a painter, and the observations which he made still further confirmed him in his opinions. In 1754, he prevailed on Ehret, the celebrated botanist and artist, to accompany him to Brighthelmstone, where they made drawings, and formed a collection of zoophites. In 1755, he published the result of all his investigations, under the title of an “Essay to wards a Natural History of Corallines,” 4to, one of the most accurate books ever published, whether we consider the plates, the descriptions, or the observations which demonstrate the animal nature of the zoophites. His opinions on this subject were opposed by Job Easier, a Dutch physician and naturalist, who published various dissertations in the Philosophical Transactions in order to prove that corallines were of a vegetable nature. But his arguments were victoriously refuted by Ellis, whose opinions on the subject were almost immediately assented to by naturalists in general, and have been further confirmed by every subsequent examination of the subject.

In botany Ellis distinguished himself by an account of two new genera, the Halesia and Gardenia, both American shrubs, the former named after his learned friend the Rev. Dr. Hales, the latter named after Dr. Garden, long resident in Carolina. He published also a pamphlet on the Venus’s Fly-trap; and was the author of a fourth new genus, Gordonia, named after Mr. Gordon of Mile-end, which was described in the 60th vol. of the Philosophical Transactions, along with a new species of Illicium, or Starry Anise, from West Florida. In the 57th vol. of the Trans. Mr. Ellis describes some Confervae, hitherto unknown. One of his most favourite botanical objects was to ascertain the true Varnish-tree of Japan, which he contends, in opposition to Miller (See Philos. Trans, vols. XLIX. and L.), to be distinct from the American Toxicodendron, and the point seems not yet well determined. Our author published separately an historical account of Coffee, with remarks oa its culture and use, and a plate of the shrub; also a description of theMangostan and Bread-fruit, with four plates. These are quarto pamphlets, and the latter contains many useful “directions to voyagers, for bringing over these and other vegetable productions.” This last subject frequently engaged Mr. Ellis’s attention, and makes a separate quarto pamphlet, published in 1770. In the 51st and 58th volumes of the Phil. Trans, are papers of his on the preservation of seeds. Nor were these all the scientific pursuits of his indefatigable mind. He wrote also in the Trans, various other papers on Corals, Sea Pens, and other animals of the same tribe, as well as on the Cochineal insect; on the Coluber cerastes, or horned viper of Egypt; on that singular animal, found by his friend Garden in Carolina, the Siren lacertina of Linnæus, now esteemed a Muracna; on the structure of the windpipes in several birds and in the land tortoise; and even on the method of making sal ammoniac in Egypt. It appears, moreover, by many specimens of his collecting, that he was an assiduous observer of the internal structure or anatomy of vegetables. In Nov. 1768, sir Godfrey Copley’s medal was delivered to him by sir John Pringle, then president; and it being usual to single out some one or two papers in particular for such a compliment, one “on the animal nature of the genus of Zoophytes called Corallina,” in a letter to Linnæus, and another “on the Actinia Sociata,” in a letter to the earl of Hillsborough, both printed in the 57ih vol. of the Transactions, were selected for this purpose.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

In 1720 Mr. Ellis wrote a poem entitled “The Soutlj Sea Dream,” in Hudibrastic verse. In 1739 he translated a whimsical performance from the Latin, which he received from Cambridge, entitled “The Surprise, or the gentleman turned apothecary.” This was a tale written originally in French prose, and afterwards translated into Latin. Mr. Ellis’s versification of it was printed in 12mo, and is to be found in some of the libraries of the curious. Of the translation of Dr. King’s “Templum Libertatis,” in 1742, we have already spoken. In 1758 he was prevailed upon to permit the publication of his travesty of Maphacus.

After the age of eighty, he frequently walked thirty or more miles in a day but at the age of eighty- five he met with an accident which threatened at first very serious consequences. A friend going to see him home in an evening, took hold of his arm to lead him, in doing which he was unfortunately pushed so as to strike his leg against the corner of the Bank-buildings. By this unlucky accident the skin from the knee to the ankle was entirely stripped off, and the surgeons apprehended the wound would prove mortal. Contrary, however, to all expectation, it granulated, and healed as in a young man, and no further consequence ensued than that his walks of thirty miles a day were reduced to about twenty.

Mr. Ellis in his person was below the middle size, with hard features, which at the first appearance were rather forbidding, but on a nearer acquaintance he was hardly ever known to fail of conciliating the regard of those whom he desired to please. He lived a bachelor, as he used often to declare, from a disappointment early in life; but he was particularly attentive to the fair-sex, whose favour hfe seemed earnest to acquire and in general was successful to obtain. Temperate, regular, and cheerful, he was always a pleasing companion, and joined in the conversation of his friends with ease, freedom, and politeness. He abounded in anecdote, and told a story with great success. He was charitable to the poor and unfortunate, and benevolent in an extraordinary manner, to some of his relations who wanted his assistance. He early acquired a disgust to the cant and hypocrisy which he thought he had discovered in the sectaries among whom he was bred; and, from disJiking the obnoxious parts of his early religious practice, he carried his aversion much further than some of his friends would be willing to defend, and became an infidel; his opinions, however, he seldom obtruded, or ostentatiously brought forwa'rd for the purpose of controversy. His aversion to sectaries he seems to have retained to the end of his life . As a man of business he was careful and attentive, and from his accuracy afforded no opportunity for controversies among his clients on the score of errors or mistakes.

The preceding account of Mr. Ellis was written by Mr. Isaac Reed, for the European Magazine. The executor to whom Mr. Ellis left his Mss. w.as the late Mr. Sewell, bookseller in Cornhill, and proprietor of that Magazine, who gave many of these Mss. to Mr. Reed, with whose curious library they were sold in 1807. Among these was a volume of Fables, the Translation of Dr. King’s “Ternplum Libertatis,” the “Squire of Dames,” and “The Gospel of the Infancy, or the Apocryphal Book of the Infancy of our Saviour, translated from the Latin version of Henry Sike, from the Arabic ms.” On this last, Mr. Heed wrote the following note: “Ellis was a determined unbeliever in the Scriptures, which, I suppose, was his inducement to this translation.” Mr. Ellis, however, must have taken some pains to conceal his sentiments from Dr. Johnson, who appears to have been once intimate with him, and who resented no insult to company with more indignation than the intrusion of infidel sentiments, accompanied, as they generally are, with the pert ignorance that is ever disgusting to a scholar.

, a writer of some reputation among the Quakers, was born at Crowell, near Thame, in Oxfordshire, in 1639, where he received such education as his father, a man in poor circumstances, could afford. In his twenty-first year, the preaching of one Edward Burroughs induced him to join the society of the friends, and soon after he became a writer and a preacher among them. His principal work was entitled “Sacred History, or the historical part of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,” 2 vols. fol. He appears to have sometimes uffered imprisonment in the reign of Charles II. in common with other dissenters; but his confinement on these occasions was neither long nor severe. The only incident in his life worth noticing is his introduction to Milton, to whom he acted for some time as reader, and to whom he is said to have suggested the “Paradise Regained,” by asking him, “Thou hast said much here of Paradise lost; but what hast thou to say of Paradise found?” Ellwood died March 1, 1713. He was a man of considerable abilities, and by dint of study and attention made up for the deficiencies of his early education. His life, written by himself, is rather tedious, but affords many interesting particulars of the history of the sect.

The few publications of our author, which appeared in his life-time, were a sufficient evidence of his general learning and abilities; but the great proof of his talents was not displayed till after his death. In 1763, was published, in quarto, the first part of “Tracts on the Liberty, spiritual and temporal, of Protestants in England. Addressed to J. N. esq. at Aix-la-Chapelle.” The second part was given to the world in 1765, under the title of “Tracts on r the Liberty, spiritual and temporal, of Subjects in England.” These two parts together form one great and elaborate work, which had been the principal object of the bishop’s life. The greatest part of the papers which were left by him, as we are informed by the editors, had been transcribed and fitted for the press; but the diffidence that often attends men of the most extensive understanding, prevented him from coining to a resolution of publishing them, though often solicited by his friends who had seen them, and by others of his acquaintance, who were so fully satisfied of his rare abilities, and knowledge of our civil and ecclesiastical constitution, as to believe no man of his time had better considered that subject, or was more capable of shewing it in a good light. The first volume, besides the plea for the sacramental test, consists of seven tracts, the titles of which are as follow: “I. Of the right of private judgment in all matters of religion. II. Of the liberty of publicly worshipping God, III. On the liberty, as to matters ecclesiastical, when a religion is publicly established. IV. On the liberty recovered to the people of England, by suppressing the authority formerly exercised over this realm by the Bishop of Rome. V. An answer to the objections to the ill use which, it is alleged, has been made of the liberty we have gained, by having broken with the see of Rome. VI. The nature of Supremacy, in matters ecclesiastical, vested in the crown. VII. The claim of some English Protestants to greater liberty than they now enjoy.” Though Dr. Ellys, in these tracts, vindicates the establishment of the church from the objections of the protestant dissenters, his principal concern, is with the Church of Rome, the tenets of which he very particularly examines and confutes. The subject was deemed highly important at the time in which he wrote. There was then an apprehension of danger from popery; and this sentiment he has expressed in his introduction to J. N. esq. “The increase,” says he, “of the Romish interest in Europe has been so great for these last hundred years, and is so likely to go farther, that it certainly is very necessary that the people of this nation should be acquainted at least with the chief arguments against that religion. Of these, therefore, you will here find some account; not a large one indeed, because none but things of the greatest moment have been selected; yet such a one as will, I hope, clearly shew that our ancestors were indispensably obliged to leave the communion of the church of Rome, and that we are as strictly bound to continue that separation as long as the terms of her communion remain what they are.” His biographer adds, that, should the controversy between, the Roman catholics and the church of England be revived, excellent materials for conducting it may be found in bishop Ellys’s performance. Besides, there can be no period in which a protestant should be a stranger to the grounds of his profession, and in which it will not be extremely proper that literary men in general, and divines in. particular, should have a good acquaintance with the subject.

The second part of our prelate’s work comprehends six tracts, under the following titles: “I. Of the Liberty of the Subjects in Judicial proceedings, as to matcers both criminal and civil. II. Of the right and manner of imposing Taxes; and of the other privileges of the Parliament. III. Of the means whereby the free Constitutions of other nations have been impaired, while that of England has been preserved and improved. IV. Of the Antiquities of the Commons in Parliament. V. Of the Royal Prerogative, and the hereditary right to the Crown of Britain. VI. Of the dangers that may be incident to the present Establishment, and the prospect there is of its continuance.” The second, third, fifth, and sixth, of these tracts are divided into sections, containing various important and learned discussions. The specific character of bishop Kllys’s work is, that it is a copious defence of moderate whiggistn, joined with a zealous attachment to our ecclesiastical establishment; and that it contains a large fund of historical, constitutional, and legal knowledge. The editors of the tracts say of him that “he was not only eminent for his fine parts, extensive knowledge, and sound judgment, jewels truly valuable in themselves, but they were set in him to the highest advantage, by a heart so overflowing with benevolence and candour as never even to conceive terms of acrimony or reproach towards the opinions or persons of those who differed from him. This Christian temper of his is discoverable in all the parts of these tracts that are taken up in controversy; for he always thought a person, though on the right side of the question, with principles of persecution, to be a worse man than he that was on the wrong. These dispositions engaged him in defence of toleration, and all those indulgences that he thought ought to be allowed to tender consciences. But when that liberty was once granted (as it was by law to our dissenters), he saw no necessity it should be attended with civil power, which might endanger the ecclesiastical establishment; and if he has shewed, beyond all doubt, the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and a liberty of publicly worshipping God in consequence of that judgment, he has also as undeniably proved the necessity of a test, as a just security to the established church, and a proper guard to the welfare of the state: for he was persuaded, that human laws cannot bind conscience, but they may exclude those from civil power who profess a private conscience repugnant to the public conscience of the state: all which he has managed with such gentle, charitable, and Christian liberty, as meant only to answer the arguments, not inflame the resentment of the opponents.”

, or as sometimes improperly spelt Ellis (Sir Richard, Bart.), a gentleman of extensive learning, particularly in biblical criticism and antiquities, descended from an ancient family originally of Wales, but who afterwards obtained possessions in Lincolnshire, was the son of sir William Ellys of Wyham, in that county, by Isabella, grand-daughter of the celebrated Hampden. Of his early history we have little information. His father had been a member of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. and his son might probably have been sent to the same university, and left it without taking a degree. From, his extensive acquaintance with the literati of Holland, it is not improbable, as the practice was then common, that he studied at some of the Dutch universities. We are told that he served in two parliaments for Grantham, and in three for Boston in Lincolnshire; but, according to Beatson’s Register, he sat only for Boston in the fifth, sixth, and seventh parliament of Great Britain, namely, from 1715 to 1734; but his father sir William sat for three parliaments for Grantham. Although sir Richard communicated some particulars of his family to Collins, when, publishing his “Baronetage,” the latter has either omitted, or was not furnished with the dates that might have assisted us in ascertaining these facts with certainty. Sir Richard married, first, a daughter and coheiress of sir Thomas Hussey, bart. and, secondly, a daughter and coheiress of Thomas Gould, esq. who survived him, and afterwards married sir Francis Dashwood, bart. (who died lord le Despencer in 1781), and died Jan. 19, 1769. Sir Richard had no issue by either of his wives, and the title of course became extinct on his death, which happened February 21, 1741-2, when he was deeply lamented, not only as a man of great learning and piety, but on account of his many and extensive charities. He entailed his estates, after the death of lady Ellys, on the Hobarts and Trevors, and his seat at Nocton in Lincolnshire is now the chief seat of the earl of Buckinghamshire. Sir Richard had two sisters married to Edward Cheek and Richard Hampden, esqs.

Besides his literary friends at home, sir Richard appears to have corresponded with, and to have been highly respected by many eminent scholars on the continent. He was a munificent patron of men of learning, and frequently contributed to the publication of their works, at a time when the risks of publication were more terrible than in our days. It was not unfrequent, therefore, to honour him by dedications. The Weuteins dedicated to him the best edition of Suicer’s “Thesaurus Ecclesiast.” to which he bad contributed the use of a manuscript of Suicer’s in his own possession, and Ab. Gronovius dedicated to him his edition of Ælian (Leyden, 1731). Horsley’s “Britannia Romana” was also dedicated to him. He was the steady friend and patron of Michael Maittaire, who, in his “Seoilia,” addresses many verses to him, from some of which we learn that sir Richard had travelled much abroad, that his pursuits were literary, and that he collected a curious and valuable library . The only work by which his merits as a scholar and critic can now be ascertained, was published at Rotterdam, in 1728, 8vo, under the title “Fortuita Sacra, quibus subjicitur Commentarius de Cymbalis.” The epithet fortuita is used as denoting that the explanation of the several passages in the New Testament, of which the volume partly consists, casually offered themselves. The whole indeed was written in the course of his private studies, and without any view to publication, until some friends, conceiving that they would form an acceptable present to the literary world, prevailed on him to allow a selection to be made, which was probably done by the anonymous editor of the volume; and they are written in Latin with a view to appear on the continent, where biblical criticism, although not perhaps at that lime more an object of curiosity than at home, required to be conveyed in a language common to the learned. Subjoined to these critical essays on various difficult texts, which the author illustrates from the Misnah and other books of Jewish traditions, is a curious dissertation on the cymbals of the ancients, which not being noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music, has probably escaped the researches of that able writer. In all these sir Richard Ellys shows a vast compass of ancient learning, and a coolness of judgment in criticism, which very considerably advanced his fame abroad. We know but of one answer to any of his positions, entitled “A Dissertation on 1 Cor. xv. 29; or an Inquiry into the Apostle’s meaning there, of being `baptized for the dead,' occasioned by the honourable and learned author of the Fortuita Sacra his interpretation thereof.” This Inquiry is conveyed in a letter to the author ef the Republic of Letters, vol. V. (1730).

The dissenters claim sir Richard Ellys as belonging to their communion, and as having been a kind friend and patron to many of their clergy. We have alrendy noticed that he corresponded with, and was a liberal friend to Mr. Thomas Boston, (See Boston), whose “Tractatus Stigmatologicus” was dedicated to him, when published under the care of the learned David Mill, professor of oriental languages at Utrecht. It may now be added that he was a great admirer of Boston’s “Fourfold State,” and his “Covenant of Grace,” in the publication of which he assisted the author; of course his sentiments were Calvinistic, but they had not always been so. He was originally of Arminian principles, and by a letter in the appendix to Boston’s Life, we learn that he was induced to adopt other views from some conversations with an aged Jady, at whose opinions he used to laugh. This change took place about 1730, or perhaps somewhat sooner for in that year he appears to have been a decided Calvinist. He was first a member of Dr. Calamy’s congregation, and on his death in 1732 (whose funeral Sermon is dedicated to sir Richard, by the preacher Daniel Mayo), he joined Mr. Thomas Bradbury’s flock, and remained in communion with them until his death.

, author of a history of the Saracens, or rather a chronology of the Mohammedan empire, was born in Egypt, towards the middle of the thirteenth century. His history comes down from Mohammed to the year of the hegira 512, that is, to A. D. 1148: in which he sets down year by year, in a very concise manner, what concerns the Saracen empire; and intermixes some passages of the eastern Christians, keeping principally to Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Persia. His qualities and n>e­>rit must have been very conspicuous, since, though he professed Christianity, he filled a post of distinction and trust near the persons of the Mohammedan princes^ Those, who consider the measures he ought to keep in that post, will not think it strange that he has spoken honourably of the caliphs, and has never made use of any injurious terms with respect to the Mohammedan religion; but some have questioned his being a Christian from his speaking honourably, as he often does, of the followers of Mohammed, and culling that impostor “Mohammed of gloriousmemory.” Yet, as he has not only omitted to prefix to his work the formal declaration of being a mussulman, which the Mohammedan writers are wont to make, but has taken great care to insert in his Annal< several things, relating to the Christians, and turning to their praise, which a mussulman would avoid as a crime, and has even given at the end of his work a short account of his family, it has been concluded that he was a Christian. He was son to Yaser al Amid, who was secretary to the council of war under the sultans of Egypt, of the family of the Jobidw, for forty-five years together; and in 1238, when his father died, succeeded him in his place.

, a miscellaneous writer and schoolmaster, was born at Edinburgh, Dec. 6, 1721, and was the son of the Rev. William Elphinston. He was educated at the high school of Edinburgh, and afterwards at the university, where, or soon after he left it, and when only in his seventeenth year, he was appointed tutor to lord Blantyre, a circumstance which seems to indicate that his erudition was extraordinary, or his place nominal. When of age he accompanied Carte, the historian, on a tour through Holland and Brabant, and to Paris, where he acquired such a knowledge of the French language as to be able to speak and write it with the greatest facility. On leaving France he returned to Scotland, and became private tutor to the son of James Moray, esq. of Abercairny, in Perthshire, and an inmate in the family. How long he remained here is uncertain, but in 1750 he was at Edinburgh, and superintended an edition of Dr. Johnson’s “Ramblers,” by the author’s permission, with a translation of the mottos, which was completed in 8 vols. 12 mo, beautifully printed, but imperfect, as being without the alterations and additions introduced in the subsequent editions by Dr. Johnson. In 1751 he married, and leaving Scotland, fixed his abode near London, first at Brompton, and afterwards at Kensington, where for many years he kept a school in a large and elegant house opposite to the royal gardens, and had considerable reputation; his scholars always retaining a very grateful sense of his skill as a teacher, and his kindness as a friend.

, an eminent Scotch prelate, descended from a noble family in Germany, the counts of Helphinstein, was the son of John, or as some say, William Elphinston and Margaret Douglas, daughter of Douglas of Drumlanrig, and was horn at Glasgow in 1431, or, according to another account, in 1437. He was educated in the newly-erected university of Glasgow, and in the twentieth year of his age became M. A. He then applied himself to the study of divinity, and was made rector of Kirkmichael. After continuing four years in this situation, he went to Paris, where he acquired such reputation in the study of the civil and canon law, as to attract the attention of the university; and he was advanced to the professorship of civil and canon law, first at Park, and afterwards at Orleans, where his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students. The improvement of his own mind, however, being the particular object of his solicitude, he canvassed the most abstruse and difficult parts of his profession with the most eminent and learned doctors of the age. After nine years’ intense study in France, he returned home at the earnest solicitations of his friends, particularly bishop Muirhead, who made him parson of Glasgow, and official of his diocese; and as a mark of respect he was chosen rector of that university in which he had been educated. After the death of his friend and patron, Ivluirbead, he was made official of Lolhian, by archbishop Schevez, of St. Andrew’s; and at the same time was called to parliament, and to a seat in the privycouncil. As his talents were of the most acute and discerning kind, he embraced subjects remote from his religious studies, and became conspicuous as an able politician and skilful negociator. In this capacity he was employed by James III. on an embassy to France, in conjunction with Livingstone, bishop of Dunkeld, and the earl of fiuchan. It is said that he managed so dextrously, that the old league and amity were renewed, and all cause of discord between the two kingdoms removed. The French monarch was so charmed with his conduct and conversation, that he loaded him with valuable presents. When he returned home, he was made archdeacon of Argyle, in 1479, and soon after bishop of Ross; and in 1484, he was translated to the see of Aberdeen. His address in negociation induced the king to send him as one of the commissioners from Scotland to treat of a truce with England, and a marriage between his son and the lady Anne, the niece of Richard III.

From the extreme care and excellence with which his works are finished, they were not, of course, in his short life, very numerous; and are rarely to be met with. While he was alive, his pictures bore an excessive high price, which was amazingly enhanced after his death: and Houbraken mentions one of them, representing Pomona, which was sold for eight hundred German florins. Sandrart describes a great number of his capital performances; among which are, Tobit and the angel, now at lord Egremont’s Latona and her sons, with the Peasants turned into Frogs the death of Procris and his most capital picture of the flight into Egypt, which needs no description, as there is a print of it extant, engraved by Gaud, the friend and benefactor of Elsheimer. Some of his works were in the collection of the grand duke of Tuscany. The richest collection of them in this country is at the earl of Egremont’s, at Petworth, in Sussex. There are ten pictures by him, eight of which are of one size, viz. about four inches high, by two and a half wide, or perhaps a little more. The subjects are, a St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John Baptist, Tobit and the angel with a fish, an old woman and a girl, an old man with a boy, and a capuchin friar, with a model of a convent in his hand. The figures in all these are about three inches high, yet their characters and expressions are just and excellent; and the drawing of their figures, and the draperies, in the best style of art. Another picture represents the interior of a brothel by fire and candle light, in which there are ten or more figures gaming, and indulging in the licentiousness of such a place, all exquisitely wrought; with some expressions that have never been surpassed, although the figures are not more than two inches and a half high. The last is “Nicodemus’s visit to Christ;” but it is not of so good a quality as the others.

, an eminent Prussian botanist, was born in 1623 at Francfort on the Oder, and began his studies at the college of that city under John Moller, then rector. Having an incliiation for the study of medicine, he went to Wirtemberg, attended the lectures of Sperling, Schneider, Banzer, &c. and then pursued his course at Konigsberg, Holland, France, and Italy, and took his doctor’s degree at Padua. On his return home, Frederick-William, elector of Brandenburgh, appointed him, in 1656, court-physician and botanist, offices which he filled with great reputation until his death, at Berlin, Feb. 19, 1688. His works are, 1. “Flora Marchica,” or a catalogue of plants cultivated in the principal gardens of Brandenburgh, Berlin, 1663, 8vo, and 1665. 2. “Anthropometria, sive de mutua membrorum proportione, &c.” Stadt, 1672, 8vo, probably the third edition. 3. “Distillatoria curiosa,” Berlin, 1674, 4to. 4. “Ciysniatica nova,” ibid. 1665, 8vo. 5. “De Horti cultura,” 4to. 6. “De Phosphoris,” translated into English by Sherley, Lond. 1677, 12mo, VVildenow, who has named a plant the Elscholtzia, in honour of this botanist, mentions a manuscript work of his on horticulture, written in German, and preserved in the royal library of Berlin.

, a divine and antiquary, descended from a very ancient family in the bishopric of Durham, was born at Newcastle upon Tyne, Jan. 1, 1673, and was the son of Mr. Ralph Elstob, a merchant of that place. Being intended for the church, he received his grammatical education, first at Newcastle, and afterwards at Eton after which he was admitted of Catharine-hall, in Cambridge but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he removed to Queen’s college, Oxford. Here his studious turn acquired him so much reputation, that in 1696 he was chosen fellow of University college, and was appointed joint tutor with Dr. C layering, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. At this college Mr. Elstob took the degree of master of arts, June 8, 1697. In 1701, he translated into Latin the Saxon homily of Lupus, with notes, for Dr. Jiickes. About the same time he translated into English sir John Cheke’s Latin version of Plutarch, “De Superstitione,” which is printed at the end of Strype’s Life of Cheke. The copy made use of by Mr. Elstob was a manuscript in University college, out of which Obadiah Walker, when master of that college, had cut several leaves, containing Cheke’s remarks against popery. In 1702, Mr. Elstob was appointed rector of the united parishes of St. Swithin and St. Mary Bothaw, London, where be continued to his death, and which appears to be the only eqclesiastical preferment he ever obtained. In 1703, he published, at Oxford, an edition of Ascham’s Latin Letters. He was the author, likewise, of an “Essay on the great affinity and mutual agreement between the two professions of Law and Divinity,” printed at London, with a preface, by Dr. Hickes. This book, in process of time, became so little known, that Mr. Philip Carteret Webbe insisted upon it that there was no such work, until convinced, by an abstract or view of it, which was sent to Mr. Pegge, from a copy in the library of St. John’s college, Cambridge. It is a thin octavo, and not very scarce. In 1704, Mr Elstob published two sermons; one, a thanksgiving sermon, from Psalm ciii. 10, for the victory at Hochstet; and, the other, from 1 Timothy i. 1, 2, on the anniversary of the queen’s accession. Besides the works already mentioned, our author, who was a great proficient in the Latin tongue, compiled an essay on its history and use collected materials for an account of Newcastle and, also, the various proper names formerly used in the north but what is become of these manuscripts is not known. In 1709, he published, in the Saxon language, with a Latin translation, the homily on St. Gregory’s day. Mr. Elstob bad formed several literary designs, the execution of which was prevented by his death, in 1714, when he was only forty-one years of age. The most considerable of his designs was an edition of the Saxon laws, with great additions, and a new Latin version by Somner, together with notes of various learned men, and a prefatory history of the origin and progress of the English laws, down to the conqueror, and to Magna Charta. This great plan was completed in 1721, by Dr. David Wilkins, who, in his preface, thus speaks concerning our author “Hoc Gulielmus Elstob, in literis Anglo-Saxonicis versatissimus præstare instituerat. Hinc Wheloci vestigia premens, Leges quas editio ejus exhibet, cum Mss. Cantabrigiensibus, Bodleiano, Roffensi, et Cottonianis contulerat, versioneque nova adornare proposuerat, ut sic Leges, antea jam publici juris factae, ejus opera et studio emendatiores prodiissent. Veruin morte immatura præreptus, propositum exequi non potuit.” Whilst Mr. Elstob was engaged in this design, Dr. Hickes recommended him to Mr. Harley, as a man whose modesty had made him an obscure person, and which would ever make him so, unless some kind patron of good learning should bring him into light. The doctor added his testimony to Mr. Elstob’s literature, his great diligence and application, and his capacity for the work he had undertaken. Mr. Harley so far attended to Dr. Hickes’s recommendation as to grant to Mr. Elstob the use of the books and manuscripts in his library, which our author acknowledged in a very humble letter. A specimen of Mr. Elstob’s design was actually printed at Oxford, in 1699, under the title of “Hormesta Pauli Orosii, &c. ad exemplar Junianum, &c.” He intended, also, a translation with notes, of Alfred’s Paraphrastic Version of Orosins; his transcript of which, with collations, was in Dr. Pegge’s hands. Another transcript, by Mr. Ballard, with a large preface on the use of Anglo-Saxon literature, was left by Dr. Charles Lyltelton, bishop of Carlisle, to the library of the Society of Antiquaries. Alfred’s Version of Orosius has since been given to the public, with an English translation, by the honourable Daines Barrington. In his publication, Mr. Barrington observes, that he has made use of Mr. Elstob’s transcript, and that he has adopted from it the whimsical title of Hormesta. When it is considered that Mr. Elstob died in early life, it will be regretted, by the lovers of antiquarian learning, that he was prevented from acquiring that name and value in the literary world, to which he would otherwise probably have arisen.

, a Lutheran divine, styled in the Bibl. German, one of the principal ornaments of the pity of Stade, descended from a noble family, originally of Guelderland, which they quitted to avoid the persecutions of the duke of Alva, and was born at Kensburgh in Hoistem, in 1684. He studied at Lubeck, Rostock, Leipsic, Jena, and Wirtemberg, at which last university he took his degree of master of arts. In 1717 he received an invitation to Stade, where he became pastor of the church of St. Cosmo and Damien, and where he died in the thirtysixth year of his age, June 10, 1721, much lamented as one who had given striking proofs of eminent talents, and whose studies, had they been prolonged, promised yet greater fruits. The authority quoted above gives the following list of his works, but without dates or size, &c. 1. “Dissertatio inauguralis de Jure Episcoporum in Gallia, a papa ad concilium provocandi.” 2. “De Melchisedeeo, contra Juriaeum et Halsium.” 3. “De Formula concordiiE in Dania non combusta, contra Gotfr. Arnoldum.” 4. “De recentiorum in Novum Foedus Critica.” 5. “Observationes philological super B. H. Witteri commentationem in Genesin.” 6. “Epistola Apologetica ad Witterum.” 7. “Vindiciae Diascepseos Hunnianae, adversus D. Strimesium.” 8. “De Fanaticorum Palinodia.” 9. “De Inscriptione Apocalypseos Johanneas. 10.” De Philosophumenis viris sanctis temere afflictis.“ll.”De Magis.“12.” Annotationes ad Matnr. Simonii libellum de literis pereuntibus.“13.” Controversies recentiores de Atheismo.“14.” Controversise recentiores de anima.“15.” Commentatio de reliquiis Papatus ecclesiae Lutheranse temere afflictis, &c.“To these may be added a new edition of Launoy” De varia Aristotelis fortuna in academia Parisiensi." He had also for some time been employed on a history of philosophy, and other literary undertakings, which his death interrupted.

He was the author of, 1. “The ancient method and manner of holding Parliaments in England,” 1663, reprinted often since; the best edition is that of 1768, by the learned and accurate Thomas Tyrwhitt, esq. who was some time clerk of the house of commons. Wood supposes that this work is mostly taken from a manuscript entitled “Modus tenendi Parliamentum apud Anglos, &c. Of the form and manner of holding a Parliament in England, and all things incident thereunto, digested and divided into several chapters and titles, anno 1626.” Written by our author’s father, who died while his son was upon his travels. 2. A tract concerning the proceedings in parliament: never published. The manuscript was some time in the possession of sir Matthew Hale, who bequeathed it by his will to Lincoln’s-inn library. 3. He left also behind him some tracts and memorials, which his executors thought sot perfect enough to be published. 4. Wood ascribes moreover to him, “A declaration or remonstrance of the state of the kingdom, agreed on by the lords and commons assembled in parliament, 19th May, 1642.” But this piece is not thought to have been his, on account of a degree of virulence running through it, which was not natural to him. The reader may find it in the fourth volume of Rushworth’s Collections, and in Husband’s collection of Remonstrances, &c. 1643, 4to.

Had sir Thomas Elyot written only his book called “The Governor,” it would have entitled him to the respect of posterity as one of the best writers of his time, a man of acute observation, and of manly and liberal sentiments. The days of Henry VIII. were not very favourable to such, as the capricious will of Henry VI It. interfered so frequently with the progress of right thinking; but sir Thomas on some occasions was not afrai<$ to avour feis sentiments. In 1535, a proclamation was issued for calling in seditious hooks; under which description were reckoned, and chiefly intended, such writings as favoured the hishop of Rome. Upon this occasion sir Thomag Cromwell directed letters to several persons, ordering them to send in all publications of the nature designed to be condemned. Among others, he wrote to sir Thomas Elyot, whom, though an old friend of his own, he suspected, from his having been intimate with sir Thomas More, to be attached to the Romish religion. In answer, Elyot declared his judgment of the need of a reformation of the clergy, and disclaimed all undue connection with papists. As to any of the prohibited books he might chance to have by him, and which were very few, he was ready to deliver them up. Part of the language which he uses is as foilows: “Sir, As ye know, I have been ever desirous to read many books, especially concerning humanity and moral philosophy. And, therefore, of such studies I have a competent number. But, concerning the Scripture I have very few. For in Questionists I never delighted. Unsavory glosses and comments I ever abhorred. The boasters and advancers of the pompous authority of the bishop of Rome I never esteemed. But, after that, by a judgment, or estimation of things, I did anon smell out their corrupt affection, and beheld with scornful eyes the sundry abusions of their authorities, adorned with a licentious and dissolute form of living. Of the which, as well in them as in the universal state of the clergy, I have oftentimes wished a necessary reformation.”

The works of sir Thomas Elyot were, 1. “The Castle of Health,” Lond. 1541, 1572,“1580, 1595, &c. in 8vo. 2.” The Governor,“in three books, Lond. 1531, 154.4, 1547, 1557, 1580, &c. in 8vo. 3.” Of the Education of Children,“Load, irt 4to. 4.” The Banquet of Sapience,“Lond. in 8vo. 5.” De Rebus Memorabilibus Angliee,“for the completing of which he had perused many old English monuments. 6.” A Defence or Apology for good Women.“7.” Bibliotheca Eliotae: Elyot’s Library, or Dictionary,“Lond. 1541, &c. fol. which woik Cooper augmented and enriched with thirty-three thousand words and phrases, besides a fuller account of the true signification qf word*. Sir Thomas translated likewise, from Greek into English,” The Image of Governance, compiled of the Acts and Sentences by the Emperor Alexander Severus,“Lond. 1556, 1594, &c. in 8vo. Bayle accuses him of having pretended to translate this from a Greek ms. whereas he says he borrowed his materials from Lampridius and Herodian. Selden, however, thought that he translated a Greek ms. composed by a modern writer. It is not on Bayle’s authority that we should chuse to rank such a man as sir T. Elyot among impostors. He also translated from Latin into English, 1.” St. Cyprian’s Sermon of the Mortality of Man,“Lond. 1534, in 8vo. 2.” The Rule of a Christian Life," written by Picus earl of Mirandola, Lond. 1534, in 8vo.

Sir Thomas Elyot’s “Governor,” says Strype, waa designed to instruct men, especially great men, in good morals, and to reprove theirvices. It consisted of several chapters, treating concerning affability, benevolence, beneficence, the diversity of flatterers, and other similar subjects. In these chapters were some sharp and quick sentences, which offended many of the young men of fashion at that time. They complained of sir Thomas’s strange terms, as they called them; and said that it was no little presumption in him to meddle with persons of the higher and nobler ranks. The complaints of these gentlemen, who were always kicking at such examples as did bite them, our author compared to a galled horse, abiding no plasters. King Henry read and much liked sir Thomas Elyot’s treatise; and was particularly pleased with his endeavours to improve and enrich the English language. It was observed by his majesty, that throughout the book there was no new term made by him of a Latin or French word, and that no sentence was hereby rendered dark or hard to be understood.

Sir Thomas Elyot’s Castle of Health, we are told by the same author, subjected him to various strictures. When some gallants had mocked at him for writing a book of medicine, and said in derision, that he was become a physician, he gave this answer: “Truly, if they call him a physician which is studious about the weal of his country, I vouchsafe they so name me. For, during my life, I will in that affection always continue.” Indeed, sir Thomas’s work exposed him to the censures both of the gentry and the medical faculty. To the former, who alleged that it did not beseem a knight to write upon such a subject, he replied, “that many kings and emperors (whose names he sets down) did not only advance and honour that science with special privileges, but were also studious in it themselves.” He added, “that it was no more shame for a person of quality to be the author of a book on the science of physic, than it was for king Henry the Eighth to publish a book on the science of grammar, which he had lately done.” What offended the physicians was, that sir Thomas should meddle in their department, and particularly that he should treat of medicine in English, to make the knowledge thereof common. But he justified himself by endeavouring to shew, that his work was intended for their benefit. As for those who found fault with him for writing in English, he, on the other hand, blamed them for affecting to keep their art a secret. To such of the college as reflected upon his skill, he represented, that before he was twenty years old, one of the most learned physicians in England read to him the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Oribasius, Paulus Celius, Alexander Trallianus, Pliny, Dioscorides, and Joannicius. To these sir Thomas afterwards added the study of Avicen, Averroes, and many more. Therefore, though he had never been at Montpelier, Padua, or Salerno; yet he said, “that he had found something in physic, by which he had experienced no little profit for his own health.”

On the whole, sir Thomas Elyot was both one of the most learned, and one of the wisest men of his time. Having in the earlier part of his life served his king and country in embassies and public affairs, he devoted his latter years to the writing of such discourses as he hoped would be serviceable in promoting true wisdom and virtue. From his youth he had a great desire after knowledge, and an earnest solicitude to be useful to his countrymen. The books which he most diligently perused, and which he eagerly sought after wherever they could be found, were all the ancient works, whether in Greek or Latin, that treated of moral philosophy, and the right institution of Jife. Strype has produced some examples of the wisdom of our knight in those weighty sentences which often came from his pen.

, or Eliseus, as he calls himself in his “Miscellanea,” the son of a clergyman in Devonshire, was educated at Baliol-college, Oxford. In 1655, about the time when he took the degree of B. A. being then fellow of the college, he published a small volume of divine poems, and another in 1658. The same year he published “Miscellanea,” in Latin and English verse, and several short essays in Latin prose. This book was reprinted in 1662. In the preface, and again in the body of the work, he speaks with great sensibility of some persons who had decried his performances, and aspersed his character on account of some levities and follies of youth. In 1659 he succeeded his father in the rectory of East Allington, in Devonshire. His conduct appears to have been irreproachable after he entered into orders. By his writings he has given sufficient testimony of his parts, industry, and learning. The most remarkable of his numerous works, which are mentioned by Wood, is the pamphlet he published against Dr. Tillotson’s sermons on the incarnation; and the most estimable is his volume of Letters, &c. as some of them are written to eminent persons, particularly Dr. Sherlock and Dr. Bentley. There are also letters from Dr. Henry More, Dr. Barlow, and others, to Edmund Elys. He was living, and in studious retirement, in 1633, at which time he was a non-juror.

. This family of celebrated printers at Amsterdam and Leyden greatly adorned the republic of letters by many beautiful editions of the best authors of antiquity. They fell somewhat below the Stephens’s in point of learning, as well as in their editions of Greek and Hebrew authors; but as to the choice of good books they seem to have equalled, and in the neatness and elegance of their small characters, greatly to have exceeded them. Their Virgil, Terence, and Greek Testament, have been reckoned their master-pieces; and are indeed so very fine, that they justly gained them the reputation of beiug the best printers in Europe. There were five of these Elzevirs, namely, Lewis, Bonaventure, Abraham, Lewis, and Daniel. Lewis began to be famous at Leyden in 1595, and was remarkable for being the first who observed the distinction between the v consonant and u vowel, which had been recommended by Ramus and other writers long before, but was hitherto neglected. Daniel died in 1680, or 1681; and though he left children who carried on the business, passes nevertheless for the last of his family who excelled in it. The Elzevirs have printed several catalogues of their editions; but the last, published by Daniel, is considerably enlarged, and abounds with new books. It was printed at Amsterdam, 1674, in 12mo, and divided into seven volumes.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born May 14, 1701, at Hurvvorth, a village about three miles south of Darlington, on the borders of the county of Durham, at least it is certain he resided here from his childhood. His father, Dutlly Emerson, taught a school, and was a tolerable proficient in the mathematics; and without his books and instructions perhaps his son’s genius might might never have been unfolded. Besides his father’s instructions, our author was assisted in the learned languages by a young clergyman, then curate of Hurworth, who was boarded at his father’s house. In the early part of his life, he attempted to teach a few scholars; but whether from his concise method (for he was not happy in expressing his ideas), or the warmth of his natural temper, he made no progress in his school; he therefore Sood left it oft', and satisfied with a small paternal estate of about 60l. or 70l. a year, devoted himself to study, which he closely pursued in his native place through the course of a long life, being mostly very healthy, till towards the latter part of his days, when he was much afflicted with the stone: towards the close of the year 1781, being sensible of his approaching dissolution, he disposed of the whole of his mathematical library to a bookseller at York, and on May the 26th, 1782, his lingering and painful disorder put an end to his life at his native village, in the eighty-first year of his age. In his person he was rather short, but strong and well-made, with an open countenance and ruddy complexion. He was never known to ask a favour, or seek the acquaintance of a rich man, unless he possessed some eminent qualities of the mind. He was a very good classical scholar, and a tolerable physician, so far as it could be combined with mathematical principles, according to the plan of Keil and Morton. The latter he esteemed above all others as a physician the former as the best anatomist. He was very singular in his behaviour, dress, and conversation. His manners and appearance were that of a rude and rather boorish countryman, he wasof very plain conversation, and indeed seemingly rude, commonly mixing oaths in his sentences. He had strong natural parts, and could discourse sensibly on any subject; but was always positive and impatient of any contradiction. He spent his whole life in close study and writing books; with the profits of which he redeemed his little patrimony from some original incumbrance. He had but one coat, which he always wore open before, except the lower button no waistcoat; his shirt quite the reverse of one in. common use, no opening before, but buttoned close at the collar behind; a kind of flaxen wig which had not a crooked hair in it; and probably had never been tortured with a comb from the time of its being made. This was his dress when he went into company. One hat he made to last him the best part of his lifetime, gradually lessening the flaps, bit by bit, as it lost its elasticity and hung down, till little or nothing but the crown remained. He never rode although he kept a horse, but was frequently seen to lead the horse, with a kind of wallet stuffed with the provisions he had bought at the market. He always walked up to London when he had any thing to publish, revising sheet by sheet himself; trusting no eyes but his own, which was always a favourite maxim with him. He never advanced any mathematical proposition that he had not first tried in practice, constantly making all the different parts himself on a small scale, so that his house was filled with all kinds of mechanical instruments together or disjointed. He would frequently stand up to his middle in water while fishing; a diversion he was remarkably fond of. He used to study incessantly for some time, and then for relaxation take a ramble to any pot ale-house where he could get any body to drink with and talk to. The duke of Manchester was highly pleased with his company, and used often to come to him in the fields and accompany him home, but could never persuade him to get into a carriage. When he wrote his sinall treatise on navigation, he and some of his scholars took a small vessel from Hurworth, and the whole crew soon gotswampt; when Emerson, smiling and alluding to his treatise, said “They must not do as I do, but as I say.” He was a married man; and his wife used to spin on an old-fashioned wheel, of which a very accurate drawing is given in his mechanics. He was deeply skilled in the science of music, the theory of sounds, and the various scales both ancient and modern, but was a very poor performer. He carried that singularity which marked all his actions even into this science. He had, if we may be allowed the expression, two first strings to his violin, which, he said, made the E more melodious when they were drawn up to a perfect unison. His virginal, which is a species of instrument like the modern spinnet, he had cut and twisted into various shapes in the keys, by adding some occasional half-tones in order to regulate the present scale, and to rectify some fraction of discord that will always remain in the tuning. He never could get this regulated to his fancy, and generally concluded by saying, 4< It was a bad instrument, and a foolish thing to be vexed with."

The following is a list of Mr. Emerson’s works: 1. “The Doctrine of Fluxions,” 8vo. about 1743. 2. “The Projection of the Sphere, orthographic, stereograph ic, and gnomonical; both demonstrating the principles, and explaining the practice of these several sorts of projections,” 1749, 8vo. 3. “The elements of Trigonometry,” 1749, 8vo. 4. “The principles of Mechanics,” 1754, 8vo. 5. Navigation, or the art of sailing upon the sea, 1755, 12mo. 6. “A treatise of Algebra, in two books,” 1765, 8vo. 7. “The arithmetic of infinites, and the differential method, illustrated by examples. The elements of the conic sections, demonstrated in three books,” 1767, 8vo. 8. “Mechanics, or the doctrine of motion,” &c. 1769, 8vo. 9. “The elements of Optics, in four books,” 1768, 8vo. Jo. “A system of Astronomy; containing the investigation and demonstration of the elements of that science, 1769, 8vo. 11.” The laws of centripetal and centrifugal force,“1769, 8vo. 12.” The mathematical principles of Geography,“1770, 8vo. 13.” Tracts,“1770, 8vo. 14.” Cyclomathcsis; or an easy introduction to the several branches of the Mathematics,“1770, 10 vols. 8vo. 15.” A short comment on sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, containing notes upon some difficult places of that excellent book. To which is added, a Defence of sir Isaac against the objections that have been made to several parts of the Principia and Optics, by Leibnitz, Bernoulli, Euler, &c. and a Confutation of the objections made by Drs. Rutherford and Bedford against his Chronology,“1770, 8vo. 16.” Miscellanies or, a miscellaneous treatise, containing several mathematical subjects," 1776, 8vo. These are all good treatises, although the style and manner of some of them is rough and unpolished. But Emerson was not remarkable for genius, or discoveries of his own, as his works show hardly any traces of original invention.

, or Emili, a famous historian, was a native of Verona, and acquired so much reputation in Italy, that Stephen Poncher, bishop of Paris, advised king Lewis XII. to engage him to write in Latin a history of the kings of France. He was accordingly invited to Paris, and a canonry in the cathedral church was given him. He retired to the college of Navarre, to compose this work; yet after about thirty years of application to this his only employment, it was not completed at his death. The tenth book, which contained the beginning of the reign of Charles VIII. was left unfinished. But the history was continued by Arnoldus Feronius, who added nine books, which include the supplement to the former reign, and end at the death of Francis I. This continuation was published at Paris in 1650; but the best edition of the whole is that entitled “Emilii Pauli,'de Gestis Francorum, libri decem, cum Arnoldi Feroni libris novem.” Paris, 2 vols. fol.

He is said to have been very nice and scrupulous in regard to his works, having always some correction to make; hence Erasmus imputes the same fault to him that was objected to the painter Protogenes, who thought he had never finished his pieces; “That very learned man Paulus Emilius (says he) gave pretty much into this fault he was never satisfied with himself but, as often as he revised his own performances, he made such alterations, that one would not take them for the same pieces corrected, but for quite different ones; and this was his usual custom. This made him so slow, that elephants could bring forth sooner than he could produce a work; for he took above thirty years in writing his history.” Lipsius was much pleased with this performance: “Paulus Emilius (says that author) is almost the only modern who has discovered the true and ancient way of writing history, and followed it very closely. His manner of writing is learned, nervous, and concise, inclining to points and conceits, and leaving a strong impression on the mind of a serious reader. He often intermixes maxims and sentiments not inferior to those of the ancients. A careful examiner, and impartial judge of facts; nor have J met with an author in our time, who has less prejudice or partiality. It is a disgrace to our age that so few are pleased with him; and that there are but few capable of relishing his beauties. Among so many perfections there are, however, a few blemishes, for his style is somewhat unconnected, and his periods too short. This is not suitable to serious subjects, especially annals, the style of which, according to Tacitus, should be grave and unaffected. He is also unequal, being sometimes too studied and correct, and thereby obscure; at other times (this however but seldom) he is loose and negligent. He affects also too much of the air of antiquity in the names of men and places, which he changes, and would reduce to the ancient form, often learnedly, sometimes vainly, and in my opinion always unbecomingly.” Emilius’s history is divided into ten books, and extends from Pharamond to the fifth year of Charles VIII. in 1438. The tenth book was found among his papers in a confused condition, so that the editor, Daniel Xavarisio, a native of Verona, and relation of Emilius, was obliged to collate a great number of papers full of rasures, before it could be published. He has been censured by several of the French writers, particularly by M. Sorel: “It does not avail (says this author) that his oratorical pieces are imitations of those of the Greeks, and Romans: all are not in their proper places; for he often makes barbarians to speak in a learned and eloquent manner. To give one remarkable circumstance: though our most authentic historians declare, that Hauler, or Hanier, the counsellor, who spoke an invective, in presence of king Lewis Hautin, against Enguerrand de Mar rigny, came off poorly, and said many silly things; yet Paulus Emilius, who changes even his name, calling him Annalis, makes him speak with an affected eloquence. He also makes this Enguerrand pronounce a defence, though it is said he was not allowed to speak; so that what the historian wrote on this occasion was only to exercise his pen.” He has been also animadverted upon for not taking notice of the holy vial at Ilheims. “I shall not (says Claude de Verdier) pass over Paulus Emilius of Verona’s malicious silence, who omitted mentioning many things relating to the glory of the French nation. Nor can it be said he was ignorant of those things, upon which none were silent before himself; such as that oil which was sent from heaven for anointing our monarchs; and also the lilies. And even though he had not credited them himself, he ought to have declared the opinion of mankind.” Vossius, however, commends his silence in regard to these idle tales. Julius Scaliger mentions a book containing the history of the family of the Scaligers, as translated into elegant Latin by Paulus Emilius; and in his letter about the antiquity and splendour of the family, he has the following passage: “By the injury of time, the malice of enemies, and the ignorance of writers, a great number of memoirs relating to our family were lost; so that the name of Scaliger would have been altogether buried in obscurity, had it not been for Paulus Emilius of Verona, that most eloquent writer and preserver of ancient pedigrees; who having found in Bavaria very ancient annals of our family, written, as himself tells us, in a coarse style, polished and translated them into Latin. From this book my father extracted such particulars as seemed to reflect the” greatest honour on our family." Scaliger speaks also of it in the first edition of his Commentary on Catullus, in 1586, and in the second, in 1600, but in such a manner as differs somewhat from the passage above cited. Scioppius has severely attacked Scaliger on account of these variations: he observes, that no mention being made of the place where this manuscript was pretended to be found, nor the person who possessed it, and such authors as had searched the Bavarian libraries with the utmost care, having met with no such annals; he therefore asserts, that whatever the Scaligers advanced concerning this work, was all im posture. Emilius, as to his private life, was a man of exemplary conduct and untainted reputation. He died in 1529, and was buried in the cathedral at Paris.

, a learned English divine, a great champion of Arianism, and memorable for his sufferings on that account, was descended of a substantial and reputable family, and born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, May 27, 1663. His parents were frequenters of the established church, and particularly acquainted with Cumberland, then a minister at Stamford, afterwards bishop of Peterborough; but being inclined to the sentiments of the nonconformists, they chose to bring up their son to the ministry among them. For this purpose, after he had been at a private school four years, he was sent in 1678 to an, academy in Northamptonshire, where he continued four years more. He went in 1679 to Cambridge, and was admitted of Emanuel college; but soon returned to the academy. In August 1682, he removed to Mr. Doolittle’s school near London; and in December following made his first essay as a preacher at Mr. Doolittle’s meeting-house, near Cripplegate. In 1683, Mr. Emlyn became chaplain to the countess of Donegal, a lady of great quality and estate in the north of Ireland, but then living in Lincoln’sinn-fields. In 1684, Mr. Emlyn went over with the countess and the rest of her family to Belfast, in Ireland, where she was soon after married to sir William Kranklin, and lived in great state and splendour. Here our chaplain had a very liberal and handsome allowance, usually wore the habit of a clergyman, and was treated by sir VV illiam and the countess with every mark of civility. Sir William, who had a good estate in the ivest of England, offered him a considerable living there; but this offer he declined, not being satisfied with the terms of ministerial conformity, though at that time he had no scruples on the subject of the trinity constantly attended the service of the church both parts of the day and when in the evening he preached in the countess’s hall, he had the minister of the parish, Mr. Claude Gilbert, for a hearer, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and for whom he often officiated in the parish church. Indeed, without any subscription, he had from the bishop of the diocese a licence to preach facultatis exercende gratiá; insomuch that it was reported that he had entirely left the dissenters, and was gone over to the establishment. While Mr. Emlyn was in this station, he made a journey fo Dublin, where he preached once to the congregation of which Mr. Daniel Williams and Mr. Joseph Boyse were then pastors; and so acceptable were his services to the audience, that the people were afterwards induced to invite him thither. Towards the latter end of king James’s reign, the north of Ireland was thrown into such confusion and disorder, that the family of sir William Franklin and the countess of Donegal broke up; an event which was accelerated by some domestic differences. Mr. Emlyn, therefore, returned to London, where he arrived in December 1688. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams had some time before retreated to the same place, having quitted the pastoral care of the congregation at Dublin, which he could never be persuaded to resume. When this determination was known, and Mr. Emlyn had not yet left Ireland, Mr. Boyse sounded him by letter, to know whether he was disposed to become Mr. Williams’s successor, and wished him to take Dublin in his way to England, but this he declined. In Mr. Emlyn’s journeyings between Ireland and London, he several times accepted of invitations to preach in the parish-churches of some towns through which he passed. At Liverpbol in particular, as he was standing at the door of his inn one Saturday evening, the minister of the place, concluding by his garb that he was a clergyman, requested him to give his parishioners a sermon the next day, which he accordingly did. What was very remarkable, when he passed that way again some time afterwards, the minister being dead, several of the people, who had heard him before, desired him to preach for them the next Sunday, which service he performed so much to their satisfaction, that they offered to use their interest with their patron to procure him the living; an offer with which his views of things did not permit him to comply. After Mr. Emlyn had returned to London, being out of employment, he was invited by sir Robert Rich, one of the lords of the admiralty, in May 1689, to his house near Beccles, in Suffolk, and was by him prevailed upon to officiate as minister to a dissenting congregation at Lowestoff in that county. This place he supplied for about a year and a half, but refused the invitation of becoming their pastor, having determined not to accept the pastoral care, where he was not likely to settle for life, or at least for a long continuance. Here also Vie cultivated a friendly correspondence with the parish-minister, frequently taking several of his people along with him to church, and accompanying the minister in collecting public charities; by which means a perfect harmony subsisted between the members of the establishment and the dissenters. During Mr. Emlyn’s residence at LowestofT, ho contractcJ a closu and intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Manning, a nonconformist minister at Peasenhall in that neighbourhood. Being both of them of an inquisitive temper, they frequently conferred together, and jointly examined into the principal points of religion, mutually communicating to each other their respective sentiments. This correspondence, notwithstanding the great distance to which they were afterwards separated, was carried on by letters as long as Mr. Manning lived. Dr. Sherlock’s “Vindication of the Trinity” having been published about this time, their thoughts were much turned to the consideration of that subject, the result of which was, that they began to differ from the received doctrine in that article. Mr. Manning embraced the Socinian opinion, and strove hard to bring Mr. Emlyn into the same way of thinking; but he could not be brought to doubt either of the pre-existence of Jesus as the Logos, or that by him God had created the material world. The interpretations which the Socinians gave of the scriptures appeared to our divine so forced and unnatural, that he could by no means accede to them; nor did he ever, in the succeeding part of his life, change his sentiments upon the subject. Nevertheless, upon occasion of his carrying a letter from Mr. Whiston to the prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, in 1711, he was reflected on as a Socinian preacher.

After about ten weeks’ absence, though Mr. Emlyn received discouraging accounts of the rage that prevailed against him in Dublin, he thought it necessary to return, to his family. Finding that both his opinions and his person lay under a great odium among many who knew little of the subject in dispute, he wrote his “Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ: or, a short argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.” A few days after this work was prinjted, our author intended to return to England; but some zealous dissenters, getting notice of his design, resolved to have him prosecuted. Two of them, one of whom was a presbyterian, and the other a baptist-church officer, were for presenting Mr. Emlyn; but, upon reflection, this method was judged to be too slow, and too uncertain in its operation. Mr. Caleb Thomas, therefore, the latter of the two dissenters, immediately obtained a special warrant from the lord chief justice (sir Richard Pyne) to seize our author and his books. Our author, with part of the impression of his work, being thus seized, was carried before the lord chief justice, who at first refused bail, but afterwards said that it might be allowed with the attorney-general’s consent; which being obtained, two sufficient persons were bound in a recognizance of eight hundred pounds for Mr. Emlyn’s appearance. This was in Hilary term, February 1703, at the end of which he was bound over to Easter term, when the grand jury found the bill, wherein he was indicted of blasphemy. To such a charge he chose to traverse. The indictment was altered three times before it was finally settled, which occasioned the trial to be deferred till June 14, 1703. On that day, Mr. Emlyn was informed, by an eminent gentleman of the long robe, sir Richard Levins, afterwards lord chief justice of the common pleas, that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was designed to run him down like a wolf, without law or game; and he was soon convinced that this was not a groundless assertion. The indictment was for writing and publishing a book, wherein he had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the father, to whom he was subject; and this with a seditious intention. As Mr. Emlyn knew that it would be difficult to convict him of being the author of the work, he did not think himself bound to be his own accuser, and the prosecutor not being able to produce sufficient evidence of the fact, at length sent for Mr. Boyse. This gentleman, being examined as to what Mr. K.mlyn had preached of the matters contained in the book, acknowledged that he had said nothing of tlu-tn in the pulpit directly, but only some things that gave ground of suspicion. Mr. Boyse being farther asked, what our author had said in private conference with the ministers, answered, “that what he had declared there was judged by his brethren to be near to Arianism.” Though this only proved the agreement of the book with Mr. Emlyn’s sentiment, it yet had a great effect upon the minds of the jury, and tended more than any other consideration to produce a verdict against him. The queen’s counsel, having thus only presumption to allege, contended,that strong presumption was as good as evidence; which doctrine was seconded by the lord chief justice, who repeated it to the jury, who brought him in guilty, without considering the contents of the book whether blasphemy or not, confining themselves, as it would appear, to the fact of publishing: for which some of them afterwards expressed their concern. The verdict being pronounced, the passing of the sentence was deferred to June 16, being the last day of the term. In the mean time Mr. Emlyn was committed to the common jail. During this interval, Mr. Boyse shewed great concern for our author, and used all his interest to prevent the rigorous sentence for which the attorney-general (Robert Kochford, esq.) had moved, viz. the pillory. It being thought proper that Mr. Emlyn should write to the lord chief justice, he accordingly did so; but with what effect we are not told. When he appeared to have judgment given against him, it was moved by one of the queen’s counsel (Mr. Brodrick) that he should retract: but to this our author could not consent. The lord chief justice, therefore, proceeded to pass sentence on him; which was, that he should suffer a year’s imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the queen, and lie in prison till paid; and that he should find security for good behaviour during life. The pillory, he was told, was the punishment due; but, on account of his being a man of letters, it was not inflicted. Then, with a paper on his breast, he was led round the four courts to l>e exposed. After judgment had been passed, Mr. Emlyn was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner, for something more than a quarter of a year, in the house of the under-sheriff. On the 6th of October he was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where he lay among the prisoners in a close room filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then, by an habeas corpus, he was upon his petition removed into the Marshalsea for his health. Having here greater conveniences, he wrote, in 1704, a tract, entitled “General Remarks on Mr. Boyse’s Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour.” In the Marshalsea our author remained till July 21, 1705, during the whole of which time his former acquaintances were estranged from him, and all offices of friendship or.civility in a manner ceased; especially among persons of a superior rank. A few, indeed, of the plainer tradesmen belonging to his late congregation were more compassionate; but not one of the dissenting ministers of Dublin, Mr. Boyse excepted, paid him any visit or attention. At length, through the zealous and repeated solicitations of Mr. Boyse, the generous interference of Thomas Medlicote, esq. the humane interposition of the duke of Ormond, and the favourable report of the lord chancellor (sir Richard Cox, to whom a petition of Mr. Emlyn had been preferred), and whose report was, that such exorbitant fines were against law, the fine was reduced to seventy pounds, and it was accordingly paid into her majesty’s exchequer. Twenty pounds more were paid, by way of composition, to Dr. Narcissus March, archbishop of Armagh, who, as queen’s almoner, had a claim of one shilling a pound upon the whole fine. During Mr. Emlyn’s confinement in the Marshalsea, he regularly preached there. He had hired a pretty large room to himself; whither, on the Sundays, some of the imprisoned debtors resorted; and from without doors there came several of the lower sort of his former people and usual hearers. Soon after his release Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a small congregation was found for him, consisting of a few friends, to whom he preached once every Sunday. This he did without salary or stipend; although, in consequence of his wife’s jointure having devolved to her children, his fortune was reduced to a narrow income. The liberty of preaching which our author enjoyed, gave great offence to several persons, and especially to Mr. Charles Leslie, the famous nonjuror, and Mr. Francis Higgins, the rector of Balruddery, in the county of Dublin. Complaint was made upon the subject to Dr. Teniaon, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not inclined to molest him. Nevertheless, in the representation of the lower house of convocation to the queen in 1711, it was asserted, that weekly sermons were preached in defence of the Unitarian principles, an assertion which Mr. Emlyn thought proper to deny in a paper containing some observations upon it. After a few years, his congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who had attended upon his ministry, and he retired into silent obscurity, but not into idleness; for the greater part of his life was diligently spent in endeavouring to support, by various works, the principles he had embraced, and the cause for which he had suffered. The first performance published by him, after his release from prison, was “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Willis, 'dean of Lincoln; being some friendly remarks on his sermon before the honourable house of commons, Nov. 5, 1705.” The intention of this letter was to shew that the punishment even of papists for religion was not warranted by the Jewish laws; and that Christians had been more cruel persecutors than Jews. In 1706 Mr. Emlyn published what his party considered as one of his most elaborate productions, “A Vindication of the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, on Unitarian principles. In anMver to what is said, on that head, by Mr. Joseph Boyse, in his Vindication of” the Deity of Jesus Christ. To which is annexed, an answer to Dr. Walerland on the same head.“Two publications came from our author in 1707, the first of which was entitled” The supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated. In answer to Dr. Sherlock’s arguments fur the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever can be urged against the supremacy of the first person of the Holy Trinity.“The other was” A brief Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester’s (Dr. Fowler) Discourses concerning the descent of the man Christ Jesus from Heaven, from Dr. Sherlock the dean of St. Paul’s charge of heresy. With a confutation of his new notion in his late book of The Scripture proofs of our Saviour’s divinity.“In 1708 Mr. Emlyn printed three tracts, all of them directed against Mr. Leslie. The titles of them are as follow: 1. Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 2. A Vindication of the Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 3. An Examination of Mr. Leslie’s last Dialogue relating to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Together with some remarks on Dr. Stillingfleet’s True reasons of Christ’s Sufferings. In the year 1710 he published” The previous question to the several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay-baptism, &c. considered viz. whether there be any necessity (upon the principles of Mr. Wall’s History of infant baptism) for the continual use of baptism among the posterity of baptised Christians.“But this hypothesis, though supported with ingenuity and learning, has not obtained many converts. Our author did not again appear from the press till 1715, when he published” A full Inquiry into the original authority of that text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. containing an account of Dr. Mill’s evidence, from antiquity, for and against its being genuine; with an examination of his judgment thereupon.“This piece was addressed to Dr. William Wake, lord archbishop of Canterbury, president, to the bishops of the same province, his grace’s suffragans, and to the clergy of the lower house of convocation, then assembled. The disputed text found an advocate in Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at the Hague, who published a critical dissertation on the subject, in opposition to Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry. In 1718 our author again considered the question, in” An Answer to Mr. Martin’s critical dissertation on 1 John v. 7; shewing the insufficiency of his proofs, and the errors of his suppositions, by which he attempts to establish the authority of that text from supposed manuscripts." Mr. Martin having published an examination of this answer, Mr. Emlyn printed a reply to it in 1720, which produced a third tract upon the subject by Mr. Martin, and there the controversy ended; nor, we believe, was it revived in a separate form, until within these few years by Mr. archdeacon Travis and professor Person.

While Mr. Emlyn was engaged in this celebrated controversy, he found leisure for other publications. In 1718 he printed a tract entitled, “Dr. Bennet’s new theory of the Trinity examined; or, some considerations on the Discourse of the ever blessed Trinity in Unity; and his examination of Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.” Dr. Bennet’s explication of the Trinity was singular, and approached to Sabellianism; on which account he laid himself open to the strictures both of trinitarian and Unitarian divines. Three pieces were published by Mr. Emlyn in 1719. The first was “Remarks on a book entitled The Doctrine of the blessed Trinity stated and defended, by four London ministers, Mr. Tong, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Reynolds. With an appendix, concerning the equality of the Three Persons, and Mr. Jurieu’s testimony to the primitive doctrine on this point.” These were four dissenting clergymen, who had united their talents upon the subject. His next publication was, “A trua narrative of the proceedings of the dissenting ministers of Dublin against Mr. Thomas Emlyn; and of his prosecution (at some of the dissenters’ instigation) in the secular court, and his sufferings thereupon, for his humble Inquiry into the scripture account of the Lord Jesus Christ: annis 1702, 3, 4, 5. To which is added an appendix, containing the author’s own and the Dublin ministers’ account of the difference between him and them, with some remarks thereon.” The last tract published by our author, in 1719, was “The reverend Mr. Trosse’s Arguments answered; relating to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Deity of the Holy Ghost. Taken from his Catechism, and Sermon on Luke xxii. 31. printed at Exon.”

Although Mr. Emlyn flattered himself that his doctrine gradually gained ground both in England and Ireland, he still continued to be so obnoxious, that none of the divines among the dissenters in London dared to ask him to preach for them, excepting the ministers of the baptist congregation at Barbican, Mr. Burroughs and Mr. (afterwards Dr.) James Foster, who invited him more than once to that office. About 1726, upon the decease of Mr. James Pierce, of Exeter, several of the people wished to invite Mr. Emlyn thither; but, as soon as he was acquainted with it, be requested them to desist, thanking them for their respectful attention to him, and excusing his acceptance of an invitation, on account of his declining years, and the feebleness of his limbs. Though our author lived in private retirement, he was honoured with the esteem and friendship of divers persons of distinguishe4 learning and in eminent stations. He was particularly intimate with Dr. Samuel Clarke, who, though at first he was upon the reserve with Mr. Emlyn, when he came to be farther acquainted with him, expressed a high value and regard for him, generally advised with him in matters of importance, and opened his mind to him with the utmost freedom. The doctor’s language to our author was, “I can say any thing to you.” Mr. Whiston also, in his account of his own life, has spoken of Emtyn several times in terms of great respect. In 1731 our author wrote “Observations on Dr. Waterland’s notions in relation to Polytheism, Ditheism, the Son’s consubstantiality with, and inferiority to, the Father;” and in the same year he drew up some “Memoirs of the Life and Sentiments of the reverend Dr. Samuel Clarke,” neither separately published, but inserted in his works. Mr. Einlyn, who was naturally of a very cheerful and lively temper, enjoyed, in all respects, a large share of health, the gout excepted; which, by degrees, impaired his health, and by its annual returns greatly disabled him in his limbs. For the last two or three years of his life he grew much feebler; and about a year before his death he received a violent shock, which it was feared would have carried him off. However, he so well recovered from it, that he weathered the next winter, though a severe one, without any farther breach upon his health. On Friday, July 17, 1743, he was suddenly taken ill in the night, but grew so far better as to be able, for some days, to converse with his friends, and to testify the great satisfaction he enjoyed in the consciousness of his integrity. His disorder returning, he departed this life on Tuesday, the 30th day of the month, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. On the 16th of August following, his funeral sermon was preached at Barbican, by Mr. Foster, who has given him an excellent character. His character is likewise displayed at large in the Memoirs of his life, in which we are told that he was one of the brightest examples of substantial unaffected piety, of serious rational devotion, of a steady unshaken integrity, and an undaunted Christian courage. He was buried in Bunhill-Fields, where there is an inscription to his memory. The Memoirs of his life were written by his son, Sollom Emlyn, esq. and separately published in 1746. In the same year they were prefixed to a collection of his works, in two volumes, octavo. An appendix is added, containing several short papers, drawn up by our author, on various subjects. Mr. Sollom Emlyn, who was bred to the law, and became an eminent counsellor, was employed to publish lord chief justice Hale’s “History of the Pleas of the Crown,” which he did in 1736, in two volumes, folio, together with a preface and large notes, many, of which were contributed by Mr. William Whiston, a son of the celebrated Whiston, who also examined many of the records for the purpose of accuracy. Mr. Sollom Emlyn died in 1756, and left one son, Thomas Emlyn, esq. barrister at law, a bencher of Lincoln’s Inn, and fellow of the royal society, who died in 1797.

, a learned professor of Groningen, was born at Gretha, a village in East Friesland, Dec. 5, 1547. He was the son of Emmo Diken, a minister of that village, who had been Luther’s and Melancthon’s disciple; and at nine years of age was sent to study at Embden. He continued there till he was eighteen, and was then sent to Bremen, to improve under the famous John Molanus. Returning to his father, he did not go immediately to the university, but passed some time at Norden. Being turned of twenty-three, he was sent to Rostock, a flourishing university, where he heard the lectures of David Chytraeus, a celebrated divine and historian; and of Henry Bruce, an able mathematician and physician. The death of his father obliged him to return to East Friesland, after he had continued above two years at Rostock.; and his mother’s excessive grief upon this occasion hindered his taking a journey into France, as he had wished, and induced him to continue with her three years, after which he went to Geneva, where he staid two years. Being returned into his own country, he had the choice of two preferments, either to be a minister or the rector of a college: but, from a great degree of natural timidity, he could not venture to engage in the ministry, thoagh it was very much his inclination. He chose therefore to be rector of a college, which was that of Norden and was admitted into that post in 1579. He made his college flourish exceedingly but was turned out of his employment in 1587, through the zeal of some Lutherans, because he would not subscribe the confession of Augsburg. He was chosen the year after to be rector of the college of Leer, whose reputation he raised so high, that it surpassed that of Norden; which the Lutherans could never retrieve from the declining state into which it fell after Emmius was deposed. They had banished from Groningen several persons who followed Calvin’s reformation; and those of the exiles who retired to Leer, meeting with the same fate as Emmius, engaged in a particular friendship with him: so that, when the city of Groningen confederated with the United Provinces, and the magistrates resolved to restore their college, Emmius being recommended by several persons, they chose him to be the rector of that college, and gave him a full power to make or abrogate there such statutes as he should think proper.

He entered upon this employment in 1594, and exercised it near twenty years, to the uncommon advantage of the students, who were sent in great numbers to that college. At the end of that time, namely, in 1614, the magistrates of Groningen changed their college into an university, and made Emmius professor of history and of the Greek tongue. He was the first rector of that university, and one of the chief ornaments of it by his lectures, till the infirmities of old age did not suffer him to appear any longer in public. Yet he did not become useless either to the republic of letters, or to the university of Groningen; for he continued to write books, and to impart his wise counsels to the senate in all important affairs. He was a man whose learning was not his only merit: he was capable, which few men who spend their lives in a college are, of advising even princes. The governor of the provinces of Friesland and Groningen consulted him very often, and seldom failed to follow his advice.

Emmius died at Groningen, Dec. 9, 1625, leaving a family behind him; for he had been twice married. Til the last years of his life he composed the three volumes o his “Vetus Grsecia illustrata,” or ancient Greece illustrated the first of which contains a geographical description of Greece the second, the history of it; the third, the particular form of government in every state. This work was committed to the press in his life-time; bur, through the delays of the printers, not published till after his death, in 1626, 3 vols. 8vo. He had published several considerable works before this; as, his “Opus Chronologicum novum,” Groningen, 1619, fol. and some genealogical works, which contain the history of Rome and an universal history, written in a very elaborate method his “Decades rerum Frisicarum,” in which we do not find him unreasonably prepossessed in favour of his native country: on the contrary, he confuted vigorously the idle tales related by the historians of Friesland, concerning the antiquities of their nation; and this love of truth raised him a great many enemies. This work was printed at Leyden, 16 1C, fol. an edition of great rarity. He wrote also a History of William Lewis count of Nassau, governor of Friesland; in which we meet, not only with a panegyric on that prince, but also a short history of thf United Provinces, from 1577 to 1614. This was printed at Groningen, 1621, 4to. He had theological controversies with Daniel Hoffman, and wrote an abridgment of the life and errors of David George, the enthusiast, in German, and not in Latin, as Clement has proved in his Bibl. Curieuse. When he died, he was about composing the history of Philip of Macedon; in order to shew the United Provinces by what fraudulent and indirect means Philip had oppressed the liberty of Greece, and had already carried this history to the 15th year of Philip’s reign.

, an eminent philosopher, poet, orator, historian, and physician, was of Agrigentum, in Sicily, and flourished about the eighty-fourth olympiad, or B. C. 44-4. He appears from his doctrine to have been of the Italic school; but under what master he studied philosophy is uncertain. After the death of his father Meto, who was a wealthy citizen of Agrigentum, he acquired great weight among his fellow-citizens, by espousing the popular party, and favouring democratic measures. He employed a large share of his paternal estate in giving dowries to young women, and marrying them to men of superior rank. His consequence in the state became at length so great, that he ventured to assume several of the distinctions of royalty, particularly a purple robe, a golden girdle, a Delphic crown, and a train of attendants; always retaining a grave and commanding aspect. He was a determined enemy to tyranny, and is said to have employed his influence in establishing and defending the rights of his countrymen.

The skill which Empedocles possessed in medicine and natural philosophy enabled him to perform many wonders, which he passed upon the superstitious and credulous multitude for miracles. He pretended to drive away noxious winds from his country, and hereby put a stop to epidemical diseases. He is said to have checked, by the power of music, the madness of a young man, who was threatening his enemy with instant death; to have cured Pantha, a woman of Agrigentum, whom all the physicians had declared incurable; to have restored a woman to life, who had lain breathless for thirty days; and to have done many other things equally astonishing, after the manner of Pythagoras: on account of which he was an object of universal admiration, so that when he came to the Olympic games, the eyes of all the people were fixed upon him. Besides medical skill, Empedocles possessed poetical talents. The fragments of his verses, which are dispersed through various ancient writers, have been in part collected by Henry Stephens, in the “Poesis philosophica,” 1574, 8vo. This circumstance affords some ground for the opinion of Fabricius, that Empedocles was the real author of that ancient fragment which bears the name of “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras.” He is said also to have been a dramatic poet; but Empedocles the tragedian was another person; Suidas, upon some unknown authority, calls him the grandson of the philosopher. Georgias Leontinus, a celebrated orator, was his pupil; whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he was an eminent master of the art of eloquence. The particulars of his death are variously related. Some report, that during the night, after a sacred festival, he was conveyed away towards the heavens, amidst the splendour of celestial light; others that he threw himself into the burning crater of Mount Etna. Much reliance cannot be placed on either of these stories. There is more probability that towards the close of his life he went into Greece, and died there, at what time is uncertain. Aristotle says he died at sixty years of age. The substance of his philosophy, according to Brucker, is this: It is impossible to judge of truth by the senses without the assistance of reason; which is. led, by the intervention of the senses, to the contemplation of the real nature, and immutable essences, of things. The first principles of nature are of two kinds, active and passive the active is unity, or God the passive, matter. The active principle is a subtle, ethereal fire, intelligent and divine, which gives being to all things, and animates all things, and into which all things will be at last resolved. Many daemons, portions of the divine nature, wander through the region of the air, and administer human affairs. Man, and also all brute animals, are allied to the divinity; and it is therefore unlawful to kill or eat animals. The world is one whole, circumscribed by the revolution of the sun, and surrounded, not by a vacuum, but by a. mass of inactive matter. The first material principles of the four elements are similar atoms, indefinitely small, and of a round form. Matter, thus divided into corpuscles, possessed the primary qualities of friendship and discord, by means of which, upon the first agitation of the original chaotic mass, homogeneous parts were united, and heterogeneous separated, and the four elements composed, of which all bodies are generated. The motion of the corpuscles, which excites the qualities of friendship and discord, is produced by the energy of intellectual fire, or divine mind; all motion, and consequently all life and being, must therefore be ascribed to God. The first principles of the elements are eternal nothing can begin to exist, or be annihilated but all the varieties of nature are produced by combination or separation. In the formation of the world, ether was first secreted from chaos, then fire, then earth; by the agitation of which were produced water and air. The heavens are a solid body of air, crystallized by fire. The stars are bodies composed of fire, they are fixed in the crystal of heaven; but the planets wander freely beneath it. The sun is a fiery mass, larger than the moon, which is in the form of a hollow plate, and twice as far from the sun as from the earth. The soul of man consists of two parts, the sensitive, produced from the same principles with the elements; and the rational, which is a daemon sprung from the divine soul of the world, and sent down into the body as a punishment for its crimes in a former state, where it transmigrates till it is sufficiently purified to return to God.

About 1770, he was invited to take a share in the conduct of the dissenting academy at Warrington, and also to occupy the place of minister to the congregation, there, both vacant by the death of the rev. Mr. Seddon. His acceptance of this honourable invitation was a source of a variety of mixed sensations and events to him, of which anxiety and vexation composed too large a share for his happiness. No assiduity on his part was wanting in the performance of his various duties but the diseases of the institution were radical and incurable and perhaps his gentleness of temper was ill adapted to contend with the difficulties in Blatter of discipline, which seem entailed on all dissenting academies, and which, in that situation, fell upon him, as the domestic resident, with peculiar weight. He always, however, possessed the respect and affection of the hestdisposed of the students; and there was no reason to suppose that any other person, in his place, could have prevented that dissolution which the academy underwent in 1783. During the period of his engagement there, his indefatigable industry was exerted in the composition of a number of works, mostly, indeed, of the class of useful compilations, but containing valuable displays ofhis powers of thinking and writing. The most considerable was his “Institutes of Natural Philosophy,” 1783, 4to, a clear and well-arranged compendium of the leading principles, theoretical and experimental, of the sciences comprized under that head. And it may be mentioned as an extraordinary proof of his diligence and power of comprehension, that, on a vacancy in the mathematical department of the academy, which the state of the institution rendered it impossible to supply by a new tutor, he prepared himself at a short warning to fill it up; and did till it with credit and utility, though this abstruse branch of science had never before been a particular object of his study. He continued at Warrington two years after the academy had broken up, taking a few private pupils. In 1785, receiving an invitation from the principal dissenting congregation at Norwich, he accepted it, and first fixed his residence at Thorpe, a pleasant village near the city, where he pursued his plan of taking a limited number of pupils to board in his house. He afterwards removed to Norwich itself, and at length, fatigued with the long cares of education, entirely ceased to receive boarders, and only gave private instructions to two or three select pupils a few hours in the morning. This too he at last discontinued, and devoted himself solely to the duties of his congregation, and the retired and independent occupations of literature. Yet, in a private way and small circle, few men had been more successful in education, of which many striking examples might be mentioned, and none more so than the members of his own family. Never, indeed, was a father more deservedly happy in his children; but the eldest, whom he had trained with uncommon care, and who had already, when just of age, advanced in his professional, career so far as to be chosen town-clerk of Nottingham, was most unfortunately snatched away by a fever, a few years since. This fatal event produced effects on the doctor’s health which alarmed his friends. The symptoms were those of angina pectoris, and they continued till the usual serenity of his mind was restored by time and employment. Some of the last years of his life were the most comfortable; employed only in occupations which, were agreeable to him, and which left him master of his own time witnessing the happy settlement of two of his daughters contracted in his living within the domestic privacy which he loved and connected with some of the most agreeable literary companions, and with a set of cordial and kind-hearted friends, he seemed fully to enjoy life as it flowed, and indulged himself in pleasing prospects for futurity. But an unsuspected and incurable disease was preparing a sad and sudden change; a schirrous contraction of the rectum, the symptoms of which were mistaken by himself for a common laxity of the bowels, brought on a total stoppage, which, after a week’s struggle, ended in death. Its gradual approach gave him opportunity to display all the tenderness, and more than the usual firmness of his nature. He died amidst the kind offices of mourning friends at Norwich, Nov. 3, 1797. Besides the literary performances already mentioned, Dr. Enfielcl completed in 1791, the laborious task of an abridgment of “Brucker’s History of Philosophy,” which he Comprized in two volumes, 4to. It may be truly said, that the tenets of philosophy and the lives of its professors were never before displayed in so pleasing a form, and with such clearness and elegance of language. Indeed it was his peculiar excellence to arrange and express other men’s ideas to the utmost advantage; but it has been objected that in this work he has been sometimes betrayed into inaccuracies by giving what he thought the sense of the ancients in cases where accuracy required their very words to be given. Yet a more useful or elegant work upon the subject has never appeared in our language, and in our present undertaking we have taken frequent opportunities to acknowledge our obligations to it. Among Dr. Enfield’s publications not noticed above, were his “Speaker,” a selection of pieces for the purpose of recital “Exercises on Elocution,” a sequel to the preceding “The Preacher’s Directory,” an arrangement of topics and texts “The English Preacher,” a collection of short sermons from various authors, 9 vols. 12mo; “Biographical Sermons on the principal characters in the Old and New Testament.” After his death a selection of his “Sermons” was published in 3 vols. 8vo, with a life by Dr. Aikin. As a divine, Dr. Enfield ranks among the Socinians, and his endeavours in these sermons are to reduce Christianity to a mere system of ethics.

, a French woman by extraction, was eminent for her fine writing in the time of queen Elizabeth and James I. Many of her performances are still extant both in our libraries and private hands; particularly one in the Harcourt family, entitled “Histories memorabiles Genesis per Esteram Inglis Gallam,” Edenburgi, ann. 1600. It appears by Hearne’s spicilegium to Gul. Neubrigensis, vol. III. p. 751, 752, that she was the most exquisite scribe of her age. A curious piece of her performance was in the possession of Mr. Cripps, surgeon in Budge- row, London, entitled “Octonaries upon the vanitie and inconstancie of the world. Writin by Ester Inglis. The firste of Januarie, 1600.” It is done, on an oblong 8vo, in French and English verse; the French is all in print hand, and the English mostly Italian or secretary, and is curiously ornamented with flowers and fruits painted in water-colours, and on the first leaf is her own picture, in a small form, with this motto,

, an ancient Latin poet, was born at Radian, a town in Calabria, anno U. C. 514, or B.C. 237. That this was the place of his nativity, we learn from himself, as well as from others; and the Florentines at this day claim him for their fellow-citizen. He came at first to Rome, when M. P. Cato was quaestor, whom he had instructed in the Greek language in Sardinia. C. Nepos informs us, that “Cato, when he was praetor, obtained the province of Sardinia, from whence, when he was quaestor there before, he had brought Ennius to Rome:” which we esteem,“says the historian,” no less than the noblest triumph over Sardinia.“He had a house on the Aventine mount; and, by his genius, conversation, and integrity, gained the friendship of the most eminent perspns in the city. Among these were Galba and M. Fulvius Nobilior, by whose son (who, after his father’s example, was greatly addicted to learning) he was made free of the city. He attended Fulvius in the war against the Ætolians and Ambraciotae, and celebrated his victories over those nations. He fought likewise under Torquatus in Sardinia, and under the elder Scipio; and in all these services distinguished himself by his uncommon valour. He was very intimate with Scipio Nasica, as appears from Cicero: Nasica, going one day to visit Ennius, and the maid-servant saying that he was not at home, Scipio found that she had told him so by her master’s orders, and that Ennius was at home. A few days after, Ennius coming to Nasica, and inquiring for him at the door, the latter called out to him,” that he was not at home.“Upon which Ennius answering,” What do I not know your voice“Scipio replied,” You have a great deal of assurance for I believed your maid, when she told me, that you were not at home and will not you believe me myself?" Ennius was a man of uncommon virtue, and lived in great simplicity and frugality. He died at the age of seventy years; and his death is said to have been occasioned by the gout, contracted by an immoderate use of wine, of which he always drank very freely before he applied himself to writing. This Horace affirms:

Ennius is said to have been perfectly well skilled in the Greek language, and to have endeavoured to introduce the treasures of it among the Latins. Suetonius tells us, that “he and Livius Andronicus were half Greeks, and taught both the Greek and Latin languages at home and abroad.” He was the first among the Romans who wrote heroic verses, and greatly polished the Latin poetry. He wrote the Annals of Rome, which were so highly esteemed, that they were publicly recited with unusual applause by Q,uintus Vargonteius, who digested them into books; and they were read at Puteoli in the theatre by a man of learning, who assumed the name of the Ennianist. He translated several tragedies from the Greek, and wrote others. He published likewise several comedies; but, whether of his own invention, or translated by him, is uncertain. He gave a Latin version of Evemerus’s sacred history, and Epicharmus’s philosophy and wrote Phagetica, epigrams; Scipio, a poem Asotus or Sotadicus, satires Protreptica & Praecepta, and very probably several other works. It appears from his writings, that he had very strong sentiments of religion. The fragments of Ennius, for there are nothing but fragments left, were first collected by the two Stephenses; and afterwards published by Jerom Columna, a Roman nobleman, with a learned commentary, and the life of Ennius, at Naples, 1590, 4to. Columna’s edition was reprinted at Amsterdam, 1707, 4to, with several additions by Hesselius, professor of history and eloquence in the school at Rotterdam, and this is by far the best edition of Ennius.

, bishop of Pavia in Italy, and an eminent writer, was descended from an illustrious family in Gaul, and horn in Italy about the year 473. Losing an aunt, who had brought him up, at sixteen years of age, he was reduced to very necessitous circumstances, but retrieved his affairs by marrying a young lady of great fortune and quality. He enjoyed for some time all the pleasures and advantages which his wealth could procure him; but afterwards resolved upon a more strict course of life. He entered into orders, with the consent of his lady, who likewise betook herself to a religious life. He was ordained deacon by Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, with whom he lived in the most inviolable friendship. His application to divinity did not divert him from prosecuting, at his leisure hours, poetry and oratory, in which he had distinguished himself from his youth; and his writings gained him very great reputation. Upon the death of Epiphanius, he appears to have been elected one of the deacons of the Roman church; and in the year 603, having presented to the synod of Rome an apology for the council there, which had absolved pope Symmachus the year before, it was ordered to be inserted among the acts of the synod. He was advanced to the bishopric of Pavia about the year 511, and appointed to negociate an union between the eastern and western churches; for which purpose he took two journeys into the east, the former in the year 515, with Fortunatus, bishop of Catanaea; the latter in the year 517, with Peregrinus, bishop of Misenum. Though he did not succeed in these negotiations, he shewed his prudence and resolution in the management of them. For the emperor Anastasius, having in vain used his utmost efforts to deceive or corrupt him, after other instances of ill treatment, ordered him to be put on board an old ship; and, forbidding him to land in any part of Greece, exposed him to manifest danger, yet he arrived safe in Italy; and, returning to Padua, died there, not long after, in the year 521. His works consist of, 1. “Epistolarum ad diversos libri IX.” 2. “Panegyricus Theodorico regi Ostrogothorum dictus.” 3. “Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo Palmari.” 4. “Vita B. Epiphanii episcopi Ticinensis.” 5. “Vita B. Antonii monachi Lirinensis” 6. “Eucharisticon de Vita sua ad Elpidium.” 7. “Parasnesis didascalica ad Ambrosium & Beatum.” 8. “Proeceptum de Cellulanis Episcoporum.” 9. “Petitorium, quo absolutus est Gerontius.” 10. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis I.” 11. “Benedictio Cerei Paschalis II.” 12. “Dietiones sacrae VI.” 13. “Dictiones scholastics VII.” 14. “Controversioe X.” 15. “Dictiones Ethicae V.” 16. “Poeinata, seu Carminum Liber I.” 17. “Epigrammata, seu Carminum Liber II.” They" were all published by Andrew Scottus at Tournay, 1610, 8vo; and by James Sirrnond at Paris, 1611, 8vo, with notes, explaining the names and titles of the persons mentioned by Ennodius, and containing a great many observations very useful tot illustrating the history of that age. Ennodius’s works are likewise printed with emendations and illustrations, at the end of the first volume of father Sirmond’s works, published at Paris in 1626[?]; and, from that edition, at Venice, 1729, folio. Dupiu observes, that there is a considerable warmth and liveliness of imagination in the writings of Ennodius but that his style is obscure, and his manner of reasoning far from exact.

, a miscellaneous compiler of various historical works, was born in 1713, but where, or where educated, we have not been able to discover: he styled himself in his numerous title-pages the Rev. John Entick, M. A. but it does not appear whence, he derived his orders, or his degree. It is certain that at one time he studied with a view to the ministry, eilher in the church or among the dissenters. In the list of writers who engaged in the controversy with Woolston, we find his name, as a “student in divinity,” and the author of a tract, entitled “The Evidence of Christianity asserted and proved from facts, as authorised from sacred and profane history.” Mr. Entick was at this time about eighteen years old. In London, or its vicinity at Stepney, he was a schoolmaster, and spent a considerable part of his life in writing for the booksellers, who appear to have always employed him when they engaged in such voluminous compilations as were to be published in numbers. In this way we find his name to a “Naval History,” folio “A History, of the (Seven years’) War,” 5 vols. 8vo “A History of London,” 4 vols. 8vo a new edition, enlarged, of Maitland’s History of London, 2 vols. folio, &c. &c. He compiled also a small Latin and English Dictionary, and a Spelling Dictionary, of both which immense numbers have been sold. About the year 1738, he proposed publishing an edition of Chaucer, which never took effect. Soon after the beginning of the present reign, he commenced patriot, of the school of Wilkes, wrote for some time in an anti-ministerial paper called the Monitor, and had at length the good fortune to be taken up under a general warrant, for which he prosecuted the messenger, and recovered 300l. damage?. It was after this that he professed to improve and enlarge Maitland’s History of London, without adding a syllable to the topographical part; but in the historical, he gave a very full account of Wilkes’s proceedings with the city of London, and of the sufferings of his adherents. In 1760, he married a widow lady of Stepney, who died the same year; and in May 1773, himself died, and was buried at the same place. We may add to his other publications, that he had a considerable share in the New “Week’s Preparation,” and a New “Whole Duty of Man.”

is a Spanish writer, who among biographers is classed under different names. In Moreri, we find him under that of Dryander, by which, perhaps, he is most generally known; but in France he took the name of Du Chesne, and by the Germans was called Evck, Eycken, or Eyckman. Referring to Marchand for a dissertation on these different names, it may suffice here to notice that Enzinas was of a distinguished family of Burgos, the capital of Old Castille, where he was probably born, or where at least he began his studies. He appears afterwards to have gone into Germany, and was the pupil of the celebrated Melancthon for some years, and thence into the Netherlands to some relations, where he settled. Having become a convert to the reformed religion, which was there established, he translated the New Testament into Spanish, and dedicated it to Charles V. It was published at Antwerp in 1543. He had met with much discouragement when he communicated this design to his friends in Spain, and was now to suffer yet more severely for his attempt to present his countrymen with a part of the scriptures in their own tongue. The publication had scarcely made its appearance, when he was thrown into prison at Brussels, where he remained from November 1543 to Feb. I, 1545, on which day finding the doors of his prison open, he made his escape, and went to his relations at Antwerp. About three years after, he went to England, as we learn from a letter of introduction which Melancthon gave him to archbishop Cranmer. About 1552 Melancthon gave him a similar letter to Calvin. The time of his death is not known. He published, in 1545, “A History of the State of the Low Countries, and of the religion of Spain,” in Latin, which was afterwards translated into French, and forms part of the “Protestant TYIartyrology,” printed in Germany. Mavchand points out a few other writings by him, but which were not published separately. Enzinas had two brothers, James and John. Of the former little is recorded of much consequence; but John, who resided a considerable time at Rome, and likewise became a convert to the protestant religion, was setting out for Germany to join his brother,' when some expressions which he dropped, relative to the corruptions and disorders of the church, occasioned his being accused of heresy, and thrown into prison. The terrors of a dungeon, and the prospect of a cruel death, did not daunt his noble sou), but when brought before the pope and cardinals to be examined, he refused to retract what he had said, and boldly avowed and justified his opinions, for which he was condemned to be burnt alive, a sentence which was put into execution at Rome in 1545.

, a famous Theban, son of Polymnus, and one of the greatest captains of antiquity, studied philosophy and music under Lysis, a Pythagorean philosopher, and was accomplished in every exercise of mind and body. Epaminondas first bore arms among the Lacedemonians, saved the life of Pelopidas their general, who had received seven or eight wounds in battle, and formed a strict friendship with him, which lasted through life. Pelopidas, by his advice, delivered the city of Thebes from the yoke of the Lacedemonians, who had gained possession of Cadmea, which occasioned a bloody War between the two nations. Eparninondas was appointed general of the Thebans, gained the celebrated buttle of Leuctru, 371 B. C. in which Cleombrotus, a valiant king of Sparta, was killed; ravaged the enemy’s country, and caused the city of Messene to be rebuilt and peopled. The command of the army being afterwards given to another, because Epaminondas had kept the troops in the field four months beyond the time ordered by the people, he served as a common soldier, and signalized himself by so many noble actions, that the Thebans, ashamed of having deprived him of the command, restored all his authority, that he might conduct the war in Thessaly, where his arms were ever victorious. A war breaking out between the people of Elea and those of Mantinea, the Thebans defended the former, and Epaminoudas attempted to surprise Sparta and Mantinea; but, failing in his enterprize, he engaged the enemy 363 B. C. and was mortally wounded by a spear, the head of which remained in the wound. Finding that he must die if it was extracted, he would not let it be done, but continued to give his orders. When told that the enemy were defeated entirely, he said, “I have lived long enough, since I die unconquered;” then, tearing out the weapon, expired, being about forty-eight years of age. One of his friends condoling with him, a few moments before, that he left no children, having never been married, “You are mistaken,” replied Epaminondas “1 leave two daughters; the Victory at Leuctra, and that at Mantinea.” This great man was not only illustrious for his military talents, but for his goodness, affability, frugality, equity, and moderation and was a tender, generous friend.

, a very ingenious and benevolent French abbé, and the extensive promoter, if not the inventor, of a method of relieving the deaf and dumb, and rendering them useful members of society, was the son of an architect, who educated him for the church. Having obtained a canonry of Troyes, by the presentation of the bishop of that diocese, he soon became intimate with the prelate Soanen, famous for his attachment to Quesnel, and his opposition to the bull Unigenitus, and coinciding in his religious opinions, shared in the persecution of which Soanen was the object, and was laid under an interdict. He was first induced to turn his thoughts towards the unhappy case of the deaf and dumb, from observing two young girls in that situation, and although some not altogether unsuccessful attempts had been made before his time, in individual cases, the abbé L'Epee soon outdid the most skilful of his predecessors, by reducing his means to a sort of system. Under his care numerous pupils acquired useful knowledge, and were enabled to hold a communication with their friends. Some of them were enabled to learn several languages; others became profound mathematicians, and others obtained academical prizes by poetical and literary works. Without other means than a moderate personal fortune, for he held no place or preferment, he defrayed the whole expences of his establishment, and always deprived himself of luxuries, and often of necessaries, that his poor pupils might not want. When the emperor Joseph II. came to Paris, he admired the institution and its founder, and asked permission to place under his care an intelligent man, who might diffuse through Germany the blessings of his labours; and he sent him a magnificent gold box with his picture. In 1780 the Russian ambassador came to offer him the compliments of his sovereign, and a considerable present. “Tell Catherine,” said L'Epee, “that I never receive gold; but that if my labours have any claim to her esteem, all I ask of her is to send me from her vast dominions one born deaf and dumb to educate.” This amiable man died in February 1790, justly regretted by his country, and was succeeded in his school by the abbé Sicard. L'Epee wrote, 1. “An Account of the Complaint and Cure of Marianne Pigalle,” 1759, 12mo. 2. “Institution des Sourds et Muets, par la voie des signes methodiques,” 1776, 12mo, reprinted in 1784, under the title “La veritable maniere d'instruire les Sourds et Muets, confirmee par une longue experience.” A translation of this was published in London, 1801, 8vo. We cannot conclude this article without adverting to the success of the methods of teaching the deaf and dumb as now practised in this country, and eminently promoted by the “Society for the Deaf and Dumb,” in their Asylum, Kent Road: few charitable foundations have been more wisely laid, more judiciously conducted, or more liberally supported.

, a Greek orator and historian, a native of Cuma or Cyme in Æolia, flourished about the year 352 B. C. He was a disciple of Socrates, at whose instigation, he wrote history; which he commenced after the fabulous periods, with the return of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus, and brought down to the twentieth year of Philip of Macedon. This work, which was-divided into 30 books, was held in estimation by the ancients, and is frequently cited by Strabo and other writers; though the historian is charged with errors and misrepresentations, and plagiarisms. Besides the history, the loss of which is regretted, Ephorus wrote several other books on moral, geographical, and rhetorical subjects, none of which are extant but some “Fragmenta” are published with Scylax, Or. and Lat. Leyden, 1697, 4to.

, an ancient Christian writer of the fourth century, was a native of Edessa, according to some; or, as others say, of Nisibe in Syria; and was born under the emperor Constantine. He embraced a monastic life from his earliest years, and in a short time was chosen superior to a considerable number of monks. He is also said to have been ordained deacon at Edessa, and priest at Caesarea in Cappadocia by St. Basil, who taught him Greek; but these two last circumstances are questionable, and it is more generally asserted that he did nat understand Greek, and that he died a deacon. He might have been a bishop, which promotion he averted in a very singular manner, that reminds us of the conduct of Ambrose on a similar occasion: Sozomen relates, that when the people had chosen him, and sought him in order to have him ordained to that function, he ran into the market-place and pretended to be mad, and they desisting from their purpose, he escaped into some retired place, where he continued till another was chosen. He wrote a great number of books, all in the Syriac language; a great part of which is said to have been translated in his lifetime. Photius tells us that he wrote above a thousand orations, and that himself had seen forty-nine of his sermons: and Sozomen observes, that he composed three hundred thousand verses, and that his works were so highly esteemed that they were publicly read in the churches after the scriptures. The same writer adds, that his works were so remarkable for beauty and dignity of style, as well as for sublimity of sentiments, that these excellences did not disappear even in their translations: and St. Jerom assures us, that in reading the truiislatiun of St. Ephrem’s treatise of the Holy Ghost, he recognized all the excellence of the original. Gregory Nyssen, in his panegyric on this father, is very copious with regard to the merit of his writings, and his attachments to the orthodox faith. St. Ephrem had an extreme aversion to the heresies of Sabellius, Arius, and Apollinarius; the last of whom, as Gregory relates, he treated in a manner which partakes too much of the modern trick to deserve much credit. It is thus related: Apollinarius having written two books, in which he had collected all the arguments in defence of his own opinion, and having entrusted them with a lady, St. Ephrem borrowed these books, under the pretence of being an Apollinarian; but before he returned them he glewed all their leaves together. The lady seeing the outside of the books to be the same as before, and not discovering that any thing had been done to them, returned them to Apollinarius to be used in a public conference he was going to have with a catholic: but he, not being able to open his books, was obliged to retire in disgrace. St. Ephrem was a man of the greatest severity of morals, and so strict an observer of chastity, that he avoided the sight of women. Sozomen tells us, that a certain woman of dissolute character, either on purpose to tempt him, or else being hired to it by others, met him on purpose in a narrow passage, and stared him full and earnestly in the face. St. Ephrem rebuked her sharply for this, and bade her look down on the ground. But the woman said, “Why should 1 do so, since I am not made out of the earth, but of thee It is more reasonable that thou shouldst look upon the ground, from which thou hadst thy original, but that I should look upon thee, from whom I was procreated.” St. Ephrem, wondering at the woman, wrote a book upon this conversation, which the most learned of the Syrians esteemed one of the best of his performances. He was also a man of exemplary charity, and as a late historian remarks, has furnished us with the first outlines of a general infirmary. Edessa having been long afflicted with a famine, he quitted his 'cell; and applying himself to the rich men, expostulated severely with them for suffering the poor to starve, while they covetously kept their riches hoarded up. He read them a religious lecture upon the subject, which affected them so deeply, that they became regardless of their riches: “but we do not know,” said they, “whom to trust with the distribution of them, since almost every man is greedy of gain, and makes a merchandise and advantage to himself upon such occasions.” St. Ephrern asked them, “what they thought of him” They replied, that they esteemed him a man of great integrity, as he was universally thought to be. “For your sakes, therefore,” said he, “I will undertake this work;” and so, receiving their money, he caused three hundred beds to be provided and laid in the public porticoes, and took care of those who were sick through the famine. And thus he continued to do, till, the famine ceasing, he returned to his cell, where he applied himself again to his studies, and died notlongafter, in the year 378, under the emperor Valens. Upon his death-bed he exhorted the monks who were about him, to remember him in their prayers forbade them to preserve his clothes as relics and ordered his body to be interred without the least funeral pomp, or any monument erected to him. St. Ephrem was a man of the severest piety, but confused in his ideas, and more acquainted with the moral law than the gospel.

, an ancient poet and philosopher, who flourished about 440 B. C. was born in the island of Coos, and was carried, as we are told by Laertius, into Sicily when he was but three months old, first to Megara, and afterwards to Syracuse; which may well enough justify Horace and others in calling him. a Sicilian. He had the honour of being taught by Pythagoras himself; and he and Phormus are said to have invented comedy in Syracuse, though others have pretended to that discovery. He wrote fifty -five, or, according to others, thirty-five plays; but his vrorks have been so long lost, that even their character is scarcely on record. Horace only has preserved the memory of one of his excellences, by commending Plautus for imitaiing it; and that is, the keeping his subject always in view, and following the intrigue very closely: Plautus ad cxemplum Siculi properare Epicharmi, &c.

Besides his numerous comedies, he wrote a great many treatises in philosophy and medicine, but the tyranny of Hiero prevented him from assuming the public profession, of philosophy, and no accurate account of his philosophical tenets remains. Aristotle, as Pliny tells us, thought that Epicharmus added the letters and X to the Greek alphabet, though others ascribe them to Palamedes. He died at the age of ninety, according to Laertius; or ninetyseven, as Luciau asserts. Laertius has preserved four verses, inscribed on one of his statues, which shew the high esteem antiquity had of him.

Epictetus flourished from the time of Nero to the latter end of the reign of Adrian, but not so far as the reign of the Antonines for Aulus Gellius, who wrote in their time, speaks of Epictetus as lately dead and the emperor Marcus Aurelius mentions him only to lament his loss. The memory of Epictetus was so highly respected, that, according to Lucian, the earthen lamp by which he used to study was sold for three thousand drachmas. Epictetus himself wrote nothing. His beautiful Moral Manual, or Enchiridion, and his “Dissertations,” collected by Arrian, were drawn up from notes which his disciples took from his lips. Simplicius has left a Commentary upon his doctrine, in the eclectic manner. There are also various fragments of the wisdom of Epictetus, preserved by Antoninus, Gellius, Stobaeus, and others. Although the doctrine of Epictetus is less extravagant than that of any other stoic, his writings every where breathe the true spirit of stoicism, The tenet of the immortality of the soul was adopted and maintained by him with a degree of consistency suited to a more rational system than that of the stoics, who inculcated a renovation of being in the circuit of events, according to the inevitable order of fate; and his exhortations to contentment and submission to Providence are enforced on much sounder principles than those of the stoics. He also strenuously opposed the opinion held by the stoics in general, concerning the lawfulness of suicide; and his whole system of practical virtues approaches nearer than that of any other instructor unenlightened by revelation, to the purity of Christian morality. If there were Christians in Nero’s household, which seems certain, it is not improbable he might have been taught some of their principles. There are various editions of the remains of this philosopher, published at Leyden in 1670, in 8vo, cum notis variorum; at Utrecht in 1711, in 4to at Oxford in 1740, in 8vo, by Joseph Simpson, together with the Table of Cebes, &c. at London in 1742, by J. Upton, in 2 vols. 4to, a very excellent edition. The Enchiridion was published by C. G. Heyne, in 1776, in 8vo, and together with Cebes’s Table, by Schweighauser, in 179H, fi vols. 8vo, by far the best edition ever published. These have been translated into various languages; but the most esteemed version in our country is that by Mrs. Carter, published in 1758, with notes.

, one of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity, the real merit of whose system, however, still remains doubtful, was an Athenian of the Egean tribe, and born at Gargettus, in the vicinity of Athens, at the beginning of the third year of the 109th oh mpiad, or B. C. 344. His father Neocles, and his mother Chaerestrata, were of honourable descent, but being reduced to poverty, they were sent with a colony of 2000 Athenian citizens, to the island of Samos, which Pericles had subdued, to divide the lands among them by lot; but wljat fell to their share not proving sufficient lor their subsistence, Neocles took up the profession of a schoolmaster. Epicurus remained at Samos till he was eighteen years of age, when he removed to Athens, which the tyranny of Perdiccas soon made him leave; but after passing one year at Mitylene, and four at Lampsacus, he returned to Athens. From his fourteenth to his thirty-sixth year, he studied under the various philosophers of his day, and therefore when we read in Cicero that he boasted he was a selftaught philosopher, we are to understand only that his system of philosophy was the result of his own reflections, after comparing the doctrines of other sects. About th thirty-second year of his age he opened a school at Mitylene, which he soon removed to Lampsacus, where he had disciples from Colophon, but not satisfied with this obscure situation, he determined to make his appearance on the more public theatre of Athens. Finding, however, the public places in the city proper for this purpose, already occupied by other sects, he purchased a pleasant garden, where he took up his constant residence, and taught his system of philosophy; and hence the Epicureans were called the Philosophers of the Garden. Besides this garden, Epicurus had a house in Melite, a village of the Cecropian tribe, to which he frequently retreated with his friends. From this time to his death, notwithstanding all the disturbances of the state, Epicurus never left Athens, unless in two or three excursions into Ionia to visit his friends. During the siege of Athens by Demetrius, which happened when Epicurus was forty -four years of age, while the city was severely [harassed by famine, Epicurus is said to have supported himself and his friends on a small quantity of beans, which he shared equally with them.

The period in which Epicurus opened his school was peculiarly favourable to his design. In the room of the simplicity of the Socratic doctrine, nothing now remained but the subtlety and affectation of stoicism, the unnatural severity of the Cynics, or the debasing doctrine of indulgence taught and practised by the followers of Aristippns. The luxurious refinement which now prevailed in Athens, inclined the younger citizens to listen to a preceptor who smoothed the stern brow of philosophy, and, under the notion of pleasure, led them unawares to moderation and virtue. Hence his school became exceedingly popular, and disciples flocked into the garden, not only from different parts of Greece, but from Egypt and Asia. Those who were regularly admitted into this school lived upon such a footing of friendly attachment, that each individual cheerfully supplied the necessities of his brother. Cicero describes the friendship of the Epicurean fraternity as unequalled in the history of mankind. That he might prosecute his philosophical labours with the less interruption, Epicurus lived in a state of celibacy. In his own conduct he was exemplary for temperance and continence, and he inculcated upon his followers severity of manners, and the strict government of the passions, as the best means of passing a tranquil and happy life. Notwithstanding his regular manner of living, towards the close of his days, probably in consequence of intense application to study, his constitution became infirm, and he was afflicted with the stone. Perceiving from these marks of decay that his end was approaching, he wrote a will, in which he bequeathed his garden, and the buildings belonging to it, to Hermachus, and through him to the future professors of his philosophy. On the last day of his life he wrote to hi friend Hermachus, informing him that his disease had for fourteen days tormented him with anguish, which nothing could exceed; at the same time he adds, “All this is counterbalanced by the satisfaction of mind which I derive from the recollection of my discourses and discoveries.” The emperor Marcus Antoninus confirms this account, attesting that Epicurus in his sickness relied more upon the recollection of his excellent life than upon the aid of physicians, and instead of complaining of his pain, conversed with his friends upon those principles of philosophy which he had before maintained. At length, finding nature just exhausted, he ordered himself to be put into a warm bath, where, after refreshing himself with wine, and exhorting his friends not to forget his doctrines, he expired. His death happened in the second year of the 127th olympiad, or B.C. 271, and the seventy-third of hisage. He is said to have written a greater number of works from his own invention, than any other Grecian philosopher; but none are extant except a compendium of his doctrine, preserved by Laertius, and a few fragments dispersed among ancient authors. Not only did the immediate followers of Epicurus adorn the memory of their master with the highest honours, but many eminent writers, who have disapproved of his philosophy, have expressed great respect for his personal merit. Yet it cannot be denied that from the time when this philosopher appeared to the present day, an uninterrupted course of censure has fallen upon his memory; so that the name of his sect has almost become a proverbial expression for every thing corrupt in principle, and infamous in character. The charges brought against Epicurus are, that he superseded all religious principles, by dismissing the Gods from the care of the world; that if he acknowledged their existence, it was only in conformity to popular prejudice, since, according to his system, nothing exists in nature but material atoms; that he discovered great insolence and vanity in the disrespect with which he treated the memory of former philosdphers, and the characters and persons of his contemporaries; and that both the master and the whole fraternity were addicted to the vilest and most infamous vices. These accusations against the Epicurean school have been more or less confirmed by men distinguished for their wisdom and virtue, by Zeno, Cicero, Plutarch, Galen, and many of the Christian fathers. By what, therefore, are they to be repelled Brucker, who has examined this question with, his usual acuteness and erudition, observes, that with respect to the first charge, that of impiety, it certainly admits of no refutation. The doctrine of Epicurus concerning nature, not only militated against the superstitions of the Athenians, but against the agency of a supreme deity in the formation and government of the world; and his misconceptions with respect to mechanical motion, and the nature of divine happiness, ld him in his system to divest the Deity of some of his primary attributes. It does not indeed appear that he entirely denied the existence of superior powers. Cicero, who is unquestionably to be ranked among his opponents, relates, that Epicurus wrote books concerning piety, and the reverence due to the gods, expressed in terms which might have become a priest; and he charges him with inconsistency, in maintaining that the gods ought to be worshipped, whilst he asserted, that they had no concern in human affairs; herein admitting, that he revered the gods, but neither through hope nor fear, merely on account of the majesty and excellence of their nature. But if, with the utmost contempt for popular superstitions, Epicurus retained some belief in, and respect for, invisible natures, it is evident that his gods were destitute of many of the essential characters of divinity, and that his piety was of a kind very different from that which is inspired by just notions of Deity. Not to urge, that there is some reason to suspect, that what he taught concerning the gods might have been artfully designed to screen him from the odium and hazard which would have attended a direct avowal of atheism. The second charge against Epicurus, that of insolence and contempt towards other philosophers, seems scarcely compatible with the general air of gentleness and civility which appears in his character. If he claimed to himself the credit of his own system, he did no more than Zeno, Plato, and Aristotle, after availing themselves of every possible aid from former philosophers, had done before him. But, adds Brucker, calumny never appeared with greater effrontery, than in accusing Epicurus of intemperance and incontinence. That his character was distinguished by the contrary virtues appears not only from the numerous attestations brought by Laertius, but even from the confession of the most creditable opponents of his doctrine, particularly Cicero, Plutarch, and Seneca; and indeed this is sufficiently clear from the particulars which are related concerning his usual manner of living. But nothing can be a greater proof that his adversaries had little to allege against his innocence, than that they were obliged to have recourse to forgery. The infamous letters which Diotimus, or, according to Athcnucus, Theotimus, ascribed to him, were proved, in a public court, to have been fraudulently imposed upon the world, and the author of the imposition was punished. Whatever might be the case afterwards, therefore, there is little reason to doubt that, during the life of Epicurus, his garden was rather a school of temperance, than a scene of riot and debauchery.

If it be asked, says Brucker, whence it happened, that a character, so eminently distinguished by simplicity and purity as that of Epicurus appears to have been, was loaded with so many calumnies, he answers, the circumstances of the times in which he lived will sufficiently account for the fact. Zeno, and the stoic sect, began to flourish about the same time with Epicurus and his school, that is, about the hundred and twentieth olympiad; although the latter is of somewhat later date than the former. The father of the Stoics was of a temper naturally severe and gloomy and his character was, under Antisthenes, formed upon the plan of the cynic school so that, both by disposition and education, he was inclined to carry his moral system beyond the limits of nature, and framed to himself a fanciful image of a wise man, which could have no archetype in real life. After pillaging the schools of other philosophers, in order to compose, from the plundered mass, a system of his own, thut he uiight give it an air of novelty, he introduced new terms, or affixed new significations and definitions to the old; whence arose dogmas, which had indeed little originality, but which under, a paradoxical form carried the appearance of profound wisdom. By these means, together with the external aid of uncommon gravity in language, dress, and demeanour, Zeno and his followers obtained such high reputation among the Athenians, that they were the only persons deemed worthy of the name of philosophers. The temper of Epicurus, and the character under which he chose to appear, was the reverse of all this. In his natural disposition lively and cheerful, and accustomed, from his infancy, to mix in society with men of all descriptions, he had acquired a captivating facility "of address, and urbanity of manners. Nothing could be more contrary to his disposition and habitude, than the artificial reserve, and hypocritical affectation of the stoics. His aversion to unnatural austerity, and artificial grimace, induced him to open his garden in direct opposition to the Porch. Observing that all the Athenians were at this time immersed either in pleasures or in ideal and useless disputes, he attempted to lead them to such an employment of their rational faculties as would be conducive to the true enjoyment of life; and for this purpose introduced among them a system of philosophy, the professed object of which was, to enable men to preserve themselves from pain, grief, and sorrow of every kind, and to secure to themselves the uninterrupted possession of tranquillity and happiness. This great end he assured himself would be effected, if, by taking off the forbidding mask with which the Stoics had concealed the fair face of virtue, he could persuade men to embrace her as the only guide to a happy life. At the same time Epicurus was convinced, that the subtlety of disputation would contribute little towards the accomplishment of his design; and therefore endeavoured to divert the public taste from these trifling occupations, and to put an end to the verbal contests of the academics, dialectics, and stoics, by instituting a school, in which greater caution than had hitherto been customary should be exercised in the assumption of principles, and in the use of terms. The natural consequence of this was a crowded school to Epicurus, and jealousy and envy among his contemporaries. The stoics, above all others, in opposition to whom he had erected his school, would be disposed to employ detraction and calumny against so powerful an opponent.

Another cause of the discredit, into which Epicurus and his followers fell, may he discovered in the nature and constitution of his philosophy. He made pleasure the end of his doctrine, and only employed wisdom as a guide to happiness. The stoics would easily perceive, that a preceptor who attempted to correct the false and corrupt taste of the times, and to lead men to true pleasure, by natural and easy steps in the path of virtue, would be more likely to command the public attention, than one who rested his authority and influence upon a rigid system of doctrine, and an unnatural severity of manners. In order, therefore, to secure their own popularity, they thought it necessary to misrepresent the principles and character of Epicurus, and held him to public censure as an advocate for infamous pleasures. That they might gain the greater credit by their misrepresentations, they invented and circulated many scandalous tales, which would obtain a ready reception among the indolent and credulous Athenians. This might be the more easily effected, as Epicurus passed his time in his garden, remote from the crowd, and did not scruple, in his retirement, to enjoy such pleasures as he judged to be not inconsistent with that virtuous tranquillity, which was the chief end of his philosophy. The calumnies which were thus ingeniously fabricated, and industriously propagated, against the Epicurean sect, would be the more willingly believed, on account of the contempt with which Epicurus treated the vulgar superstitions, and Iris avowed rejection of the doctrine of fate, or providence, so strongly maintained by the stoics; and especially on account of the perverse abuse of his doctrine to the encouragement of licentiousness, by which many of his followers brought disgrace upon their sect. These abuses ought not, however, to be imputed to the founder of the school. Seneca himself acknowledges, that the profligates, who in his time professed themselves disciples of Epicurus, were not led into their irregularities by his doctrine; but, being themselves strongly addicted to vice, sought to hide their crimes in the bosom of philosophy, and had recourse to a master who encouraged the pursuit of pleasure, not because they set any value upon that sober and abstemious ivind of pleasure which the doctrine of Epicurus allowed, but because they hoped, in the mere name, to find some pretext or apology for their debaucheries. If these circumstances be duly considered and compared, it will no longer appear strange, that many eminent men, who had addicted themselves to other schools, have given an unfavourable judgment concerning Epicurus, whilst the force of truth has sometimes led them, at the expence of their own consistency, to attest his merit. Others, however, have penetrated through the thick cloud of calumny, which has hung over the character of Epicurus, and, in opposition to the general current of censure, have ventured to give him that praise, which, amidst all the absurdities of his speculative system, was so justly due to his personal virtues, and to his laudable attempts to conduct men, by innocence and sobriety, to the tranquil enjoyment of life.

Notwithstanding the violent opposition which Epicurus met with from the stoics, he had many friends and followers during his life; and after his death a degree of respect was paid to his memory, which fell little short of idolatry. His three brothers, Neocles, Cheredemus, and Aristobulus, devoted themselves to the study of philosophy, and were supported by his liberality. Of his intimate friends the most celebrated were, Metrodorus, Polyaenus, and Hermacnus. After the death of Epicurus, his followers celebrated his birth-day as a festival. They preserved his image on their rings or cups, or in pictures, which they either carried about their persons, or hung up in their chambers; and so great was their reverence for his authority, and their regard to his dying advice, that they com-p mitted his maxims, and some of them the whole body of Lis instructions, to memory. For several ages they adhered with wonderful unanimity to his system, yielding as implicit submission to his decisions, as the Athenians or Spartans ever yielded to the laws of Solon or Lycurgus, They carried this point so far, that it was deemed a kind of impiety to innovate upon his doctrine; so that the Epicureans formed a philosophical republic, regulated by one judgment, and animated by one soul.

Among the miracles told of him is the following: his father one day sent him to the country, in quest of a ewe. When returning, Epimenides went a little off the highway, and entered a cave directed to the south, in order to enjoy a little repose, and remained asleep there for fifty-seven years, and when he awoke, found himself fifty-seven years older, and every thing changed in proportion around him. An adventure so strange made a great deal of noise over the country; and every one regarded Epimenides as a favourite of the gods. Some of them would have done wiser, if they had made this fiction the foundation of a satiric rojnance; but it has been conjectured that he only disappeared from his family, and spent the fifty-seven years in travelling. It is also recorded of him that he had the power of sending his soul out of his body, and recalling it at pleasure. Perhaps, says Brucker, in his hours of pretended inspiration, he had the art of appearing totally insensible and entranced, which would easily be mistaken, by ignorant spectators, for a power of dismissing and re-­calling his spirit. If, however, the Cretans were notorious liars, and it is to them we are -indebted for the particulars of the life of Epimenides, the solution of these mysteries becomes. easy. He probably was a man of superior talents, who pretended to an intercourse with the gods, and to support his pretensions lived in retirement upon the spontaneous productions of the earth, and practised various arts of imposture. During a plague, the Athenians sent for him to perform a lustration, in consequence of which the plague ceased, and when the Athenians wished to reward him munificently, he demanded only a branch of the sacred olive, which grew in their citadel. Solon, in whose time this lustration was performed (B. C. 596), seems to have been no stranger to the true character of Epimenides; for we find that he greatly disapproved of the conduct of the Athenians in employing him to perform this ceremony. Soon after his return to Crete, he died, as Laertius says, at the age of 157 years, or, as the Cretans pretend, at the age of 299 years. The superstitious Cretans paid him divine honours, after his decease; and he has been reckoned by some the seventh wise man of Greece, to the exclusion of Periander from this number. Laertius enumerates a variety of pieces written by Epimenides, both in prose and verse. Among the former was a treatise “On Sacrifices,” and “An account of the Cretan Republic;” and among the latter “The Genealogy and Theogony of the Curetes and Corybantes,” in 5000 verses; “Of the building of the ship Argo, and Jason’s expedition to Colchis,” in 6500 verses “Of Minos and Rhadamanthus,” in 4000 verses and a treatise “Of Oracles and Responses,” mentioned by St. Jerome, from which St. Paul is said to have taken the quotation above-mentioned.

Epiphanius was well versed in the Hebrew, Syriac, Egyptian, Greek, and Latin tongues, which makes Jerome call him ενταγλωττος, “a man of five tongues;” and was very conversant in ecclesiastical antiquities, on which account he is chiefly regarded; but his literary character has not escaped much rigid censure. M. Dailk' styles him “a good and holy man;” hut observes, “that he was little conversant in the arts either of rhetoric or grammar, as appears sufficiently from his writings, which defects must necessarily be the cause of much obscurity in very many places, as indeed is much complained of by the interpreters of this father.” Scnliger says he was “an ignorant man, who knew nothing of Greek or Hebrew; who, without any judgment, was solicitous to collect everything; and who abounds in falsities. We have,” says he, “a treasure of antiquities in him for he had good books, which he sometimes transcribes to very good purpose but when he advances any thing of his own, he performs it wretchedly.” Pliot ins tells us, that his style is very mean and negligent; and Dupin observes, that it has neither beauty nor elevation, but is low, rough, and unconnected; that he had a great extent of reading and erudition, but no judgment nor justness of thought that he often uses false reasons to confute heretics that he was very credulous, inaccurate, and frequently mistaken in important points of history that he paid too ready a regard to spurious memoirs and uncertain reports; in short, that he had great zeal and piety, but little conduct and prudence.

, named the Scholastic, a native of Italy, and an eminent Greek and Latin scholar, was born about the year 510. At the request of Cassiodorus he translated into the Latin language the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodcret, a version more entitled to commendation for its fidelity than its elegance. Cassiodorus was also indebted to Epiphanius for the improved version of the “Codex encyclicus,” or collection of synodal letters of the year 458, addressed to the emperor Leo, in defence of the council of Chalcedon. His histories of Socrates were first printed at Angsburgh, 1472, fol. and were often reprinted afterwards at Basil and Paris, 1523, 1528, 1533, &c. &c.

, or rather Bischop, under which name, perhaps, he should bave been classed, was a celebrated printer at Basil. He was born at Weissembourg in Alsace, about the end of the fifteenth century. His acquaintance with Greek and Latin gave him very superior advantages when he began the business of printing. The famous Frobenius bestowed his daughter on him in marriage, and on his death, in 1527, Bischop went into partnership with his son Jerome. Among other spirited undertakings of this firm was an edition of the Greek fathers, which they commenced with the works of St. Basil. All writers on the subject of printing bestow high praise on the talents of Bischop, who was also much respected b/ the learned of his time. The works which came from his press were in general remarkable for correctness, neatness of type, and beauty of paper, qualities seldom to be met with together. Erasmus had so much regard for him as to leave him and his partners executors of his will. Bischop died Sept. 27, 1563, leaving a son of the same name and profession, who died two years after, in the flower of youth. They were a protestant family, and had fled from France during the persecutions.

In 1614, he began his comment upon the first epistle of St. John, which gave occasion to various rumours, all of them tending to prove him a Socinian. The year taking the opportunity of the vacation, he went to Paris, for the sake of seeing that city; but his object was immediately misrepresented, and on his return home, his adversaries published, that he had had secret conferences with father Cotton, in order to concert the ruin of the protestant church and the United Provinces that he avoided all conversation with Peter du Moulin, minister at Paris or, as others say, that the latter declined all conference with him, seeing him so intimate with the enemies of his country, and of the protestant religion; and although there was little truth in these reports, it was not easy for Episcopius to prove his innocence. The states of Holland having invited him to come to the synod of Dort, that he might take his place in that assembly, as well as the other professors of the Seven United Provinces, he was one of the first that went thither, and was accompanied by some remonstrant ministers. But the synod would not suffer them to sit in that assembly as judges, nor admit them but as persons summoned to appear. They were obliged to submit, and appear before the synod. Episcopius made a speech, in which he declared, that they were all ready to enter into a conference with the synod; but was answered, that the synod did not meet to confer, but to judge. They excepted against the synod, and refused to submit to the order made by that assembly: which was, that the remonstrants should neither explain nor maintain their opinions, but as far as the synod should judge it necessary. Upon their refusing to submit to this order, they were expelled the synod and measures were taken to judge them by their writings. They defended their cause with the pen and Episcopius composed most of the pieces they presented on this occasion, and which were published some time after. The synod then deposed them from their functions; and because they refused to subscribe a writing, which contained a promise not to perform privately any of their ministerial functions, they were banished out of the territories of the commonwealth in 1618, and took up their residence at Antwerp: as thinking themselves there in the best situation to take care of their churches and families. Episcopius was not now so much taken up with the affairs of his party, as not to find time to write against the church of Rome in defence of those truths which all the protestants in general maintain. When the war between tho Spaniards and United Provinces began again in 1621, he went to France; and there laboured by his writings, as much as lay in his power, to strengthen and comfort his brethren. He not only composed, in common with them, “A confession of faith;” and published, soon after, his “Antidote against the canons of the synod of Dort,” but he also disputed with great strength of argument against Wadingus, a Jesuit; who treated him very kindly, and, taking an advantage of the difficulties he saw him under, endeavoured to persuade him to enter into the pale of his church. The times being grown more favourable, he returned to Holland in 1620; and was made a minister of the church of the remonstrants at Rotterdam. He married the year after, but never had any children by his wife, who died in 1641. In 1634 he removed to Amsterdam, being chosen rector of the college which those of his sect had founded there, and continued in that post till his death, which was preceded by a tedious and gradual decline. August 1640, hiring a vessel, he went with his wife to Rotterdam but in the afternoon, while he was yet upon Ins voyage, a fever seized him and, to add to his indisposition, about evening came on such a storm of thunder and fain as had not been known for many years. All these hindrances made them arrive so late at Rotterdam, that the gates of the city were shut: and the long time he was obliged to wait, before he could get them opened, increased his disorder so much, that he was confined to his bed for the four following months. He recovered; yet perceived the effects of this illness, in the stone and other complaints, as long as he lived. He died the 4th of April, 1643, having lost his sight some weeks before. Limborch, with the partiality of a friendly biographer, tells us, that the moon was under an eclipse at the hour of his death; and that some considered it as a fit emblem of the church, as being then deprived of much light by the disappearing of such a luminary as Episcopius. He tells us also, with more truth, that Episcopius’s friends and relations had some medals struck with the images of Truth and Liberty upon them, in remembrance of him. Yet Episcopius did not always write with that moderation 'which becomes the patience and humility of a Christian; and his friends who have defended him against this charge, have not been very successful.

It would be endless to collect the extraordinary eulogiums which great and learned men have bestowed upon Episcopius; one of which may be quoted as coming from an unexpected quarter, from Mabillon, an eminent member and ornament of the church of Rome: “I cannot forbear observing in this place,” says he, in his treatise of studies proper for them that live in monasteries, “that, if some passages had been left out of Episcopius’s theological institutions, which Grotius esteemed so much that he carried them with him wherever he went, they might have been very useful in the study of divinity. This work is divided into four books; the method of which is quite difr ferent from that which is generally followed. His style is beautiful, and his manner of treating his subjects answers his style perfectly well; nor would the time spent in reading of it be lost, if it was corrected with regard to some passages, in which the author speaks against the Roman catholics, and in favour of his own sect.” The Arminians have had very naturally the highest regard for Episcopius, and been careful to preserve his reputation from the attacks that have been made upon it: so careful, that, in 1690, they engaged Le Clerc, one of their professors, publicly to accuse Jurieu of calumny, because he had spoken evil of Episcopius. Le Cle.rc published a letter directed to Jurieu; in which he observes, that “they who have dipped into Episcopius’s works, and are acquainted, with the society of the remonstrants, have no occasion to see them vindicated. And as for those who have not read that author, and never conversed with any of the remonstrants, if they were so unjust as to judge only by Mr. Jurieu’s accusations, they would not deserve the least trouble to undeceive them; for it would show that they had no notion of common equity, and were too stupid to hearken to any vindication. But then we are persuaded,” adds he, “that there is not one person in the United Provinces, or any where else, that is disposed to believe this accuser upon his bare word.” After this preamble, Le Clerc says, “You charge Episcopius with two crimes: the first is, his being a Socinian; the second, his being an enemy to the Christian religion.” Le Clerc confutes the first of these accusations, by referring to several parts of Episcopius’s works, where he explodes the doctrine of the Socinians; and afterwards finds it no difficult task to answer the second, because Episcopius’s life and writings evidently shew, that he was a virtuous and conscientious man, and very zealous for the Christian religion. Le Clerc refers to a-passage in Episcopius’s Institutions, in which the truth of the Christian religion “is proved,” says he, “in so clear and strong a manner, that we might hope there would not remain any infidels in the world, if they would all duly weigh and consider his arguments. And yet you style him, sir, an enemy of Christianity; though it does not in the least appear, that you have either read his works, or examined his life. There is indeed nothing but the disorder of your mind, occasioned by your blind zeal, for which you have been long noted, that can make me say, O Lord, Forgive Him; for, in reality, you Know Not What You Do. You could not choose a better method to pass in the world for a man little acquainted with the duties of Christianity, and even of civil society, than by writing as you have done,” &c. With respect to his opinions on this subject, Episcopius acknowledges that Jesus Christ is called in Scripture the Son of God, not merely on account either of his miraculous conception, or of his mediation, or of his resurrection, or of his ascension, but on a fifth account, which, in his opinion, clearly implies his pre-existence; yet he contends, that it is not necessary to salvation, either to know or believe this fifth mode of filiation because it is not any wherfc said in Scripture to be necessary because we may have faith in Christ without it and because for the three first centuries the Christian church did not esteem a profession of belief in this mode to be necessary to salvation. Bishop Bull attacked with great learning this third reason of Episcopius, which has likewise been attacked with equal force of reasoning by more recent defenders of the Trinitarian doctrine. Of our English divines, Hammond is said to have borrowed largely of Episcopius, and Tillotson has been accounted one of his disciples.

, a physician of great reputation among the ancients, is supposed to have been born at Julis, in the island of Cea or Ceos. He was the most distinguished pupil of Chrysippiis, the Cnidian physician, and had attained a high character in his profession in the fourth, century B. C. His fame acquired him the notice and esteem of Seleucus Nicenor, king of Syria, at whose court he is said to have discovered by feeling the pulse of Antiochus Soter that he was in love with his mother-in-law Stratonice. His character, however, is founded upon more solid ground. He may be considered as the father of anatomicarcience, at least conjointly with Herophilus. It seems to be clearly established, that, before the time of these physicians, no one had dared to dissect human bodies; anatomical ‘examinations had been confined exclusively to the bodies of brutes. The Ptolemies, especially Soter and Philadelphia, being desirous that the arts should be cultivated, and having surmounted the prejudices of the age, granted the bodies of malefactors to the physicians for dissection, of which opportunity Erasistratus and Heropliilus availed themselves largely, and made several important discoveries. To what extent these discoveries were carried, it is not easy to ascertain but they were the first who dissected the human brain accurately according to the fragments preserved by Galen, Erasistratus described the brain minutely, and inferred that the brain was the common sensorium, or source of all the vital actions and sensations, which were effected throAigh the medium of the nerves. He also examined minutely the structure of the heart and of the great vessels, and was the first to point oat the valvular apparatus, and its peculiar form in each of the cavities of that viscus. His physiology, in general, was not, however, very profound, and his pathology necessarily imperfect; although he attempted to explain the causes of diseases from his knowledge of the structure of the body. The hypothesis by which he attempted to explain the origin of inflammation, resembled, in its leading feature, that modern supposition, which, sanctioned by the name of Boerhaave, was generally received in the medical world fora long series of years. His practice, like that of his master Chrysippus, was extremely simple. He did not employ blood-letting, nor purgatives; considering that plethora might be reduced more safely and naturally by fasting, or abstinence in diet, especially when aided by exetcise. He advised his patients, therefore, to use sucli articles of diet as contained little nutriment, as melons, cucumbers, and vegetables in general. He was exceedingly averse from the employment of compound medicines, and especially of the mixture of mineral, vegetable, and animal substances; and he exclaimed against the use of the antidotes of the physicians of his day, in which simplicity was altogether shunned. From the fragments of his writings to be found in Galen and Ciclius Aurelianus, it would appear, that Erasistratus wrote an accurate treatise on the dropsy, in which he disapproves of the operation of tapping; and that be had Jct’t other books on the following subjects:—viz. on the diseases of the abdomen, on the preservation of health, on wholesome things, on fevers, and wounds, on habit, on palsy, and on gout.— Having lived to extreme old age, and suffering severely from the pains of an ulcer in the foot, Erasistratus is said to have terminated his existence by swallowing the juice of cicuta, or hemlock.

, one of the most illustrious of the revivers of learning, was born at Rotterdam, October 28, 1467. His father Gerard, who was of Tergou, in that neighbourhood, fell in love with Margaret, the daughter of one Peter, a physician of Sevenbergen; and after promises of marriage, as Erasmus himself suggests, connected himself with her, though the nuptial ceremonies were not performed. From this intercourse Gerard had a son, whom Erasmus calls Anthony, in a letter to Lambert Grunnius, secretary to pope Julius II. and whose death, in another letter he tells us, he bore better than he did the death of his friend Frobenius. About two years after, Margaret proved with child again; and then Gerard’s father and brethren (for he was the youngest of ten children) beginning to be uneasy at this attachment, resolved to make him an ecclesiastic. Gerard, aware of this, secretly withdrew into Italy, and went to Rome; he left, however, a letter behind him, in which he bade his relations a final farewell; and assured them that they should never see his face more while they continued in those resolutions. At Rome he maintained himself decently by transcribing ancient authors, which, printing being not yet commonly used, was no unprofitable employment. In the mean time, Margaret, far advanced in her pregnancy, was conveyed to Rotterdam to lie in, privately; and was there delivered of Erasmus. He took his name from this city, and always called himself Roterodamus, though, as Dr. Jortin, the writer of his life, intimates, he should rather have said Roterodamius, or Roterodamensis. The city, however, was not in the least offended at the inaccuracy, but made proper returns of gratitude to a name by which she was so much ennobled; and perpetuated her acknowledgments by inscriptions, and medals, and by a statue erected and placed at first near the principal church, but afterwards removed to a Station on one of the bridges. Gerard’s relations, long ignorant what was become of him, at last discovered that he was at Rome and now resolved to attempt by stratagem what they could not effect by solicitation and importunity. They sent him word, therefore, that his beloved Margaret was dead; and he lamented the supposed misfortune with such extremity of grief, as to determine to leave the world, and become a priest. And even when upon his return to Tergou, which happened soon after, he found Margaret alive, he adhered to his ecclesiastical engagements; and though he always retained the tenderest affection for her, never more lived with her in any other manner than what was allowable by the laws of his profession. She also observed on her part the strictest celibacy ever after. During the absence of his father, Erasmus was under the care and management of his grandmother, Gerard’s mother, Catharine. He was called Gerard, after his father, and afterwards took the name of Desiderius, which in Latin, and the surname of Erasmus, which in Greek, signify much the same as Gerard among the Hollanders, that is, “amabilis,” or amiable. Afterwards he was sensible that he should in grammatical propriety have called himself Erasmius, and in fact, he gave this name to his godson, Joannes Erasmius Frobenius. As soon as Gerard was settled in his own country again, he applied himself with all imaginable care to the education of Erasmus, whom he was determined to bring up to letters, though in low repute at that time, because he discovered in him early a very uncommon capacity. There prevails indeed a notion in Holland, that Erasmus was at first of so heavy and sl9w an understanding, that it was many years before they could make him learn any thing; and this, they think, appears from a passage in the life written by himself, where he says, that “in his first years he made but little progress in those unpleasant studies, for which he was not born; in literis ill is inamoenis, quibus non natus erat.” When he was nine years old, he was sent to Dav enter, in Guelderland, at that time one of the best schools in the Netherlands, and the most free from the barbarism of the age; and here his parts very soon shone 'out. He apprehended in an instant whatever was taught him, and retained it so perfectly, that he infinitely surpassed all his companions. Rhenanus tells us that Zinthius, one of the best masters in the college of Daventer, was so well satisfied with Erasmus’s progress, and so thoroughly convinced of his great abilities, as to have foretold what afterwards came to pa>s, that “he would some time prove the envy and wonder of all Germany.” His memory is said to have b~?en so prodigious, that he was able to repeat all Terence and Horace by heart. We must nojt forget to observe, that pope Adrian VI. was his schoolfellow, and ever after his friend, and the encourager of his studies.

From Daventer, Erasmus was immediately removed to Tergou, the plague being in the house where he lodged; and now, about fourteen years o/ age, was left entirely to the care of guardians, who used him very ill; and although he was of an age to be sent to a university, they determined to force him into a monastery, that they might possess his patrimony; amd they feared that an university might create in him a disgust to that way of life. The chief in this plot was one Peter Winkell, a schoolmaster of Tergou, to whom there is a very ingenious epistle of Erasmus extant, in which he expostulates with him for his ill management and behaviour. They sent him first to a convent of friars at Bois-le-duc, in Brabant, where he lived, or rather, as he expresses it, lost three years of his life, having an utter aversion to the monastic state. Then he was sent to another religious house at Sion, near Delft; and afterwards, no effect towards changing his resolutions having been wrought upon him at Sion, to a third, namely, Stein, near Tergou. Here, unable to sustain the conflict any longer with his guardians and their agents, he entered among the regular canons there, in 1486. Though great civilities were shewn to him upon his entrance into this convent, and in compliance with his humour some laws and ceremonies were dispensed with, yet he had a design of leaving it before he made his profession; but the restless contrivances of his guardians, and particularly the ill state of his affairs, got the better of his inclinations, and he was at length induced to make it. A monastery, as monasteries then were, and such as Erasmus afterwards described them, devoid of all good learning and sound religion, must needs be an irksome place to one of his turn: at Stein, however, it was no small comfort to him to lind a young man of parts, who had the same taste for letters with himself, and who afterwards distinguished himself by a collection of elegant poems, which he published under the title of “Dearum Sylva.” This was William Hermann, of Tergou, with whom he contracted a very intimate friendship, which continued after his departure from Stein; and accordingly, we find among his letters some that were written to Hermann. The two earliest letters now extant, of Erasmus, were written from this monastery of Stein to Cornelius Aurotinus, a priest of Tergou; in which he defends with great zeal the celebrated Laurentius Valla against the contemptuous treatment of Aurotinus.

Erasmus’s enemies, and among the rest Julius Scaliger, have pretended that he led a very loose life during his stay in this convent, a charge which his friends have endeavoured to repell by going into the other extreme, and attributing to him a more virtuous course than he pursued, since it is evident from several acknowledgments of his own, that he did not spend his younger days with the utmost regularity. In a letter to father Servatius, he owns that “in his youth he had a propensity to very great vices; that, however, the love of money, or even of fame, had never possessed him; that, if he had not kept himself unspotted from sensual pleasures, he had not been a slave to them; and that, as for gluttony and drunkenness, he had always held them in abhorrence.” He also appears to have been of a playful turn, of which Le Clerc gives an instance, although without producing his authority. There was, it seems, a pear-tree in the garden of the convent at Stein, of whose fruit the superior was extremely fond, and reserved entirely to himself. Erasmus had tasted these pears, and liked them so well as to be tempted to steal them, which he used to do early in the morning. The superior, missing his pears, resolved to watch the tree, and at last saw a monk climbing up into it; but, as it was yet hardly light, waited a little till he could; discern him more clearly. Meanwhile Erasmus had perceived that he was seen; and was musing with himself how he should get off undiscovered. At length he bethought himself, that they had a monk in the convent who was lame, and therefore, sliding gently down, imitated as he went the limp of this unhappy monk. The superior, now sure of the thief, as having discovered him by signs not equivocal, took an opportunity at the next meeting of saying abundance of good things upon the subject of obedience; after which, turning to the supposed delinquent, he charged him with a most flagrant breach of it, in stealing his pears. The poor monk protested his innocence, but in vain. All he could say, only inflamed his superior the more; who, in spite of his protestations, inflicted upon him a very severe penance.

Not enjoying a very good state of health at Padua, he went to Sienna, where he drew up some pieces of eloquence for the use of his royal pupil; and soon after to Rome, leaving Alexander at Sienna. He was received at Rome, as Rhenanus tells us, with the greatest joy and welcome by all the learned, and presently sought by persons of the first rank and quality. Thus we find that the cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards Leo X. the cardinal Raphael of St. George, the cardinal Gritnani, and Giles of Viterbo, general of the Augustines, and afterwards a cardinal, had a generous contention among themselves who should be foremost in civility to Erasmus, and have the most of his company. There is something interesting in the manner he was introduced to cardinal Gritnani, as related by himself in one of his letters, dated March 17, 1531: “When I was at Rome,” says he, “Peter Bembus often brought me invitations from Grimani, that I would come and see him. I never was fond of such company; but at last, that I might not seem to slight what is usually deemed a very great honour, 1 went. On arriving at his palace, not a soul could I perceive, either in or about it. It was after dinner; so, leaving the horse with my servant, I boldly ventured by myself into the house. I found all the doors open; but nobody was to be seen, though I had passed through three or four rooms. At last I happened upon a Greek, as I supposed, and asked him whether the cardinal was engaged He replied, that he bad company but asking what was my business Nothing, said I, but to pay iny compliments, which I can do as well at any other time. I was going; but halting a moment at one of the windows to observe the situation and prospect, the Greek ran up to me, and asked my name; and without my knowledge carried it to the cardinal, who ordered me to be introduced immediately. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as if I had been a cardinal conversed with me for two hours upon literary subjects and would not suffer me all the time to uncover my head ^ and upon my offering to rise, when his nephew, an archbishop, came in to us, he ordered me to keep my seat, saying, it was but decent that the scholar should stand before the master. In the course of our conversation, he earnestly entreated me not to think of leaving Rome, and offered to make me partaker of his house and fortunes. At length he shewed me his library, which was full of books in all languages, and was esteemed the best iti Italy, except the Vatican. If I had known Grimani sooner, I certainly should never have left Rome; but I was then under such engagements to return to England, as it was not in my power to break. The cardinal said no more upon this point, when I told him that I had been invited by the king of England himself; but begged me to believe him very sincere, and not like the common tribe of courtiers, who have no meaning in what they say. It was not without some difficulty that I got away from him; nor before I promised him, that I would certainly wait on him again before I left Rome. I did not perform my promise; for I was afraid the cardinal by his eloquence would tempt me to break my engagements with my English friends. I never was more wrong in my life but what can a man do, when fate drives him on”

He left Italy soon after his pupil, without understanding the language of that country, which made his journey less advantageous as well as pleasant to him. It is said that when he was at Venice, he met Bernard Ocricularius of Florence, who had written Latin history in the manner of Sallust Erasmus desired a conversation with him, and addressed him in Latin: but the Florentine obstinately refused to speak any thingexcept Italian; which Erasmus not understanding, they separated without edification on either part. Why Erasmus should not understand Italian, it is. not difficult to conceive; but it is somewhat singular that he should be ignorant of French, which was in a great measure the case, though he had spent so much time in that country. In his way from Italy to England, he passed first to Curia, then to Constance, and so through the Martian forest by Brisgau to Strasburgh, and from thence by the Rhine to Holland; whence, after making some little stay at Antwerp and Louvain, he took shipping for England. Some of his friends and patrons, whom he visited as he came along, made him great offers, and wished him to settle among them; but his heart was at this time entirely fixed upon spending the remainder of his days in England, not only upon account of his former connections and friendships, which were very dear to him, bxit the great hopes that had lately been held out to him, of ample preferment, provided he would settle there. Henry VII. died in April 1509; and Henry VIII. his son and successor, was Erasmus’s professed friend and patron, and had for some time held a correspondence with him by letters. That prince was no sooner upon the throne, than Montjoy wrote to Erasmus to hasten him into England, promising him great things on the part of the king, and of Warham archbishop of Canterbury, though indeed he had no particular commission to that end from either the one or the other. More, and some other friends, wrote him also letters to the same purpose. But he had no sooner arrived in the beginning of 1510, than he perceived that liis expectations had been raised too high, and began secretly to wish that he had not quitted Rome. However, he took no notice of the disappointment, but pursued his studies with his usual assiduity. At his arrival in England he lodged with More; and while he was there, to divert himself and his friend, he wrote, within the compass of a week, “Encomium Moriæ,” or “The praise of Folly,” a copy of which was sent to France, and printed there, but with abundance of faults; yet it became so popular, that in a few months it went through seven editions. The general design of this ludicrous piece is to shew, that there are fools in all stations, and more particularly to expose the errors and follies of the court of Rome, not sparing the pope himself; so that he was never after regarded as a true son of that church. It was highly acceptable to persons of quality, but as highly offensive to dissolute monks, who disapproved especially of the Commentary which Lystrius wrote upon it, and which is printed with it, because it unveiled several things from whose obscurity they drew much profit. Soon after he came to England he published a translation of the Hecuba of Euripides into Latin verse; and, adding some poems to it, dedicated it to archbishop Warham. The prelate received the dedication courteously, yet made the poet only a small present. As he was returning from Lambeth, his friend Grocyn, who had accompanied him, asked, “what present he had received” Erasmus replied, laughing, “A very considerable sum” which Grocyn would not believe. Having told him what it was, Grocyn observed, that the prelate was rich and generous enough to have made him a much handsomer present; but certainly suspected that he had presented to him a book already dedicated elsewhere. Erasmus asked, “how such a suspicion could enter his head” “Because,” said Grocyn, “such hungry scholars as you, who stroll about the world, and dedicate books to noblemen, are apt to be guilty of such tricks.”

In 1515 he was at Basil; and this year Martin Dorpius, a divine of Louvain, instigated by the enemies of Erasmus, wrote against his “Praise of Folly;” to whom Erasmus replied with much mildness, as knowing that Dorpius, who was young and ductile, had been put upon it by others. He was the first adversary who attacked him openly, but Erasmus forgave him, and took him into his friendship (see Dorpius), which he would not easily have done, if he had not been good-natured, and, as he says of himself, “irasci facilis, tamen ut placabilis esset.” He wrote this year a very handsome letter to pope Leo X. in which he speaks of his edition of St. Jerome, which he had a mind to dedicate to him. Leo returned him a very obliging answer, and seems not to refuse the offer of Erasmus, which, however, did not take effect; for the work was dedicated to the archbishop of Canterbury. Not content with writing to him, Leo wrote also to Henry VIII. of England, and recommended Erasmus to him. The cardinal of St. George also pressed him much to come to Rome, and approved his design of dedicating St. Jerome to the pope: but he always declined going to Rome, as he himself declared many years after, or even to the imperial court, lest the pope or the emperor should command him to write against Luther and the new heresies. And therefore, when the pope’s nuncio to the English court had instructions to persuade Erasmus to throw himself at the pope’s feet, he did not think it safe to trust him; having reason to fear that the court of Rome would never forgive the freedoms he had already taken.

He soon returned to the Low Countries, where we find him in 1516. He received letters from the celebrated Budeus, to inform him that Francis I. was desirous of inviting learned men to France, and had approved of Erasmus among others, offering him a benefice of a thousand livres. Stephanus Poncherius, or Etienne de Ponchery, bishop of Paris, and the king’s ambassador at Brussels, was the person who made these offers, but Erasmus excused himself, alleging that the catholic king detained him in the Low Countries, having made him his counsellor, and given him a prebend, though as yet he had received none of the revenues of it. Here, probably, commenced the correspondence and 'friendship between Erasmus and Budeus, which, however, does not seem to have been very sincere. Their letters are indeed not deficient in compliments, but they likewise abound in petty contests, which shew that some portion of jealousy existed between them, especially on the side of Budeus, who yet in other respects was an excellent man; (See Budeus). This year was printed at Basil, Erasmus’s edition of the New Testament, a work of infinite labour, and which helped, as he tells us, to destroy his health and spoil his constitution. It drew upon him the censures of some ignorant and envious divines; who, not being capable themselves of performing such a task, were vexed, as it commonly happens, to see it undertaken and accomplished by another. We collect from his letters, that there was one college in Cambridge which would not suffer this work to enter within its walls; however, his friends congratulated him upon it, and the call for it was so great, that it was thrice reprinted in less than a dozen years, namely, in 1519, 1522, and 1527. This was the first time the New Testament was printed in Greek. The works of St. Jerome began now to be published by Erasmus, and were printed in 6 vols. folio, at Basil, from 1516 to 1526. He mentions the great labour it had cost him to put this father into good condition, which yet he thought very well bestowed, for he was excessively fond of him, and upon all occasions his panegyrist. Luther blamed Erasmus for leaning so much to Jerome, and for thinking, as he supposed, too meanly of Augustine. “As much,” says he, “as Erasmus prefers Jerome to Augustine, so much do I prefer Augustine to Jerome.” But in this respect, Jortin is of opinion that Luther’s taste was extremely bad.

The rise of the reformation was a very interesting period to Erasmus. Luther had preached against indulgences in 1517, and the contest between the Romanists and the reformed was begun and agitated with great warmth on both sides. Erasmus, who was of a pacific temper, and abhorred, of all things, dissensions and tumults, was much alarmed and afflicted at this state of affairs; and he often complained afterwards, that his endeavours to compose and reconcile the two parties only drew upon him the resentment and indignation of both. From this time he was exposed to a persecution so painful, that he had much difficulty to support it with equanimity; and invectives were aimed at him by the rancorous churchmen, who loudly complained that his bold and free censures of the monks, and of their pious grimaces and superstitions, had paved the way for Luther. “Erasmus,” they used to say, “laid the egg, and Luther hatched it.” Erasmus seems afterwards to have been considered as really a coadjutor in the business of the reformation; for in the reign of Mary queen of England, when a proclamation was issued against importing, printing, reading, selling, or keeping heretical books, his works are comprehended amongst them.

Erasmus received this year, 1518, a considerable present from Henry VIII. as also an offer of a handsome maintenance in England for the rest of his life; he thanked the king, but without either accepting or refusing the favour. A little time after, he wrote to cardinal Wolsey, for whom, however, he had no great affection; and after some compliments, heavily complained of the malice of certain calumniators and enemies of literature, who thwarted his designs of employing human learning to sacred purposes. “These wretches,” says he, “ascribe to Erasmus every thing that is odious; and confound the cause of literature with that of Luther and religion, though thejt have no connection with each other. As to Luther, he is perfectly a stranger to me, and I have read nothing of his, except two or three pages not that I despise him, but because my own pursuits will not give me leisure and yet, as I am informed, there are some who scruple not to affirm, that I have actually been his helper. If he has written well, the praise belongs npt to me nor the blame, if he has written, ill since in all his works there is not a line that came from me. His life and conversation are universally commended and it is no small prejudice in his favour, that his morals are unblameable, and that calumny itself can fasten no reproach on his life. If I had really had time to peruse his writings, I am not so conceited of my own abilities, as to pass a judgment upon the performances of so eminent a divine. I was once against Luther, purely for fear he should bring an odium upon literature, which is too much suspected of evil already,” &c. Thus he goes on to defend himself here, as he does in many other places of his writings; where we may always observe his reserve and caution not to condemn Luther, while he condemned openly enough the conduct and sentiments of Luther’s enemies. Though Erasmus addressed himself upon this occasion to Wolsey, yet it was impossible for the cardinal to be a sincere friend to him, because he was patronized by Warham, between whom and Wolsey there was no good understanding; and because the great praises which Erasmus frequently bestowed upon the archbishop would naturally be interpreted by the cardinal as so many slights upon himself. In his preface to Jerome, after observing of Warham, that he used to wear plain apparel, he relates, that once, when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, Wolsey took upon him to set forth an order that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed in silk and damask; and that Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s authority, appeared in his usual habit.

About 1520, a clamour was raised against Erasmus in England, although he had many friends there; and, among them, even persons of the first quality, and the king himself. He gives a remarkable instance of this in the behaviour of one Standish, who had been a monk, and was bishop of St. Asaph; and whom Erasmus sometimes calls, by way of derision, “Episcopum a sancto asino.” Standish had censured Erasmus, in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s, for translating the beginning of St. John’s gospel, “In principle erat sermo,” and not “verbum.” He also accused Erasmus of heresy before the king and queen but this charge was repelled by two learned friends, who are supposed to have been Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, and sir Thomas More. This year, Jerome Aleander, the pope’s nuncio, solicited the emperor, and Frederic elector of Saxony, to punish Luther. Frederic was then at Cologn, and Erasmus came there, and was consulted by him upon this occasion. Erasmus replied, ludicrously at first, saying, “Luther has committed two unpardonable crimes: he touched the pope upon the crown, and the monks upon the belly.” He then told the elector seriously, that “Luther had justly censured many abuses and errors, and that the welfare of the church required a reformation of them; that Luther’s doctrine was right in the main, but that it had not been delivered by him with a proper temper, and with due moderation.” The pope’s agents, finding Erasmus thus obstinately bent to favour, at least not to condemn and write against Luther, as they often solicited him to do, endeavoured to win him over by the offer of bishoprics or abbeys. “I know,” says he, “that a bishopric is at my service, if I would but write against Luther: but Luther is a man of too great abilities for me to encounter; and, to say the truth, I learn more from one page of his, than from all the volumes of Thomas Aquinas.”

Still we find Erasmus taking all opportunies of declaring his firm resolution to adhere to the see of Rome. “What connections,” says he, “have I with Luther, or what recompense to expect from him, that I should join with him to oppose the church of Rome, which 1 take to be a true part of the catholic church J, who should be loth to resist the bishop of my diocese” As for the monks, they would have been glad to have seen him a deserter, and lodged in the enemy’s quarters, because he would have much less incommoded them as a Lutheran than as a catholic; but he was determined not to stir. His wish was to seek a middle way, with a view of putting an end to these contests; but, above all, to keep himself from being looked upon as a party on either side. Thus, there is a remarkable letter of his, written to Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, in 1521, wherein he complains equally of the violence of Luther, and of the rage of the Dominicans; as also of the malice of Aieander, who ascribed to him some writings of Luther, of which he had not even heard. Some affirmed, that Erasmus had written a treatise called “The Captivity of Babylon,” although Luther openly acknowledged it for his own: others said, that Luther had taken many of his sentiments from Erasmus. “I see now,” says he, “that the Germans are resolved at all adventures to engage me in the cause of Luther, whether I will or not. In this they have acted foolishly, and have taken the most effectual method to alienate me from them and their party. Wherein could I have assisted Luther, if I had declared myself for him, and shared the danger along with him Only thus far, that, instead of one man, two would have perished. I cannot conceive what he means by writing with such a spirit: one thing I know too well, that he has brought a great odium upon the lovers of literature. It is true, that he hath given us many wholesome doctrines, and many good counsels; and I wish he had not defeated the effect of them by his intolerable faults. But, if he had written, every thing in the most unexceptionable manner, I had no inclination to die for the sake of truth. Every man has not the courage requisite to make a martyr; and I am afraid that, if I were put to the trial, I should imitate St. Peter.” In this Erasmus betrays his genuine character, and it is plain that it was not truth, nor the desire of propagating it, but self-preservation only, which influenced his conduct throughout this affair. He certainly approved of Luther’s principal doctrines, and inwardly wished he might carry his point; but, as he could not imagine that probable, he chose to adhere outwardly to the stronger party. “I follow,” says he, “the decisions of the pope and the emperor, when they are right, which is acting religiously: I submit to them, when they are wrong, which is acting prudently: and I think it is lawful for good men to behave themselves thus, when there is no hope of obtaining any more.” From this principle of policy, he extolled the book of Henry VIII. against Luther, even before he had seen it; and he began now to throw out hints, that he would one day enter the lists with the great reformer, yet, when his friend and patron Montjoy exhorted him, the same year, to write against Luther, he replied, “Nothing is more easy than to call Luther a blockhead nothing is less easy than to prove him one at least, so it seems to me.” Upon the whole, he was exceedingly perplexed how to behave to Luther; and frequently appears inconsistent, because he thought himself obliged to disclaim before men what in his heart he approved and even revered.

Adrian dying this year, he was succeeded by Clement VII. who sent to Erasmus an honourable diploma, accompanied with two hundred florins. He invited him also to Rome, as his predecessors had done: but “at Rome,” says Erasmus, “there are many who want to destroy me, and they had almost accomplished their purpose before the death of Adrian. After having, at his own request, communicated to him my secret opinion, I found that things were altered, and that I was no longer in favour.” The cause was manifest, says Jortin Erasmus had hinted at the necessity of a reformation and such language was highly disgusting at the court of Rome. If Luther did not like Erasmus, because Erasmus approved not in all things either his doctrine or his conduct, the court of Rome liked him as little, because he did not condemn Luther in all things yet it thought proper to give him good words and promises, and to entice him thither if possible where he would have been in their power, and no better than a prisoner at large.

In 1524, Luther, upon a rumour probably that Erasmus was going to write against him, sent him a letter, full of fire and spirit; which gives so just an idea of both Luther and Erasmus, that we think ourselves obliged to present the reader with part of it. He begins in the apostolical manner: “Grace and peace to you from the Lord Jesus. I shall not complain of you for having behaved yourself as a man alienated from us, for the sake of keeping fair with the papists, our enemies; nor was I much offended, that, in your printed books, to gain their favour, or to soften their fury, you censured us with too much acrimony. We 8aw that the Lord had not conferred upon you the discernment^ the courage, and the resolution, to join with us in freely and openly opposing those monsters; and therefore we durst not exact from you what greatly surpasseth your strength and your capacity. We have even borne with your weakness, and honoured that portion of the gift of God which is in you.” Then, having bestowed upon him his due praises, as a reviver of good literature, by means of which the holy scriptures had been read and examined in the originals, he proceeds thus: “I never wished, that, deserting your own province, you should come over to our camp. You might, indeed, have favoured us not a little by your wit and eloquence; but, forasmuch as you have not the courage which is requisite, it is safer for you to serve the Lord in your own way. Only we feared, that our adversaries should entice you to write against us, and that necessity should then constrain us to oppose you to your face. I am concerned, as well as you, that the resentment of so many eminent persons of your party, hath been excited against you. I must suppose that this gives you no small uneasiness: for virtue like yours, mere human virtue, cannot raise a man above being affected by such trials. I could wish, if it were possible, to act the part of a mediator between you, that they might cease to attack you with such animosity, and suffer your old age to rest in peace in the Lord: and thus they would act, if they either considered your weakness, or the greatness of the cause in dispute, which hath been long since beyond your talents. They would shew their moderation towards you so much the more, since our affairs are advanced to such a point, that our cause is in no peril, though even Erasmus should attack it with all his might: so far are we from dreading the keenest strokes of his wit. On the other hand, my dear Erasmus, if you duly reflect upon yor own imbecility, you will abstain from those sharp and spiteful figures of rhetoric; and, if you cannot defend your sentiments, will treat of subjects which suit you better. Our friends, as you yourself will allow, have reason to be uneasy at being lashed by you, because human infirmity thinks of the authority and reputation of Erasmus, and fears it: and indeed there is much difference between him and other papists, he being a more formidable adversary than all of them put together.” This letter vexed Erasmus not a little, as may easily be imagined, and he wrote an answer to it; but the answer is not in the collection of his epistles.

In 1525 he published his “Diatribe de libero arbitrio,” already noticed, which Luther replied to, in a treatise entitled “De servo arbitrio.” In this he mixes compliment, praise, scorn, insult, ridicule, and invective, together; at which Erasmus was much provoked, and immediately wrote a reply, which was the first part of his “Hyperaspistes:” the second was published in 1527. The year after he published two treatises, in the way of dialogue, entitled “The pronunciation of the Greek and Latin languages,” and “The Ciceronianus.” In the former, which is one of the most learned of all his compositions, are contained very curious researches into the pronunciation of vowels and consonants; in the sec.ond, which is one of the most lively and ingenious, he rallies agreeably some Italian purists, who scrupled to make use of any word or phrase which was not to be found in Cicero: not that he condemned either Cicero or his manner of writing, but only the servility and pedantry of his imitators, which he thought, and very justly, deserving of ridicule. On the contrary, when Froben engaged him, the very same year, to revise a new edition of the Tusculan Questions, he prefixed to it an elegant preface, in which he highly extols Cicero, both for his style and moral sentiments, and almost makes a saint of him: and Julius Scaliger, who censured Erasmus for his treatment of the Ciceronians, declared afterwards, that he was willing to forgive him his blasphemies, and to be at peace with him thenceforward, for the sake of this preface; which he considered as a kind of penance, and of satisfaction made to the manes of the Roman orator.

In April 1529 Erasmus departed from Basil, where he had now lived many years, but where he thought himself no longer safe; and went to Friburg, where at first he had apartments belonging to the king, but afterwards bought a house. Here, in 1531, he had a sight of the first oration of Julius Scaliger against his “Ciceronianus;” all the copies of which, or at least as many as he could, Erasmus is said to have collected and destroyed. “There is something,” says Dr. Jortin, “ridiculously diverting in the pompous exclamations and tragical complaints of Scaliger. One would imagine at least, that Erasmus had called Cicero fool, or knave: and yet all his crime was, to have besprinkled the servile imitators of Cicero with a little harmless banter.” After the first oration, Scaliger composed a second more scurrilous if possible than the first: but it was not published till after Erasmus’s death, in 1537. Some of Scaliger’s friends were much displeased at the scandalous manner in which he had treated Erasmus, and desired him to give over the contention. He declared himself, therefore, though in a proud and awkward manner, willing to be reconciled: and, to do him justice, he was at last sorry for his rudeness to Erasmus, and wrote a copy of verses in his praise, when he heard that he was dead.

But, with all his greatness, Erasmus had, and it must not be dissembled, his failings and infirmities. Bayle has observed of him, that he had too much sensibility when he was attacked by adversaries made too many complaints of them and was too ready to answer them and Le Clerc has often censured him for his lukewarmness, timidity, and unfairness, in the business of the reformation. Dr. Jortin seems to allow some foundation for these censures, yet has offered what can be offered by way of excuse for Erasmus. To the first of them fye replies, that Erasmus “was fighting for his honour, and for his life; being often accused of nothing less than heterodoxy, impiety, and blasphemy, by men whose forehead was a rock, and whose tongue was a razor. To be misrepresented as a pedant and a dunce,” he says, “is no great matter, for time and truth put folly to flight to be accused of heresy by bigots, hypocrites, politicians, and infidels, this is a serious affair as they know too well, who have had the misfortune to feel the effects of it.” As for his lukewarmness in promoting the reformation, Dr. Jortin is of opinion, that much may be said, and with truth, in his behalf. He thinks that Erasmus “was not entirely free from the prejudices of education; that he had some indistinct and confused notions about the authority of the church catholic, which made it not lawful to depart from her, corrupted as he believed her to be; and that he was much shocked at the violent measures which were pursued by the reformers, as well as by the violent quarrels which arose among them.” The doctor cannot be persuaded, “that the fear of losing his pensions and coming to want ever made Erasmus say or do things which he thought unlawful;” yet supposes, “that he might be afraid of disobliging several of his oldest and best friends, who were against the Lutheran reformation, such as Henry VIII. Charles V. the popes, Wolsey, &c. and also his patrons, Warham, Montjoy, More, Tonstall, Fisher, Bembus, &c. and all these things might influence his judgment, though he himself was not at all aware of it. There is no necessity to suppose, that he acted against his conscience in adhering to the church of Rome: no, he persuaded himself that he did 'as much as piety and prudence required from him in censuring her defects.” The doctor observes, that “though as protestants we are certainly much obliged to Erasmus, yet we are more obliged to Luther, Melancthon, and other authors of the reformation. This,” says he, “is true; yet it is as true, that we and all the nations in Europe are infinitely obliged to Erasmus, for spending a long and laborious life in opposing ignorance and superstition, and in promoting literature and true piety.”

, an eminent German physician, but perhaps more celebrated as a divine, from being, the reputed founder of the Erastians, or of the opinions so called, for they are not a distinct sect, was born in 1523, or 1524, at Auggenen, a village in the lordship of Badenweiller, which is in the marquisate of Baden Dourlach. His family name was Leiber, or beloved, to which he gave, according to the custom of the times, a Greek turn, and called himself Erastus. In 1540, he was sent to the university of Basil, where he had some difficulties to struggle with, owing to the poverty of his parents; but, according to Melchior Adam, Providence raised him up a patron, who provided for him liberally, and after his studies at Basil, enabled him to travel to Italy for farther improvement. At Bologna he studied both philosophy and physic, the latter for nine years under the ablest masters. Returning, with a doctor’s degree, to his own country, he lived for some time at the court of the princes of Henneberg, where he practised physic with great reputation, until the elector palatine Frederick III. invited him to his court, and made him first physician and counsellor. This prince appointed him also professor of physic in the university 'of Heidelberg. In 1581 be returned to Basil, where he was also chosen professor of physic, and where he made a liberal foundation for the provision and education of poor students in medicine, and after superintending and establishing this, which was long called the Erastian foundation, he died Dec. 31, 1583, or, according to some, Jan. 1, 1584. His medical works were principally, 1. “Disputationum de Medicina nova Philippi Paracelsi,” p. i. Basil, 1572, p. ii. ibid. 1572, p. iii. ibid. 1572, p. iv. et ultima, ibid. 1573, all in 4to. In these volumes he refutes the doctrines which Paracelsus had previously taught at Basil, and had committed to writing, particularly^) astrology and medicine. 2. “Theses de~Contagio,” Heidelberg, 1574, 4to. 3. “De Occult. Pharmacor. Potestatibus,” ibid. 1574, 4to; Francfort, 1611. 4. “Disputat, de Auro Potabili,” Basil, 1578, 1594, 4to. 5. “De Putredine Lu ber,” ibid. 1580, 4to; Lipsiae, 1590. 6. “Epistola de Astrologia Divinatrice,” Basil, 1580, 4to. 7. “De Pinguedinis in Anhnalibus Generatione et Concretione,” Heidelbergae, 1580, 4to. 8. “Com ids Montani, Vicentini, novi Medicorum censoris, quinque Librorum de Morbis nuper Editorum viva Anatome,” Basil, 1581, 4to. 9. “Ad Archangeli Mercenarii Disputationem de Putredine responsioj” ibid. 152, 4to. 10, “Varia Opuscula Medica,” Franc. 1590, folio.

His fame, however, chiefly now rests on what he wrote in ecclesiastical controversy. When at Heidelberg, a dispute having arisen respecting the sacrament, chiefly founded on the question, “Whether the terms flesh and blood ought to be understood literally or metaphorically' he published a book” De crena Domini,“in which he contended for the metaphorical sense. He had indeed all his life paid so much attention to contested points of divinity, that he was reckoned as good a divine as a physician; and for this reason, in 1564, when a conference was held between the divines of the palatinate, and those of Wittemberg, respecting the real presence in the sacrament, Erastus was ordered by the elector Frederic to be present at it. The work, however, which excited most attention, in this country, at least, if not in his own, was his book on ecclesiastical excommunication, in which he denies the power of the church to excommunicate, exclude, absolve, censure, in short, to exert what is called discipline. Denying the power of the keys, he compared a pastor to a professor of any science who can merely instruct his students; he would have all ordinances of the gospel open and free to all, and all offences, whether of a civil or religious nature, to be referred to the civil magistrate, consequently the church with him was merely a creature of the state. Some of our first reformers adopted these sentiments so far as to maintain, that no one form of church government is prescribed in scripture as a rule for future ages, as Cranmer, Redmayn, Cox, &c. and archbishop Whitgift, in his controversy with Cartwright, delivers the same opinion. The Erastians formed a party in the assembly of divines in 1643, and the chief leaders of it were Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Colman, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Whitlock; and in the house of cornmons there were, besides Selden and Whitlock, Oliver St. John, esq. sir Thomas Wicldrington, John Crew, esq. sir John Hipsley, and others. In the assembly, the Erastians did not except against the presbyterian government as a” political institution,“proper to be established by the civil magistrate, but they were against the claim of a” divine right.“Accordingly the clause of divine right was lost in the house of commons. It is almost needless to add, however, that after the restoration, these opinions, decayed, and we believe that at this time, there is no sect, however hostile in its opinions to the power of the established church, who has not, and does not assert a power of its own binding on all its members, in one shape or other. In Erastus’s life-time, he was opposed by Ursinus, his friend and colleague; and since has been answered by Hammond,” On the power of the Keys,“1647. But it is necessary to remark that what is called Erastus’s book on this subject was not published in his life-time. During that, indeed, he published his opinions in the form of theses, levelled at Caspar Olevianus and his colleagues, who wanted to introduce ecclesiastical discipline in the churches of the Palatinate; and Beza, who foresaw the mischiefs of this controversy, addressed himself both to Erastus and Olevianus, recommending peace. Having afterwards obtained a copy of the theses which Erastus had written, he determined to answer them; this excited Erastus to draw up a work in reply, but he declined printing it, lest he should disturb the peace of the churches. Six years after his death, however, it was published by one of his disciples, under the title” Explicatio questionis, utrum Excommunicatio, quatenus religionem intelligentes et amplexantes, a sacramentorum usu, propter admissum facinus arcet, mandato nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus, &c.“Pesclavii (Puschlaw) apud Baocium Sultaceterum (fictitious names), 1589, 4to. By a letter of his in Goldast’s” Centuria Philologicarum Epistolarum,“it appears that Erastus pronounced his work unanswerable, but Beza very soon performed that task in his” Tractatus pius et moderatus," &c. Geneva, 1690, 4to, and to the general satisfaction of the divines of that period.

, a Greek of Cyrene, librarian of Alexandria under king Euergetes, the son of Ptolemy Philadelphia, was born in the year 275 B. C. He cultivated at once poetry, grammar, philosophy, mathematics, and excelled in the first and the last. He was styled the Cosmographer, the measurer of the universe, the second Plato, and was the first who discovered a method of measuring the bulk and circumference of the earth. He constructed the first observatory, and observed the obliquity of the ecliptic, and found out also a method of knowing the primitive numbers, that is, the numbers that have no common measure but unity, which was named the sieve of Eratosthenes. This philosopher likewise composed a treatise for completing the analysis, and he solved the problem of the duplication of the cube, by means of an instrument composed of several sliders. Having attained the age of eighty, and being oppressed with infirmities, he voluntarily died of hunger, in the year 195 B. C. He described in Greek, the reigns of thirty-eight Theban kings, which had been omitted by Manetho, out of the sacred records of the Egyptians, at Thebes, and this at the command of king Euergetes. Apollodorus transcribed this catalogue out of Eratosthenes, and Sycellus out of Apollodorus. This catalogue or Laterculus of Eratosthenes is generally owned to be the most authentic Egyptian account of all others now extant, and reaches from the beginning of that kingdom after the deluge, till the days of the judges, if not also till the days of Solomon: and by Diccearchus’s connection of one of its kings with an antediluvian king of Egypt on one side, and with the first olympiad of Jphitus on the other, we gain another long and authentic series of heathen chronology during all that time. The little that remains to us of the works of Eratosthenes was printed at Oxford in 1672, 8vo- There are two other editions one in the “Uranologia” of father Petau, 1630; and the other at Amsterdam, in the same size, 1703; and in 1795, John Conr. Schaubach edited the “Catasterismi cutninterpretatione Latina et commentariis,” including a dissertation by the learned Heyne, printed at Gottingen, 1795, 8vo.

, of Lombardy, a writer who lived in the eighth and part of the ninth century, began early in life to bear arms, and was made prisoner of war, but afterwards retired to Monte Cassino, where he embraced the rule of St. Benedict at the age of about twenty-five. The government of a neighbouring monastery was conferred upon him but here he was exposed to so many vexations, that he was obliged once more to retire and in his retreat wrote a Chronicle, or a History at large of the Lombards, which is thought to be lost, and an abridgment of the same history, from the year 774 to 888, which forms & sort of supplement to Paul the deacon. Anthony Caraccioli, priest of the order of regular clerks, published this abridgment, which relates some curious facts, with other pieces, at Naples, in 1620, 4to. Camillus Peregrinus inserted it afterwards in his history of the princes of Lombardy, 1643, 4to.

, an eminent scholar of the middle age, was born in an early part of the ninth century. The most common account of him is, that he was a native of Ayr, in Scotland, though some writers have said that the place of his birth was Ergene, on the borders of Wales, and others have contended that he was an Irishman. It is, we apprehend, most probable that he was a Scotchman. However this may have been, he was animated, in a very dark period, with a most uncommon desire of literature. Seeing his country involved in great confusion and ignorance, and that it afforded no means of acquiring the knowledge after which he thirsted, he travelled into foreign, parts; and it is even asserted, by several authors, that he went to Athens, and spent some years in studying the Greek, Chaldaic, and Arabic languages. In whatever place he obtained his learning, it is certain that in philosophy he had no superior, and in languages no equal, in. the age during which he flourished. These extraordinary accomplishments, together with his wit and pleasantry, which rendered his conversation as agreeable as it was instructive, procured him an invitation from Charles the Bald, king of France, the greatest patron of literature in that period, to reside with him. Of this invitation Erigena accepted, and Jived a number of years in the court of that prince, on a footing of the most intimate acquaintance and familiarity. He slept often in the royal apartments, and dined daily at the royal table. From the following repartee, which is preserved by one of our ancient historians, we may judge of the freedom which Scotus used with the monarch. As they were sitting one day at table opposite to each other, after dinner, the philosopher having said something that was not quite agreeable to the rules of politeness, the king, in a merry humour, asked him, “Pray what is between a Scot and a sot” To which he answered, “Nothing but the table.” Charles, says the historian, laughed heartily, and was not in the least offended, as he made it- a rule never to be angry with his master, as he always called Erigena; yet, in order to assist our belief in the above joke, it has been observed, that we ought to know in what language Charles and Scotus conversed. Charles, however, valued this great man for his wisdom and learning, still more than for his wit, and retained him about his person, not merely as an agreeable companion, but as his preceptor in the sciences, and his best counsellor in the most arduous affairs of governnfenf. While Scotus resided in the court of France, he composed, at the desire of his royal patron, a number of works, which procured him many admirers on the one hand, and many adversaries on the other. The clergy, in particular, were dissatisfied with some of his notions, as not being perfectly orthodox. One of the subjects which employed his pen was the doctrine of predestination. In his treatise on this subject, which was addressed to Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and Pardulus, bishop of Laon, the position he begins with is, that every question may be resolved by four general rules of philosophy, viz. division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. By these rules he endeavours to prove, that there cannot be a double predestination, of one to glory, and another to damnation; and that predestination does not impose any necessity, but that man is absolutely free; and that, although he cannot do good without the grace of Jesus Christ, yet he does it, without being constrained or forced to do it by the will of God, by his own free choice. Sin, and the consequences of it, and the punishments with which it is attended, are, says Erigena, mere privations, that are neither foreseen nor predestinated by God; and predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath pre-ordained in order to eternal happiness; for our predestination arises from the foresight of the good use of our free-will. Sentiments so bold, and delivered in such an age, could not fail of exciting great indignation. Wemlo, or Ganelo, archbishop of Sens, having read the work, collected out of it several propositions, which he arranged under nineteen heads, according to the number and order of the chapters of Scotus’s treatise, and sent them to Prudentius, bishop of Troyes. This prelate, having examined them, found in them, as he thought, not only the errors of Pelagius, but the impiety of the Collyridians. He employed himself, therefore, in answering Erigena and another answer to him was written by Florus, a deacon of the church of Lyons. It does not appear that Scotus engaged any farther in the controversy.

Another of his works was upon the subject of the eucharist, in answer to a famous book of Paschasius Radbertus, concerning the body and blood of Christ. Upon this head, Erigena had the good sense to oppose the doctrine of transubstantiation. While our author was employed in these discussions, an incident occurred, which drew upon him the displeasure of the Roman pontiff. Michael Balbus, the Greek emperor, had sent, in the year 824, a copy of the works of Dionysius, the philosopher, to the emperor Lewis the pious, as a most acceptable present. In France these treatises were esteemed to be an invaluable treasure; and therefore Charles the bald, who could not read Greek, was earnestly desirous of perusing them in a Latin translation. This desire was undoubtedly increased by an opinion which at that time universally prevailed, though without any proof, that Dionysius the Areopagite, or St. Denys, was the first Christian teacher, or apostle, in France. At the request of Charles, Scotus undertook the task of translating the works in question, the titles of which were, “On the celestial Monarchy;” “On the ecclesiastical Hierarchy;” “On divine Names;” and, “On mystic Theology.” These books were received with great eagerness by the western churches; but the translation having been made without the license of the sovereign pontiff, and containing many things contrary to the received faith of the church of Rome, the pope, Nicholas the first, was highly displeased, and wrote a threatening letter to the French king, requiring that Scotus should be banished from the university of Paris, and sent to Rome. Charles had too much affection and respect for our author to obey the pope’s order; but Erigena thought it advisable, for his safety, to retire from, Paris. According to some writers, it was upon this occasion that he returned to England. It was the translation of the works of the pretended Dionysius which revived the knowledge of Alexandrian Platonism in the west, and laid the foundation of the mystical system of theology, which afterwards so generally prevailed. Hence it was, that philosophical enthusiasm, born in the east, nourished by Plato, educated in Alexandria, matured in Asia, and adopted into the Greek church, found its way into the western church, and there produced innumerable mischiefs.

The most capital work of Scotus was his treatise “On the division of nature, or the natures of things;” which, after long lying in manuscript, was published at Oxford, in 1681, by Dr. Thomas Gale. In various respects this was the most curious literary production of the age in which Erigena flourished, being written with a metaphysical subtlety and acuteness then unknown in Europe. This acuteness he acquired by reading the writings of the Greek philosophers: and by applying the refinement of logic to the discussion of theological subjects, he became the father of that scholastic divinity, which made so distinguished a figure in the middle ages, and so long resisted the progress of genuine science. The remarks of one of our ancient historians [Hoveden] on Scotus’s work are not unjust. “His book, entitled, `The Division of Nature,' is of great use in solving many intricate and perplexing questions; if we can forgive him for deviating from the path of the Latin philosophers and divines, and pursuing that of the Greeks. It was this that made him appear a heretic to many; and it must be confessed that there are many things in it which, at first sight at least, seem to be contrary to the catholic faith.” Of this kind are his opinions of God and the universe, which bear a considerable resemblance to the pantheism of Spinoza. At the entrance of his work, Erigena divides nature into that which creates, and is not created that which is created, and creates that which is created, and does not create and that which neither creates nor is created. As a farther proof of the singularity of John Scotus’s genius, we shall produce his argument for the eternity of the world “Nothing can be an accident with respect to God consequently, it was not an accident with respect to him to frame the world therefore God did not exist before he created the world for, if he had, it would have happened to him to create that is, creation would have been an accident of the jdivine nature. God therefore precedes the world, not in the order of time, but of causality. The cause always was, and is, and will be; and therefore the effect always has subsisted, doth subsist, and will subsist; that is, the universe is eternal in its cause.” Hence Erigena taught that God is all things, and that all things are God by which he might only mean the same with the oriental, cabbalistic, and Alexandrian philosophers and, after these, with the followers of Origen, Synesius, and the supposed Dionysius, that all things have eternally proceeded by emanation from God, and will at length return into him as streams to their source. Accordingly he says, that “after the resurrection nature itself will return to God; God will be all in all, and there will remain nothing but God alone.” From these brief specimens it appears, that the philosophy of Scotus was founded in the enthusiastic notions of Universal deification; and consequently, that he is rather to be ranked among the fanatical than among the atheistical philosophers. The monastic life, which then so generally prevailed, afforded so much leisure for indulging the flights of imagination, and so many opportunities for an ostentatious display of piety, that it was peculiarly favourable to the propagation of enthusiasm. To this it may be added, that the ignorance of the times made it perfectly easy for those, who were inclined to practise upon vulgar credulity, to execute their design. It is not, therefore, surprising, that the dreams of mysticism should be extensively propagated, under the authority of a supposed apostolical name.

The concluding period of Erigena’s life is involved in some degree of uncertainty. According to Cave and Tanner, he removed from France to England in the year 877, and was employed by king Alfred in the restoration of learning at the university of Oxford, but this proceeds upon the tradition that Alfred did restore learning at Oxford, which has no foundation whatever. It is said by Tanner, that in the year 879 he was appointed professor of mathematics and astronomy at Oxford, which is likewise very doubtful, although it may not be improbable that he read lectures in Little University hall,- now part of Brazennose college, without the rank of professor. Here he is reported to have continued three years, when, upon account of some differences which arose among the gownsmen, he retired to the abbey of Mahnesbury, where he opened a school. Behaving, however, with harshness and severity to his scholars, they were so irritated, that they are reported to have murdered him with the iron bodkins which were then used in writing. According to others, the scholars were instigated to this atrocious act by the monks, who had conceived a hatred against Scotus, as well for his learning as his heterodoxy. Such is Leland’s account, who expressly says that it was the Scotus who translated Dionysius. The time of his death js differently stated, but is generally referred to the year 883. Some, however, place it in either the year 884 or 886. Such is the state of facts, as given by most of the English writers; but other authors suppose that our historians have con.­founded John Scotus Erigena with another John Scot, who was an Englishman, and who taught at Oxford. Accordr ing to Mackenzie, Erigena retired to England in the year 864, and died there about the year 874. As a proof of the last circumstance, he refers to a letter of Anastasius the librarian to Charles the Bald, written in the year 875, which speaks of Scotns as of a dead man. Dr. Henry thinks it most probable that he ended his days in France. Anastasius had so high an opinion of Erigena, that he ascribed his translation of the works of Dionysius to the especial influence of the spirit of God. He was undoubtedly a very extraordinary man for the period in which he lived. During a long time he had a place in the list of the saints of the church of Rome; but at length, on account of its being discovered that he was heterodox with regard to the doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius struck his name out of the calendar. A catalogue of Scotus’s works in general may be seen in Cave. Bale has added to the number, but probably without sufficient reason. The following are all that have been printed: 1. “De divisione Nature,” Oxon. by Gale, 1681, fol. 2. “De pncdestinatione Dei, contra Goteschalcum,” edited by Gilb. Maguin in his “Vindiciac praedestinationis et gratiæ,” vol. I. p. 103. 3. “Excerpta de differentiis et societatibus Graeci Latinique verbi,” in Macrobius’s works. 4. “De corpore et sanguine Domini,” 1558, 1560, 1653; Lend. 1686, 8vo. 5. “Ambigtia S. Maximi, seu scholia ejus in difh'ciles locos S. Gregorii Nazianzeni, Latino versa,” along with the “Divisio Nature,” Oxford, 1681, folio. 6. “Opera S. Dionysii quatuor in Latinam linguam conversa,” in the edition of Dionysius, Colon. 1536. Many of his Mss. are preserved in various libraries.

, was born at Tacnnstadt in Thuringia, Aug. 4, 1707, was educated at Witternberg and Leipsic, and became one of the most learned philologers of Germany. He studied theology as a profession; and in 1734 was chosen rector of St. Thomas’s school. In 1742 he was appointed professor extraordinary of ancient literature, in 1756 professor of eloquence, and in 1758 doctor and professor of divinity, the functions of all which offices he discharged with great assiduity and high reputation, and yet found leisure for his numerous original publications, and those excellent editions of the classics which have made his name familiar in the learned world. As a divine, he disliked the modern philosophical innovations in the study of theology, and was alike hostile to infidelity and superstition. He died, with the character of a man of consummate learning and irreproachable character, Sept. 11, 1781. Among his valuable editions of the classics are, 1. His “Homer,” Leipsic, 1759, 5 vols. 8vo, which may be ranked among the very best. It is formed on the basis of Clarke’s, containing his text and notes, and the various readings of a Leipsic manuscript, with those of the ancient editions. 2. “Callimachus,” Ley den, 1761, 2 vols. 8vo, containing, besides the preface, notes, and version of Ernesti, many grammatical and critical observations of Hemsterhusius and Ruhnkenius, and the whole of what is valuable in Gravius. 3. “Cicero,” of whose works he published three editions, the first at Leipsic, 1737, 5 vols. the others at Halle, 1758 and 1774, in 8 vols. 8vo. The second and third, which are the most correct, contain the famous “Clavis Ciceroniana,” which has been published separately. 4. “Tacitus,” Leipsic, 1752, 1772, 2 vols. 8vo, both valuable, although there are more errors and omissions than could have been wished; yet the preface, notes, and indexes are interesting and useful. 5. “Suetonius,” two editions, at Leipsic, 1748 and 1775, 8vo, but neither correct, or indeed at all valuable. 6. Aristophanes’ s Nubes,“Leipsic, 1788, a very useful edition, with the ancient scholia, and remarks by the editor and by Nagelius. 7. Xenophon’s” Memorabilia,“of which there have been several editions, 1737, 1742, 1755, &c. The best is that of Leipsic, 1772. Ernesti’s other works are, 8.” Initia doctrinse solidioris,“Leipsic, 1783, 8vo, the seventh edition. 9.” Institutio interpretis Novi Testamenti,“Leipsic, 1775, 8vo, the third edition, which Alberti of Leyden calls a” golden work.“10. An improved edition of Hederic’s Lexicon, 1754 and 1767. 11. A” Theological Library,“1760 1771, 11 vols. 8vo. 12.” Opuscula Oratoria, Orationes, Prolusiones et Elogia x “Leyden, 1762, 8vo. This contains thirteen very elegant and judicious academical discourses, pronounced on different occasions, with the same number of historical eloges. The subjects of the discourses are, 1. Of the study of the belles lettres. 2. That eloquence has its real source in the heart. 3. That we must conform to the laws of criticism in the study of divinity. 4. Of the revolutions of eloquence. 5. Of the conditions to be observed for studying and teaching philosophy with success. 6. Of the advantages of real learning. 7. The arts of peace and war. 8. A parallel between the Greek and Roman writers. 9. Of the name of on’s country. 10. Of joining the art of thinking to that of speaking. 11. Of the desire of praise and reputation. 12. Of popular philosophy and, 13. Of moral or practicable philosophy. These discourses are written in an easy flowing style, and in elegant Latinity. II.” Opusculorum oratoriorum, novum volumen,“Leipsic, 1791, 8vo: this and another volume published in 1794, forms a complete collection of Ernesti’s smaller tracts. 12.” Archaeologia literaria,“Leipsic, 1768, 8vo, to which we may add his excellent new edition, of which he lived to publish only 3 volumes, of” Fabricii Bibl. Graeca." His nephew, Augustus William Ernes n, was born in 1733, and died in 1801 at Leipsic, where he was professor of eloquence in that university from 1770, and well known by his edition of Livy, Quintilian, and other classics. To the university library there he bequeathed his very complete collection of the works of Camerarius; and to that of the Senate, his collection of the editions and Mss. of Cicero, to complete the Ciceronian collection already in it.

, or, as he was called in Dutch, Thomas van Erpe, a very learned writer, and eminently skilled in the oriental tongues, was descended, both by his father and mother’s side, from noble families at Boisleduc in Brabant, which place his parents had quitted on account of their adherence to the protestant religion, and was born, at Gorcum in Holland, Sept. 11, 1584. Prom his earliest years he shewed a peculiar disposition for learning, which induced his father, though no scholar himself, to send him to Leyden, where he began his studies, and prosecuted them with such success, as to excite the admiration of his masters. In 1608, at the age of eighteen, he was admitted into the university of that city, where he took the degree of doctor in philosophy. Vossius informs us, that, soon after he became a student in that place, he grew so diffident of succeeding in his labours, as to have thoughts of laying them entirely aside; but that, being encouraged to persevere, and inspired with fresh courage, be made himself master of several branches of literature, and particularly metaphysics, in the pursuit of which last, his patience appears to have been invincible. He is said to have read over not only Aristotle, but likewise a great number of his interpreters, with all the commentaries of Suarez; in which he was so conversant, that, several years after he had gone through his course of philosophy, and was engaged in other studies, he could give a distinct account of the contents of almost every page of that vast work.

After four years spent in his travels, he returned to Leyden in July 1612, about which time there was a design to invite him to England, and to settle a liberal stipend on him; but in the February following, he was chosen by the curators of that university, professor of the Arabic. and other oriental tongues, except the Hebrew, of which there was already a professor. He filled this chair with, great applause, and soon after set up, at an extraordinary expence, a press for the eastern languages, at which he printed a great many excellent works. October 1616, he married a daughter of a counsellor in the court of Holland, by whom he had seven children, three of whom survived him. In 1619 the curators of the university erected a second chair for the Hebrew language, of which they appointed him professor. In 1620 he was sent by the prince of Orange and the states of Holland into France, to solicit Peter du Moulin, or Andrew Rivet, to undertake the professorship of divinity at Leyden but, not prevailing then, he was sent again the year following, and after six months stay in France, procured Rivet, with the consent of the French churches, to remove to Leyden. Some time after his return the states of Holland appointed him their interpreter, and employed him to translate the letters they received from the several princes of Africa and Asia, and also to write letters in the -oriental languages; and the emperor of Morocco was so pleased with the purity of his Arabic style, that he shewed his letters to his nobles, as a great curiosity, for their elegance and propriety. In the midst, of these employments, he was seized with a contagious disease, then epidemical, of which he died Nov. 13, 1621, aged only forty years. The learned of his time lamented him, and wrote the highest eulogiums upon him, as indeed he well deserved, for he was not only most eminent as a scholar, but as a man of great piety and benevolence. Besides the advantageous ofler made him in Italy, he rejected another from the king of Spain and the archbishop of Seville, who invited him into that kingdom to explain certain Arabic inscriptions. Gerard John Vossius made his funeral oration in Latin, which was printed at Leyden, 1625, in 4to; and the same year were published at the same place, in 4to, Peter Scriverius’s “Manes Erpeniani, cum epicediis variorum.”

, baron of Dun, the ancestor of the preceding, and one of the protestant reformers in Scotland, was born at the family-seat near Montrose, in 1508, or 1509. His father was John Erskiue, of Dun, a descendant of the earls of Marr, and his mother was a daughter of William, first lord Ruthven. He was educated most probably at the university of Aberdeen; and according to the ancient custom of the nobility of Scotland, pursued his studies for some time in one or other of the foreign universities. Buchanan styles him “a man of great learning:” and to this character he is amply entitled, as we are informed he was the first of his countrymen who patronized the study of the Greek language, which was first taught by his means at Montrose. In 1534, on returning from his travels, he brought with him a Frenchman skilled in the Greek tongue, whom he settled at Montrose, and upon his departure he liberally encouraged others to come from France and succeed to his place; and from this private seminary many Greek scholars proceeded, and the knowledge of the language was gradually diffused through the kingdom. After his father’s death, he was employed as the other barons or lairds then, were, in administering justice in the county of Angus, to which he belonged, and occasionally assisting in the meetings of parliament. He was besides almost constantly chosen provost, or chief magistrate of the neighbouring town of Montrose. At an early period of his life, he became a convert from popery, but the precise manner in which his conversion was accomplished, is not known. He was, however, a liberal encourager of those who became converts, and especially those who suffered for their rehgiou. The castte of Dun was always a sanctuary to protestant preachers a-.id professors, and here he appears to have associated with a number of persons, some of high rank, who strengthened each other in their principles, and by their power and influence contributed much to the reformation in that part of the kingdom.

The parliament, which met Dec. 14, 1537, appointed him by the title of “John Erskine of Dun, knight and provost of Montrose,” to go to the court of France, as one of the commissioners from Scotland, to witness the young queen’s (Mary) marriage with the dauphin, and to settle the terms of the marriage contract; and on his return he was surprised to find that the reformation was likely to be forwarded by the very means taken to suppress it. An aged priest named Mill, had suffered martyrdom at St. Andrew’s, and in the opinion of archbishop Spottiswood, “the death of this martyr was the death of popery in this realm.” The protestants were now increasing in numbers, and were not a little encouraged by the death of queen Mary of England, and the accession of Elizabeth, whom they knew to be favourable to their cause. The queen regent of Scotland was therefore addressed more boldly than before by the protestant lords, in behalf of the free exercise of their religion, and by Erskine among the rest; but, although his demands and language are said to have been more moderate than the rest, this produced no effect, and a proclamation was issued, requiring the protestant ministers to appear at Stirling, May 10, 1559, and there to be tried for reputed heresy. The protestant lords and other laity determined upon this to accompany and defend their ministers, and much confusion would have immediately ensued, if Mr. Erskine had not obtained a promise from the queen regent, that the ministers should not be tried; and the people were ordered to disperse. No sooner had this been done, than the queen broke her promise, and a civil war followed, for the particulars of which we must refer to the page of history. It may suffice to notice here, that Mr. Erskine occasionally assisted as a temporal baron, but before the war was concluded, he relinquished his armour, and became a preacher, for which by his learning and study of the controversies between the church of Rome and the reformers, he was well qualified. The civil war ended in favour of the prntestant party, by the death of the queen regent in 1560 and a parliament, or convention of the estates was immediately held, who began their proceedings by appointing a committee of lords, barons, and burgesses, to distribute the few protestant ministers whom they then had, to the places where their services were most required. The committee nominated some of them to the chief cities, and as “The first book of Discipline” was now produced, they, agreeably to the plan proposed in that book, nominated five ministers who should act in the capacity of ecclesiastical Supkrintendants. Mr. Erskine was one of these five, and had the superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters in the counties of Angus and Mearus, and from this period Ins usual designation was, “John Erskine of Dun, knight, superintendant of Angus and Mearus.” This was in fact a kind of episcopal authority, conferred for life; but for their conduct the superintendants were accountable to the general assembly of the clergy. Their office was sufficiently laborious, as well as invidious; and we find Mr. Erskine several times applying to be dismissed. In 1569, by virtue of his office, he had to suspend from their offices for their adherence to popery, the principal, sub-principal, and three professors of King’s-college, Aberdeen. In 1577, he had a hand in compiling the “Second Book of Discipline,” or model for the government of a presbyterian church, which still exists; and in other respects he was an active promoter of the reformation as then established, until his death, March 21, 1591, in the eightysecond year of his age. Buchanan, Knox, and Spottiswood, agree in a high character of him; and even queen Mary preferred him as a preacher, because, she said, he “was a mild and sweet natured man, and of true honesty and uprightness.”

Theology, however, was his favourite study; and his predilection for the ministerial function increasing, he persevered, notwithstanding the opposition of his relations, in the necessary preparatory studies; which being completed, he obtained a licence from the presbytery of Dumblane, in 1742. In May 174-4, he was ordained minister of Kirkintillock, in the presbytery of Glasgow. In 1751 he was removed to the borough of Culross, in the presbytery of Dumfermline. In June 1758, he was invited to Edinburgh, and settled in the New Grey-friars’ church there; and in July 1759, he and Dr. Itobertson were admitted joint ministers of the Old Grey-friars’ church. His unaffected piety, attention to pastoral duties, and useful instructions in public and private, his sympathy with the distressed, and the blamelessness of his private conduct, were truly exemplary, and secured him the affections of his people wherever he went, as well as occasioned their regret at his removal. While thus employed among his people, or in his study, his actiye mind was also employed in watching the progress of religion, both in his own country and in the world at large, and in manifesting his zeal for the success of it. With a view to procure information on this subject, he commenced a correspondence with several persons of distinguished fame and knowledge, both on th continent and in America. He also procured and read very new publication of merit, all the foreign journals, and whatever could administer to his purpose. His “Sermons,” which were published in 1798, may be ranked among the best specimens of pulpit composition. Between 1742, the year in which he was licensed, and 1798, the year in which his sermons appeared, the literature of Scotland had suffered a complete revolution, and in nothing was the change more apparent than in the manner in which the services of the pulpit were conducted. At the former period, sermons abounded with diffuse illustrations; and were disgraced by colloquial phrases, and vulgar provincialisms, In these later years, pulpit composition has attained a highdignity and elegance. Whoever reads the discourses of Dr. Erskine, which in purity and energy of style, no less than in precision of thought and originality of sentiment, may challenge a comparison with any contemporary sef+ inons, must be sensible that their author, whose education bad been completed sixty years before their publication, must have paid no common attention to literary composition, and could watch the variations of taste, keep pace with its improvements, and adapt his productions to the style of the day. Yet he did not servilely imitate the refinements of others, or allow himself to be passively borne along with the stream of fashion. His labours contributed to accomplish that revolution to which we have just now alluded, and to form that standard which we admire; but he had nobler objects in view than the bare information of the literary taste of his countrymen, although he was far from indifferent to this object. In the detached sermons which he printed when a country clergyman, there was a propriety and correctness which had never been exhibited in any religious productions of North Britain, and which was scarcely surpassed in the English language at that time. His “Theological Dissertations,” which appeared so early as 1765, contain several masterly disquisitions on some highly interesting branches of divinity. The subjects, indeed, did not admit a display of eloquence; but throughout the whole, he has shewn great soundness of judgment, as well as an intimate acquaintance with the doctrines of the Gospel, and history of the Christian church.

, son of the above, was born in the prison of the Bass, June 22, 1680, and in 1701 took his degree of M. A. in the university of Edinburgh. lu 1703 he was ordained minister of Portmoak in the county of Fife, where he discharged the pastoral duty with great integrity till 1731, when he was made choice of to be one of the ministers of Stirling. In April 1732, being chosen moderator of the synod of Perth and Stirling, it was his turn to preach at the opening of that synod at Perth, and in his sermon he took occasion to censure some late proceedings of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, respecting patronage; and this brought on a prosecution against him, which was conducted with so little judgment or moderation on the part of the assembly, as eventually to occasion a schism in the church of great extent. This is usually known by the name of the secession, and its adherents by that of Seceders, now a very numerous body in Scotland, for whose history we may refer to a very impartial and well-written account under the article Seceders, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or to a tract, where their history is more minutely detailed, entitled “An historical account of the rise and progress of the Secession,” by John Brown, minister of the gospel at Hadclington. Mr. Erskine, however, experienced by this no falling off in his popularity, being still beloved by his hearers, and esteemed even by those who were his professed enemies, A meeting was built for him at Stirling, where he officiated to a very numerous congregation, and where he died, June 2, 1754. As a gentleman and a scholar, few ever equalled him; and, although but in low circumstances, his charity was unbounded. Four volumes of his sermons were printed at Glasgow in 8vo, 1762, and a fifth volume at Edinburgh, 1765, under the patronage of the late duchess of Northumberland, in whose family one of his sons lived as a gardener.

, a writer on military affairs, was born at Brive-la-Gaillarde, March 25, 1713, and died at Paris, Feb. 28, 1783. He bore arms at the age of nineteen, signalized his prowess in Italy in 1734, and was aid de-camp in the campaigns of Bavaria in 1742. Marshal Saxe, who was well acquainted with his military talents, employed him either as aide-major-general of the army, or as colonel of one of the regiments of grenadiers created in 1745. Being appointed in 1766 governor of the hotel-des-invalides, he not only maintained the utmost regularity, but introduced great improvements there. He obtained the rank of lieutenant-general in 1780. Among his works are, 1. “Campagnesdu roi en 1745, 1746, 1747, et 1748,” 4 vols. 8vo. 2. “Essai sur la science de la Guerre, 1751,” 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “Essai sur les grandes operations de la Guerre,” 1755, 4 vols. 8vo; works that display the sound knowledge of an experienced officer. 4. “Supplement aux Reveries du marechal de Saxe,” Paris, 1773, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. He gave the history of this same mare‘chal in 3 vols. 4to, and 2 vols. 12mo. This performance is highly interesting to military men, on account of the plans of battles and of marches found in the 4to edition. The author, after having related the warlike exploits of his hero, concludes, in the manner of Plutarch, with the particular anecdotes and incidents of his life. The baron d’Espagnac had married at Brussels, the 18th of December 1748, Susanna Elizabeth, baroness de Beyer, by whom he had four sons and a daughter. One of these sons went into the church, and was a canon fit Paris, where he was first distinguished by considerable literary talents, and afterwards by his avarice and peculation. He belonged at one time to M. Calonne’s office, from which he was dismissed for improper conduct, but in 1791 made his appearance in the national assembly with a plan of finance. He was afterwards employed by the revolutionary government as commissary to the army of the Alps, and to that of Dumouriez, by which he got an immense fortune, but this he lost, as well as his life, by a decree of the revolutionary tribunal, being guillotined at Paris, April 4, 1794. Of his literary productions, the best were his “Eloge de Catinat,” and “Reflexions sur I'abbS Suger et son siecle.”

, president of the parliament of Bourdeaux, a man of learning in the seventeenth century, acquired considerable fame by publishing in 1623, a book entitled “Enchyridion physicse restitutae.” He did not put his name to this, but it is proved to be his by several of his acquaintance, as well as by the device at the beginning, “Spes mea est in agno,” and before the treatise of chemistry, “Pene nos unda Tagi,” which are both anagrams of his name. It was the first work that appeared in France, professing to contain a complete system of physics contrary to that of Aristotle. The author, however, while he says that he has only re-established the ancient philosophy, has added many things of his own invention. He confutes the opinion of materia prima, which was held to be extended every where without being any where perceived, and incessantly tending to the uuion of forms without having any, being the basis and support of contraries, viz. of the elements which are said to be produced out of it. He shows that this system of nature is imaginary, that there is no contrariety in the elements, and that which is observed in them proceeds from the excess of their qualities, and that when they are tempered there is no contrariety in them. Yet he believes that there is a materia prima from whence the elements result and become the second matter of things, which are earth and water; for he holds neither air nor fire for elements. The elements, according to his notion, are not transformed into each other: water only becomes vapour, and vapour water, by circulation. He places the real fire of the world in the sun, which he calls not only the eye of the universe, but the eye of the creator of the universe, by which he beholds in a sensible manner his creatures, and which is the first agent of the world. The rest of his book abounds in curious particulars concerning the origin of things, their subsistence and various alterations, relating to the design of this philosopher to treat of chemical matters. He therefore subjoins another treatise, entitled “Arcanum Hermeticae philosophic opus,” in which he discourses of the matter of the philosopher’s stone and its digestions, of the degrees of fire, of the figure of the vessels and furnace, of the composition of the elixir and its multiplication. This book was translated into French under the title of “La Philosophic des Anciens retablie en sa purete.” In 1616 he published an old manuscript, entitled “Le Rozier des Guerres;” and added to it a treatise of his own upon the institution of a young prince. This ms. was found at Nerac in the king’s closet. Mr. d'Espagnet thought his edition to be the first, but it had been printed in 1523, in folio, which edition is more complete than this of 1616. In the ms. of Nerac, was wanting all the second part, and the three last chapters of the first. For this account the reader is referred to Naude“'s” Addition a Phistoire de Louis XI.“p. 72; and to” Syntagma de studio militari,“p. 73. The prologue alone suunces to convince us that Louis XI. is not the author of that work, as the title pretends, though he speaks in it as giving instructions to the dauphin his son. See the” Bibliotheque Choisie“of M. Colomie’s. In the publication of the” Rozier des Guerres,“he punctually retains the old spelling and in his advertisement to the reader gives this reason for it” This little tract, du Rozier,“says he,” seemed to me so good that I would not embellish or disguise it, but have left in its native simplicity: and though the language of it is not in use in our times, yet it may be understood, being so full of good sense and meaning, that with all its jargon it may silence the affected diction of the court and bar. 1 have also carefully preserved the orthography; because in adding or diminishing a letter, a word is often changed, and of ancient made modern. By this means, in my judgment, the language of Philip de Commines, in his history, has been corrupted: the editors, thinking to mend the spelling, and polish the diction, have destroyed the marks of its antiquity, so that the style of his book is not the style of his times; as we may judge both by this little manuscript, and by many others of the same age, which are to be found in famous libraries, especially by the history of Charles VI. written by John Juvenal des Ursins, and lately published by the sieur de Godefroy. I imagine this error proceeds from the insufficiency of the correctors; who, pretending to correct the orthography, have adulterated it, and thereby rendered themselves plagiaries."

, an eminent Italian historian, was born at San Geminiano, a village of Tuscany, in 1437. He was of the illustrious family of the Buonaccorsi, which name he changed to that of Callimaco or Callimachus, when he had, along with Pomponius Laetus, and other men of learning, established an academy, the members of which adopted Latin or Greek names. The surname of Esperiente, or Experiens, he is supposed to have assumed in allusion to the vicissitudes of his life, but in that case he must have assumed it after he had met with these vicissitudes. It is therefore more reasonable to suppose that he merely meant to infer that all true knowledge is founded on experience. Paul II. having succeeded Pius II. in 1464, did not view Esperiente’s academy, and his change of name, in the same favourable light as his predecessor, but fancied he discovered something mysterious and alarming in such a society, and even persecuted the members of it with some severity. Esperiente was therefore obliged to make his escape, and after travelling in various countries, came to Poland in 1473, where he was kindly received by the archbishop of Leopol or Lemberg, and acquired the esteem of Casimir III. king of Poland, who appointed him preceptor to his children, and some time afterwards employed him as his secretary. Acquiring the confidence of the king, who perceived his talents for business, he was entrusted with several important negociations at Constantinople in 1475, and at Vienna and Venice in 1486. In 1488 he had the misfortune to lose his library by an accidental fire. The death of Casimir in 1491, made no difference in his situation, John Albert the successor to the crown, who had been his pupil, admitting him to his confidence, and even to a share of power, which excited the resentment of the natives, who were jealous of the interference of a foreigner and a fugitive; but the virtue and good conduct of Esperiente were superior to the attacks of his adversaries, and he retained his station and favour, with undiminished honour, to the close of his days. He died at Cracow Nov. 1, 1496, and his remains were deposited in a tomb of bronze, with the following inscription: “Philippus Callimachus Experieus, natione Thuscus, vir doctissimus, utriusque fortunse exemplum imitandutn, atque oninis virtutis ctiltor pra?cipuus, ciivi oliin Casimiri et Joaunis Alberti, Poloniae regum, secretarius acceptissimus, relictis ingenii, ac reruin a se gestarum, plnribus tnonu mentis, cum summo omnium honor u in muToro, et regiffi domus, atque hujus reipublicae incoinmodo, anno sal mis nostne 1496, calendis Novembris, vita decedens, hie sepultus est,”

All his works, of which the following is a correct list, are held in much esteem I “Attila,” or, “De Gestis Attilae,” without date, but probably Trevisa, 1489, 4to reprinted at Haguenau, 1531, 4to, Basil, 1541, 8vo, and inserted in Bontinius’s collection of Latin historians. 2. “Historia de rege Uladislao, seu clade Varnensi,” Augsburgh, 1519, 4to. Michael Bruto appears to have been ignorant of this first edition, when he published one from a manuscript, which he entitled “De rebus ab Uladislao Hungarian ct Polonire rege gestis ad Casimiruin V. libri tres,” Cracow, 15S2, 4to. He added, however, a very interesting life of Esperiente, which was reprinted at Cracow, 1584, 4to. Paul Jovius preferred this work of Esperiente to any history since the days of Tacitus. It is also printed, with the history of Poland, by Martin Cromer, 1589, and in Bonfidius’s collection. 3. “De clade Varnensi epistola,” inserted in the second volume of the “Chronicon Turcicum” by Louicerus, Bale, 1556, and Francfort, 1578, folio. 4. “Oratio de Bello Turcis inferendo et historia de his qu;r a Venetis tentata snnt, Persis ac Tartaris contra Turcos inovendis,” Haguenau, 1533, 4to. Among the Mss. he left were some Latin poems, and a history of his travels.

Estcourt, however, as a companion, was perfectly entertaining and agreeable; and sir Richard Steele, in the Spectator, where, as well as in the Tatler, he is often mentioned, records him to have been not only a sprightly wit, but a person of easy and natural politeness. His company was extremely courted by every one, and his mimicry so much admired, that persons of the first quality frequently invited him to their entertainments, in order to divert their friends with his drollery; on which occasions he constantly received very handsome presents for his company. Among others, he was a great favourite with the duke of Marlborough; and at the time the famous beef-steak club was erected, which consisted of the chief wits and greatest men in the kingdom, Mr. Estcourt had the office assigned Jiim of their providore; and as a mark of distinction of lhat honour, he used, by way of badge, to wear a small gridiron of gold, hung about his neck with a green silk ribband. He quitted the stage some years before his death, which happened in 1713, when he was interred in the parish of St. Paul’s, Covent-garden, where his brother comedian, Joe Haines, had been buried a few years before. He left behind him two 'dramatic pieces; viz. 1. “Fair Example,” a comedy, 1706, 4to. 2. Prunella," an interlude, 4to. The latter of these was only a ridicule on the absurdity of the Italian operas at that time, in which, not only the unnatural circumstance was indulged, of music and harmony attending on all, even the most agitating passions, but also the very words themselves which were to accompany that music, were written in different languages, according as the performers who were to sing them happened to be Italians or English.

, an eminent Dutch divine of the popish persuasion, was born at Gorcum, in Holland, about 1542, and was a descendant of an illustrious family of the lords of the castle of Est, from whom he took his name. He finished his classical studies under Macropedius, at Utrecht) studied divinity and philosophy at Louvain, and taught these two sciences for ten years at that place. In 1580 he was admitted to his degree of D. D. and some time after was appointed to lecture on divinity at Doway, and was made superior of the seminary of that city, and provost of the church of St. Peter. He was also elected chancellor of the university of Doway, and employed all his time in teaching or writing. Although esteemed highlylearned, he was no less distinguished for his modesty and benevolence. He died at Doway Sept. 20, 1613, and was buried in the church of St. Peter. His works are, 1. “Martyrium Edmundi Campiani, societatis Jesu,” translated from the French; Louvain, 1582, 8vo; (see Campian). 2. “Historia martyrum Gorcomensium majori numero fratrum minorum,” Doway, 1603, 8vo. 3. “Orationes Theologies,” Doway, 1614, 8vo. 4. “Commentarii in quatuor lihros Sententiarum,” Doway, 1615, 4 vols. fol. reprinted at Paris, 1638, 3 vols. fol. Dupin says this is one of the best theological works the Roman church can boast, and recommends it to students in divinity. 5. “Annotationes in praecipua difficiiiora S. Scriptura; loca,' 1 Antwerp, 1621, fol. a work on which a high value appears to have been placed, as it passed through several editions. It resulted from the conferences he held in the seminary of Doway, but, according to Dupin, his observations ar rather practical than critical. 6.” In omnes B. Pauli et aliorum apostolorumepistolas Commentaria,“Doway, 1614, 2 vols. fol. Dupin praises this as one of the best works of the kind, but it appears that Estius was prevented by death from proceeding farther than 1 John v. and that the rest of the commentary was supplied by Barth. de la Pierre. He wrote also some Latin verses, and an essay” Contra avaritiam scientiae,“censuring the selfishness of learned men who keep their improvements and discoveries to themselves. This is inserted in a work by Francis Vianen of Brussels, entitled” Tractatus triplex de ordine amoris," Louvain, 1685, 8vo.

, was grand-auditor of the chancery of Paris, and died in 1611, but we have no account of his early life. He left several manuscripts, of which some were published. 1. His “Journal of Henry III.” published by the abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, in 1744, in 5 vols. 8vo, with the addition of several scarce pieces on the League, selected from a multitude of pamphlets, satires, and polemical works, which those turbulent times produced. This journal begins at the month of May 1574, and terminates with the month of August 1589. 2. “Journal of the reign of Henry IV.” with historical and political remarks by the abbé Lenglet du Fresnoy, and several other interesting pieces of the same period; but the years 1598, 1599, 1600, and 1601, which are wanting in the journal of l'Estoile, have been supplied by an anonymous author in this edition, in the way of supplements, published for the first time in 1636. The two journals of the grand auditor were published by the messrs. Godefroi, at Cologne, [Brussels] the first under the title of “Journal of Henry III.” 4 vols. 8vo the second under that of “Memoires pour servir a l'histoire de France,” 1719, 2 vols, 8vo, with plates, and as they contain many things omitted in the edition of the abbé du Fresnoy, they are more sought after, and are become more scarce. L'Estoile, in both these journals, seems attached to the parliament, a good citizen, an honest man, and a faithful historian, relating impartially the good and the bad; the good with pleasure, the bad with simplicity. He was well informed in all the particulars of the reign of Henry III. and that of Henry IV.; and he enters into the minutest circumstances. The affairs of government are mixed with those of his family. Deaths, births, the price of provisions, the prevailing distempers, ludicrous or sorrowful events, in short, every thing that makes the subject of conversation, is the object of his journal; and he retracts when he finds himself mistaken, with as good a grace as he confirms what he finds to be true. The author, under an appearance of ease and openness, conceals a turn for arcasm, and this no doubt recommended his work to numberless readers. The original manuscript of his Journals, in his own hand writing, in 5 folio volumes, was in the library of the abbey of St. Acheul, at Amiens, where it had been deposited by the nephew of the author, but has been lost; which is rather to be regretted, as it contained many curious particulars not in any of the printed editions.

, son of the foregoing, is not so noted as his father, though he was one of the five authors employed by cardinal Richelieu in making his bad plays. He was received into the French academy in 1632, and died in 1652, at about the age of fifty-four. Moderately provided with the goods of fortune, but a man of strict honour, he rather chose to quit the capital with a woman of worth but of no fortune, whom he had married, than to beg at the table of a financier, or to be troublesome to his friends. Pelisson says of him, “that he had more genius than learning and knowledge.” Yet he had no small knowledge of the laws of the drama, and was a fastidious critic, both in regard to himself and to others. It is said that he caused a young man of Languedoc to die of grief, who came to Paris with a comedy which he fancied to be a chef-d'oeuvre, and in which the severe critic pointed out numerous defects. The same thing is related of Claude de Estoile which is told of Malherbe and of Moliere, that he read his works to his maid-servant. He wrote several pieces for the stage, not above mediocrity some odes that are rather below it and a few other pieces of poetry that have great merit. His odes are in the “Re­^ueil des Poetes Francois,” 1692, 5 vols. 12mo.

, sister of Francois Annibal d'Estr<Ses, was endowed from her birth with all the gifts and graces of nature. Henry IV. who saw her for the first time in 1591, at the chateau de Coeuvres, where she lived with her father, was so smitten with her figure and wit, that he resolved to take her to be his favourite mistress. In order to obtain an interview, he disguised himself one day like a countryman, passed through the enemy’s guards, and pursued his way at the imminent hazard of his life. Gabrielle, who was fond of the duke de Bellegard, the master of the horse, hesitated at first to comply with the ardent affection of the king; but the elevation of her father and of her brother, the sincere attachment of Henry, his affable and obliging manners, at length prevailed on her. In order that he might visit her more freely, Henry made her marry Nicholas d'Amerval, lord of Liancourt, with whom she never cohabited. Henry loved her to so violent a degree, that though he was married, he was determined to make her his wife. It was in this view that Gabrielle engaged her fond lover to take up the Roman catholic religion, to enable him to obtain from the pope a bull to dissolve his marriage with Marguerite de Valois, and united her utmost efforts with those of Henry IV. to remove the obstacles that prevented their union; but these schemes were defeated by her sudden death, April 10, 1599. It is pretended that she was poisoned by the rich financier Zamet: she died, however, in dreadful convulsions, and on the day following her death, her face was so disfigured, that it was impossible to be known. Of all the mistresses of Henry, he was most attached to this woman, whom he made duchess of Beaufort, and at her death put on, mourning, as if she had been a princess of the blood, yet she had not so entire a sway over his heart as to alienate him from his ministers that were not agreeable to her; much less to make him dismiss them. She took occasion to say to him one day on the subject of Sully, with whom she was displeased: “I had rather die, than live under the shame of seeing a footman upheld against me, who bear the title of mistress.” “Pardieu, madame,” said Henry, “this is too much; and I plainly perceive that you have been put upon this frolic as an attempt to make me turn away a servant whom I cannot do without. But I will not comply; and, that you may set your heart at rest, and not shew your peevish airs against my will, I declare to you, that if I were reduced to the necessity of parting with one or the other, I could better do without ten mistresses like you than one servant like him.” During one of the festivities that Henry occasionally gave to Gabrielle, dispatches were brought him that the Spaniards had taken possession of Amiens. “This stroke is from heaven,” said he, “I have been long enough acting the king of France it is time to shew myself king of Navarre;” and then turning to d'Estrees, who, like him, was dressed out for the occasion, and who had burst into tears, he said to her: “My mistress, we must quit our arms and mount on horseback, to engage in another sort of war.” The same day he got together some troops; and, laying aside the lover, assumed the hero, and marched towards Amiens. Henry IV. had three children by her; Cirsar duke of Vendome, Alexander, and Henrietta, who married the marquis d'Elbauf.

, king of Kent, and the first Christian king among the Anglo-Saxons, succeeded to the throne about the year 560. He began his reign, in order to revive the reputation of his family, by making war upon the king of Wessex, by whom he was twice defeated, though he was afterwards triumphant, and acquired the complete ascendancy over Wessex and the other states, except Northumberland, and reduced them to the condition of his tributaries or dependants. In the reign of Ethelbert, Christianity was introduced into England. The king had married Bertha, daughter of the king of Paris, who, being a Christian, had stipulated for the free exercise of her religion, and had carried over in her train a French bishop. So exemplary in every respect were her life and conduct, that she inspired the king and his court with a high respect for her person, and for the religion by which she appeared to be influenced. The pope, taking advantage of this circumstance, sent a mission of forty monks, at the head of whom was Augustin, to preach the gospel in the island. They landed in Kent, in the year 597, and were well and hospitably received by Ethelbert, who assigned them habitations in the isle of Thanet. A conference was held, and the king took time to consider of the new doctrines propounded to him; and in the mean while gave them full liberty to preach to his subjects. Numbers were converted, and at length the king submitted to a public baptism. (See Augustine). Christianity proved the means of promoting knowledge and civilization in this -island; and the king, with the consent of his states, enacted a body of laws, which was the first written code promulgated by the northern conquerors. Ethelbert died in the year 616, and left his crown, after a reign of fifty years, to his son Edbald.

, a celebrated wit and comic writer in the reigns of king Charles II. and king James II. is said to have been descended of an ancient family in Oxfordshire, or allied to it He was born about 1636, not very distant from London, it is believed, as some of his nearest relations appear to have been settled not far from this metropolis. It is thought he was partly educated at the university of Cambridge, but travelled into France, and perhaps Flanders also, in his younger years. At his retu,rn, he studied for a while the municipal laws at one of the inns of court in London; but the polite company he kept, and his own natural talents, inclining him rather to court the favour of the muses and cultivate the belles lettres, he produced his first dramatic performance in 1664, entitled “The Comical Revenge; or, Love in a tub,” which brought him acquainted, as he himself informs us, with Charles afterwards earl of Dorset, to whom it is dedicated. Its fame also, with his lively humour, engaging conversation, and refined taste in the fashionable gallantries of the town, soon established him in the societies, and rendered him the delight of those leading wits among the quality and gentry of chief rank and distinction, who made pleasure the chief business of their lives, and rendered that reign the most dissolute of any in our history; such as George Villiers duke of Bucks, John Wilmot earl of Rochester, sir Car Scroop, sir Charles Sedley, Henry Savile, &c. Encouraged by his first success, he brought another comedy upon the stage, in 1668, entitled “She would if she could,” which gained him no less applause, and it was supposed he would now make the stage his principal pursuit, but whether from indolence, or his pleasurable engagements, there was an interval of above seven years before the appearance of his next and last dramatic production, entitled “The Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter.” It is dedicated by him to the duchess of York, who then was Mary, the daughter of the duke of Modena; in the service of which duchess our author, as he says in his said dedication, then was. This play still exalted his reputation, even above what both the former had done; he having therein, as perhaps he had also partly set himself some example in the others before, shadowed forth (but somewhat disguisedly) some of his noted acquaintance and contemporaries, who were known, or thought to be so, by his said draughts of them, to many of the audience; and this rendered the play very popular. In the famous poem written by the lord Rochester, after the example of sir John, Suckling’s upon the like subject, Apollo finds some plausible pretence of exception to the claim of every poetical candidate for the laurel crown; therefore our poet, by the scheme or drift of it, could escape no less disappointment than the rest: yet his lordship, to do him ample justice, has sufficiently shewed his merits to it, in every thing but his perseverance to exert them; which, after having first of all discarded Mr. Dryden, he next expresses thus:

There’s none had more fancy, sense, judgment, or wit:

That his long seven years’ silence is not to be pardon'd." Which shews that the poem in which these lines are written was just before the publication of our author’s last comedy. Sir George was addicted to great extravagances, being too free of his purse in gaming, and of his constitution with women and wine; which embarrassed his fortune, impaired his health, and exposed him to many reflections. Gildon says, that for marrying a fortune he was knighted; but it is said in a poem of those times, which never was printed (ms collection of satires, in the Harleian collection), that, to make some reparation of his circumstances, he courted a rich old widow; whose ambition was such, that she would not marry him unless he could make her a lady; which he was forced by the purchase of knighthood to do. This was probably about 1683. We hear not of any issue he had by this lady; but he cohabited, whether before or after this said marriage is not known, for some time with Mrs. Barry, the actress, and had a daughter by her on whom he settled five or six thousand pounds but she died young. From the same intelligence we have also learnt, that sir George was, in his person, a fair, slender, genteel man; but spoiled his countenance with drinking, and other habits of intemperance; and, in his deportment, very affable and courteous, of a sprightly and generous temper; which, with his free, lively, and natural vein of writing, acquired him the general character of Gentle George and Easy Etherege; in respect to which qualities we may often find him compared with sir Charles Sedley. His courtly address, and other accomplishments, won him the favour of the duchesi of York, afterwards, when king James was crowned, his queen; by whose interest and recommendation he wa sent ambassador abroad. In a certain pasquil that was written upon him, it is intimated as if he was sent upon ome embassy to Turkey. Gildon says, that, being in particular esteem with king James’s consort, he was sent envoy to Hamburgh but it is in several books evident, that he was, in that reign, a minister at Ratisbon at least from 1686 to the time that his majesty left this kingdom, if not later and this appears also from his own letters which he wrote thence some to the earl of Middleton, inverse to one of which his lordship engaged Mr. Dryden to return a poetical answer, in which he invites sir George to write another play; and, to keep him in countenance for his having been so dilatory in his last, reminds him hovr long the comedy, or farce, of the “Rehearsal” had been hatching, by the duke of Buckingham, before it appeared: but we meet with nothing more of our author’s writing for the stage. There are extant some other letters of his in prose, which were written also from Ratisbon; two of which he sent to the duke of Buckingham when he was in his recess. As for his other compositions, such as have been printed, they consist, for the greatest part, of little airy sonnets, lampoons, and panegyrics, of no great poetical merit, although suited to the gay and careless taste of the times. All that we have met with, of his prose, is a short piece, entitled “An Account of the rejoycing at the diet of Ratisbonne, performed by sir George Etherege, knight, residing therefrom his majesty of Great Britain; upon occasion of the birth of the prince of Wales. In a letter from himself.” Printed in the Savoy, 1688. How far beyond this or the next year he lived, the writers on our poets, who have spoken of him, have been, as in many other particulars of his life, so in the time when he died, very deficient. In Gildon’s short and imperfect account of him, it is said, that after the revolution he went for France to his master, and died there, or very soon after his arrival thence in England. But there was a report, that sir George came to an untimely death by an unlucky accident at Ratisbon; for, after having treated some company with a liberal entertainment at his house there, in which having perhaps taken his glass too freely, and being, through his great complaisance, too forward in waiting on some of his guests at their departure, flushed as he was, he tumbled down the stairs and broke his neck. Sir George had a brother, who lived and died at Westminster; he had been a great courtier, yet a man of such strict honour, that he was esteemed a reputation to the family. He had been twice married, and by his first wife had a son; a little man, of a brave spirit, who inherited the honourable principles of his father. He was a colonel in king William’s wars; was near him in one of the most dangerous battles in Flanders, probably it was the battle of Landen in 1693, when his majesty was wounded, 'and the colonel both lost his right eye, and received a contusion on his side. He was offered, in queen Anne’s reign, twenty-two hundred pounds for his commission, but refused to live at home in? peace when his country was at war. This colonel Ktherege died at Ealing in Middlesex, about the third or fourth year of king George I. and was buried in Kensington church, near the altar; where there is a tombstone over his vault, in which were also buried his wife, son, and sister. That son was graciously received at court by queen Anne; and, soon after his father returned from the wars in Flanders under the duke of Marlborough, she gave him an ensign’s commission, intending farther to promote him', in reward of his father’s service but he died a youth and the sister married Mr. Hill of Feversham in Kent but we hear not of any male issue surviving. The editors of the Biographia Dramatica observe, that, as a writer, sir George Etherege was certainly born a poet, and appears to have been possessed of a genius, the vivacity of which had littlecultivation; for there are no proofs of his having been a scholar. Though the “Comical Revenge” succeeded very well upon the stage, and met with general approbation for a considerable time, it is now justly laid aside on account of its immorality. This is the case, likewise, with regard to sir George’s other plays. Of the “She would if she could,” the critic Dennis says, that though it was esteemed by men of sense for the trueness of some of its characters, and the purity, freeness, and easy grace of its dialogue, yet, on its first appearance, it was barbarously treated by the audience. If the auditors were offended with the licentiousness of the comedy, their barbarity did them honour; but it is probable that, at that period, they were influenced by some other consideration. Exclusively of its loose tendency, the play is pronounced to be undoubtedly a very good one; and it was esteemed as one of the first rank at the time in which it was written. However, ShadwelPs encomium upon it will be judged to be too extravagant.

But the production of sir George Etherege which has been most applauded, and on which his reputation has been principally founded, is his “Man of Mode, or sir Fopling Flutter.” “This,” says the Biographia Dramatica, “is an admirable play. The characters in it are strongly marked, the plot agreeably conducted, and the dialogue truly polite and elegant. The character of Dorimant is, perhaps, the only completely fine gentleman that has ever yet been brought on the English stage; at the same time, that in that of sir Fopling may be traced the groundwork of almost all the Foppingtons and petit-maltres which appeared in the succeeding comedies of that period.” In another part of the Biographia Dramatica it is asserted, that “The Man of Mode” is, perhaps, the most elegant comedy, and contains more of the real manners of high life, than any one with which the English stage was ever adorned. That the play exhibits a spirited representation of what were then living characters is not denied; but, to the praises which are so generally and indiscriminately given of it, we must be permitted to oppose the censures of sir Richard Steele, in the sixty-fifth number of the Spectator.

, or Etheridge, or, as in Latin he writes himself, Edrycus, probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born at Thame in Oxfordshire, and admitted of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in 1534; of which he was made probationer fellow in 1539. In 1543 he was licensed to proceed in arts; and, two years after, admitted to read any of the books of Hippocrates’s aphorisms. At length, being esteemed an excellent Grecian, he was made the king’s professor of that language about 1553, and so continued till some time after Elizabeth came to the crown, when, on account of his joining in the persecution of the protestants in Mary’s reign, was forced to leave it. He practised medicine with great success in Oxford, where he mostly lived; and also took under his care the sons of many popish gentlemen, to be instructed in the several arts and sciences; among whom was William Gifford, afterwards archbishop of Rheims. He was reckoned a very sincere man, and adhered to the last to the catholic religion, though he suffered exceedingly by it. Wood tells us, that he was living an ancient man in 1588; but does not know when he died. He was a great mathematician, skilled in vocal and instrumental music, eminent for his knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, a poet, and, above all, a physician. There are musical compositions and Latin poems of his still extant in manuscript. In manuscript also he presented to queen Elizabeth, when she was at Oxford in 1566, “Acta Henrici Octavi, carmine Graeco.” He also turned the psalms into a short form of Hebrew verse; and translated the works of Justin Martyn into Latin. In 1588 was published by him in 8vo, “Hypomnemata quasdam in aliquot libros Pauli Æginetae, seu observationes medicamentorum qui hue aetate in usu sunt.” The antiquary Leland was his intimate friend, and in his life-time celebrated his praises in these lines:

, of Miletus, a philosopher of the Megaric school, who flourished about the 105th olympiad, or the year 360 B. C. was the disciple and successor of Euclid, and a strenuous opponent of Aristotle, whose writings and character he took every occasion of censuring and calumniating. He is most remarkable, however, for having introduced new subtleties into the art of disputation, several of which, though often mentioned as proofs of great ingenuity, deserve only to be remembered as examples of egregious trifling. Of these sophistical modes of reasoning, called by Aristotle Eristic syllogisms, the following may suffice: 1. Of the sophism, called from the example, The Lying: “if when you speak the truth, you say you lie, you lie; but you say you lie, when you speak the truth: therefore, in speaking the truth, you lie.” 2. The Occult; “Do you know your father? Yes. Do you know this man who is veiled? No. Then you do not know your father; for it is your father who is veiled.” 3. Sorites, “Is one grain a heap? No. Two grains? No. Three grains? No. Go on, adding one by one and, if one grain be not a heap, it will be impossible to say, what number of grains make a heap.” 4. The Horned. “You have what you have not lost; you have not lost horns; therefore you have horns.” In such high repute were these silly inventions for perplexing plain truth, that Chrysippus wrote six books upon the first of these sophisms; and Philetas, a Choan, died of a consumption which he contracted by the close study which he bestowed upon it.

, the celebrated mathematician, according to the account of Pappus and Proclus, was born at Alexandria, in Egypt, where he flourished and taught mathematics, with great applause, under the reign of Ptolemy Lagos, about 280 years before Christ. And here, from his time till the conquest of Alexandria by the Saracens, all the eminent mathematicians were either born, or studied; and it is to Euclid, and his scholars, we are beholden for Eratosthenes, Archimedes, Apollonius, Ptolemy, Theon, &c. &c. He reduced into regularity and order all the fundamental principles of pure mathematics, which had been delivered down by Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, and other mathematicians before him, and added many others of his own discovering: on which account it is said he was the first who reduced arithmetic and geometry into the form of a science. He likewise applied himself to the study of mixed mathematics, particularly to astronomy and optics. His works, as we learn from Pappus and Proclus, are the Elements, Data, Introduction to Harmony, Phenomena, Optics, Catoptrics, a Treatise of the Division of Superficies, Porisms, Loci ad Superficiem, Fallacies, and four books of Conies. The most celebrated of these, is the Elements of Geometry, first published at Basil, 1533, by Simon Grynaeus, of which there have been numberless editions, in all languages; and a fine edition of all his works was printed in 1703, by Dr. David Gregory, SaTilian professor of astronomy at Oxford, which is the most complete, and is illustrated by the notes of sir Henry Savile, and dissertations and discussions on the authenticity of the several pieces attributed to Euclid.

The Elements, as commonly published, consist of 15 books, of which the two last it is suspected are not Euclid’s, but a comment of Hypsicles of Alexandria, who lived 20Q years after Euclid. They are divided into three parts, viz. the Contemplation of Superficies, Numbers, and Solids the first 4 books treat of planes only the 5th of the proportions of magnitudes in general the 6th of the proportion of plane figures the 7th, 8th, and 9th give us the fundamental properties of numbers; the 10th contains the theory of commensurable and incommensurable lines and spaces; the llth, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th, treat of the doctrine of solids. There can be no doubt that, before Euclid, Elements of Qeometry were compiled by Hippocrates of Chios, Eudoxus, Leon, and many others, mentioned by Proclus in the beginning of his second book; for he affirms that Euclid new ordered many things in the Elements of Ludoxus, completed many things in those of Theatetus, and besides strengthened such propositions as before were too slightly, or but superficially established, with the most firm and convincing demonstrations.

Euclid, as a writer on music, has ever been held in the highest estimation by all men of science who have treated of harmonics, or the philosophy of sound. As Pythagoras was allowed by the Greeks to have been the first who found out musical ratios, by the division of a monochord, or single string, a discovery which tradition only had preserved, Euclid was the first who wrote upon the subject, and reduced these divisions to mathematical demonstration. His “Introduction to Harmonics,” which in some Mss. was attributed to Cleonidas, is in the Vatican copy given to Pappus; Meibomius, however, accounts for this, by supposing those copies to have been only two different ms editions of Euclid’s work, which had been revised, corrected, and restored from the corruptions incident to frequent transcription by Cleonidas and Pappus, whose names were, on that account, prefixed. It first appeared in print with a Latin version, in 1498, at Venice, under the title of “Cleonidae Harmonicum Introductorium:” who Cleonidas was, neither the editor, George Valla, nor any one else pretends to know. It was John Pena, a mathematician in the service of the king of France, who first published this work at Paris, under the name of Euclid, 1557. After this, it went through several editions with his other works.

His “Section of the Canon,” follows his “Introduction;” it went through the same hands and the same editions, and is me-ntioned by Porphyry, in his Commentary on Ptolemy, as the work of Euclid. This tract chiefly contains short and clear definitions of the several parts of Greek music, in which it is easy to see that mere melody was concerned; as he begins by telling us, that the science of harmonics considers the nature and use of melody, and consists of seven parts: sounds, intervals, genera, systems, keys, mutations, and melopceia; all which have been severally considered in the dissertation. Of all the writings upon ancient music, that are come down to us, this seems to be the most correct and compressed the rest are generally loose and diffused the authors either twisting and distorting every thing to a favourite system, or filling their books with metaphysical jargon, with Pythagoric dreams, and Platonic fancies, wholly foreign to music. But Euclid, in this little treatise, is like himself, close and clear; yet so mathematically short and dry, that he bestows not a syllable more upon the subject than is absolutely necessary. His object seems to have been the compressing into a scientific and elementary abridgment, the more diffused and speculative treatises of Aristoxenus.

History is silent as to the time of Euclid’s death, or his age. He is represented as a person of a courteous and agreeable behaviour, and in great esteem and familiarity with king Ptolemy; who once asking him, whether there was any shorter way of coming at geometry than by his Elements, Euclid, as Proclus testifies, made answer, that there was no royal way or path to geometry.

, brother of the celebrated historian Mezerai, was born at Rye in the diocese of Ses in 1601, and was educated, and studied for eighteen years in the congregation of the oratory, under the eyes of the cardinal de Berulle. This he quitted in 1643, to institute the congregation of the Eudists, or as it was called, “The congregation of Jesus and Mary.” His former brethren opposing the establishment of this society, Eudes concealed a part of his project, and confined his views to a house at Caen, for the purpose of bringing up priests, “but without any design,” said he, “to form anew institution,” and his scheme succeeded by means of this pious fraud. Eudes was reckoned a good preacher in his time, when the eloquence of the pulpit was in its ruder state; and, being followed on account of this talent, his congregation increased, principally in Normandy and Bretany. Eudes died at Caen, Aug. 19th, 1680, in the 79th year of his age; leaving behind him several works of the popish mystical kind, the principal of which are, 1. “Traite de la devotion et de l'office du coeur de la Vierge,” 1650, 12mo. 2. “LeContrat de Phomme avec Dieu,” 12mo. The congregation of the Eudists had had eight superior-generals at the time of the revolution.

She wrote several pieces in prose and verse of the latter sort, 1 An heroic poem, mentioned by Socrates, upon the victory gained by her husband Theodosius over the Persians. 2. A paraphrase of the eight first books of the Bible and, 3. A history of the martyrs Cyprian and Justina, in heroic metre likewise of the former kind, 4. A paraphrase upon the prophecies of Daniel and Zecharias, which, according to Photius, must rather be deemed a translation, and a strict one; for he says, that she adheres closely to the sacred text, without adding, diminishing, or changing any thing. Cave tells us also, that she finished and digested the Centones Homerici, or the life of Jesus Christ, in heroic verses, taken from Homer, which were begun by Pelagius, a patrician. This was printed under the title “Homerici centones, Virgiliani centones, Nonni paraphrasis evangelii Joannis,” Gr. & Lat. H. Stephanus, Io78, 16mo. It is also in the Bibl. Patrum.

, a Pythagorean philosopher, of Cnidus, a city of Caria in Asia Minor, flourished about 370 years before Christ. He learned geometry from Archytas, and afterwards travelled into Egypt to learn astronomy and other sciences. There he and Plato studied together, as Laertius informs us, for the space of thirteen years; and afterwards came to Athens, fraught with all sorts of knowledge, which they had imbibed from the priests. Here Eudoxus opened a school, which he supported with so much glory and renown, that even Plato, though his friend, is said to have envied him; he also composed elements of geometry, from whence Euclid liberally borrowed, as mentioned by Proclus. Cicero calls Eudoxus the greatest astronomer that had ever lived: and Petronius says, he spent the latter part of his life upon the top of a very high mountain, that he might contemplate the stars and the heavens with more convenience and less interruption: and we learn from Strabo, that there were some remains of hisi observatory at Cnidus, to be seen even in his time. None of his works are extant, but he is said by Fabricius (Bibl. GriEC. lib. hi. c. 5.) to have written upon music, and he gathers from Theon of Smyrna, p. 94, that Eudoxus was the first who expressed the ratios of concords by numbers, and who discovered that grave and acute sounds depend on the slow or quick vibrations of the sounding body. He died in the fifty-third year of his age.

, prince of Savoy, an illustrious general, was born in 1663, and descended from Carignan, one of the three branches of the house of Savoy. His father was Eugene Maurice, general of the Swiss and Grisons, governor of Champaigne in France, and earl of Soissons; his mother donna Olympia Mancini, neice to cardinal Mazarin. In 1670 he was committed to the tuition of a doctor of the Sorbonne; but his father dying before he was ten years of age, after the French king had given him the grant of an abbey as a step to a cardinal’s hat, and the government of Champaigne being given out of his family, occasioned an alteration in his intended profession; which was indeed by no means suitable to his genius, although he gave great and early hopes of proficiency in the belles lettres, and is said to have been particularly fond of Curtius and Cæsar. He was a youth of great spirit, and so jealous of the honour of his family, that when his mother was banished by the king’s order from the French court to the Low Countries, soon after her husband’s decease, he protested against the injustice of her banishment, and vowed eternal enmity to the authors and contrivers of it. After being for a time trained to the service of the church, for which he had no relish, he desired the king, who maintained him according to his quality, to give him some military employment. This, however, was denied him, sometimes on account of the weakness of his constitution, sometimes for want of a vacancy, or a war to employ the troops in. Apprehending from hence that he was not likely to be considered so much as he thought he deserved in France, and perceiving that he was involved in the disgrace of his mother, he resolved to retire to Vienna with one of his brothers, prince Philip, to whom the emperor’s ambassador had, in his master’s name, promised a regiment of horse. They were kindly received by the emperor; and Eugene presently became a very great favourite with his imperial majesty. He had in the mean time many flattering promises and invitations to return to France; but his fidelity to the emperor was unshaken, and he resolved to think no more of France, but to look on himself as a German, and to spend his life in the service of the house of Austria.

When these two brothers arrived in Germany, the Turks were descending upon the Imperialists, in order to make an irruption into the hereditary country. There prince Philip received his death’s wound by the fall of his horse, after he had gallantly behaved himself in a skirmish with the Turks, and left his command to his brother Eugene. This prince, in 1683, signalized himself at the raising of the siege of Vienna, where he made a great slaughter of the Turks, in the presence of John III. king of Poland, the elector of Bavaria, John George III. elector of Saxony, Charles V. duke of Lorrain, Frederic prince of Waldeck, Lewis William margrave of Baden, and many other great men, of whom he learned the art of war. After raising the siege of Vienna, it was resolved not to give the Turks time to recollect themselves. The project was laid to reduce the most important fortresses in Hungary: and the next year, 1684, he again distinguished himself at the sieges of Newhausel and Buda. He behaved so gallantly at the siege of Buda, that the duke of Lorrain wrote a letter in his commendation to the emperor. He was constantly in the trenches, and one of the first who entered the town sword in hand: and at their return to Vienna, when Newhausel was taken, the duke presented him to the emperor in these words, “May it please your majesty, this young Savoyard will some time or other be the greatest captain of the age:” which prophecy, it is universally agreed, was afterwards fulfilled. His imperial majesty caressed him upon all occasions, and had that firm and wellgrounded confidence in his merit, that when Buda was taken, and the army gone into winter quarters, he invested him with the chief command of his troops, during the absence of the supreme officers. Thus he rose daily in the favour of the court of Vienna; and every campaign was only a new step in his advancement to the first military offices.

In 1688 Belgrade was besieged and taken; where Eugene, who was always among the foremost in any onset, received a cut through his helmet by a sabre, but repaid the blow by laying the Turk who gave it him dead at his feet. Lewis XIV. had now invaded the empire with a powerful army, and declared war against the emperor; which caused a great alteration in the affairs of Vienna, and forced that court to form a new plan for the campaign of 1689. As the emperor was more concerned to defend himself against the French than the Turks, the dukes of Lorrain and Bavaria were appointed to command upon the Rhine, and prince Lewis of Baden in Hungary. The duke of Savoy having informed the court of Vienna of the danger he was in by the approach of French troops, the imperial ministers promised themselves great advantages from the war in Italy, on the account of the powerful diversion that his royal highness might be able to make there in favour of the empire. Eugene was intrusted by the court of Vienna to manage this expedition; and was thought the most proper person, not only because he was related to the duke of Savoy, but because of the vast reputation he had lately acquired in Hungary, which rendered him yet more acceptable to his royal highness, who received him with all the marks of sincere friendship. Accordingly, he took upon him the command of the emperor’s forces in Italy, and blocked up Mantua, which had received a French garrison, of whom he killed above 500 in several sallies: so that during 1691 and 1692 they never durst attempt the least excursion. In 1692, at his return from Vienna, whither he had been to give the emperor an account of the last campaign, he entered Dauphiny. The inhabitants of Gap brought him the keys of the town, and all the neighbouring country submitted to contribution: but the great designs he had formed soon vanished; for the Spaniards would stay no longer in the army, nor keep the post of Guillestre, though Eugene, whom they very much esteemed, endeavoured to make them change their resolution. This miscarriage is also partly attributed to the sickness of the duke of Savoy, who was persuaded to make a will at this time, wherein he declared Eugene administrator, or regent, during the minority of his successor.

In 1696, after the separate peace between France and Savoy, at which Eugene was extremely dissatisfied, the French king made very large offers to draw him over to his interest. He offered him particularly his father’s government of Champaigne, the dignity of a marshal of France, and an annual pension of 2000 pistoles: but nothing was capable of shaking his fidelity to the emperor, who afterwards made him commander of his army in Hungary, preferably to many older generals. In 1697, being commander in chief of the imperial army in Hungary, he gave the Turks the greatest blow they had ever received in the whole war, and gained a complete victory over them at Zenta, not far from Peterwaradin. The grand seignior came to command his armies in person, and lay encamped on both sides [of] the Thiesse, having laid a bridge over the river. Eugene marched up to him, and attacked his camp on the west side of the river; and, after a short dispute, broke in, made himself master of it, and forced all who lay on that side over the river, whither he followed them, and gave them a total defeat. In this action the Germans had no more than 430 men killed, and 1583 wounded: but of the Turks 22,000 were killed in the field, among whom were the grand visier, and the aga of the janisaries; 10 or 12,000 were drowned in the Thiesse, and 6000 wounded and taken prisoners, among whom were 27 pashas, and several agas. The Imperialists took 9000 laden waggons, after 3000 had been thrown into the river; the grand seignior’s tent, valued at 40,000 livres, with all the rest belonging to his army; 17,000 oxen, 6000 camels, all heavy laden; 7000 horses, 100 heavy cannon, and 70 field-pieces, besides 500 drums, and as many colours, 707 horses tails, 83 other standards, a scymitar of inestimable value, the sultan’s great seal, his coach drawn by eight horses, wherein were ten of the women of his seraglio; 74 pair of silver kettle-drums, all the grand seignior’s papers, and all the money that was to pay the army, which came to above 3,000,000 livres; and it is said, that the whole booty amounted to several millions of pounds sterling.

The queen of England now concerted measures with the emperor for declaring and carrying on a war with France. Her Britannic majesty highly resented the indignity offered to herself, and the wrong done the house of Austria, by the duke of Anjou’s usurping the crown of Spain. She acted, therefore, to preserve the liberty and balance of Europe, to pull down the exorbitant power of France, and at the same time to revenge the affront offered her, by the king of France’s owning the pretended prince of Wales for king of her dominions. Eugene was made president of the council of war by the emperor, and all the world approved his choice; as indeed they well might, since this prince no sooner entered on the execution of his office than affairs took quite a new turn. The nature and limits of our plan will not suffer us to enlarge upon the many memorable actions which were performed by this great statesman and soldier during the course of this war, which proved so fatal to the glory of Louis XIV. The battles of Schellenburg, Blenheim, Turin, &c. are so particularly related in almost every history, that we shall not insist upon them here. In 1710 the enemies of Eugene, who had vowed his destruction, sent him a letter, with a paper inclosed, which was poisoned to such a degree, that it made his highness, with two or three more who did but handle it, ready to swoon; and killed a dog immediately, upon his swallowing it after it was greased. The next year, 1711, in April, the emperor Joseph died of the small-pox; when Eugene marched into Germany, to secure the election of his brother to the throne. The same year, the grand visier sent one of his agas in embassy to his highness, who gave him a very splendid audience at Vienna, and received from him a letter written with the grand visier’s own hand, wherein he styles his highness “the great pattern of Christian princes, president of the Aulic council of war to the emperor of the Romans, the most renowned and most excellent among the Christian princes, first peer among all the nations that believe in Christ, and best beloved visier of the emperor of the Romans.”

, catholic bishop of Carthage, was elected to that see in the year 480 or 481, in the reign of Hunneric, and at the request of the emperor Zeno, and for some time presided over that diocese without disturbance. In the year 483, however, Hunneric issued a proclamation, ordering all the bishops who believed in the trinitarian doctrine, to appear at Carthage, and hold a conference with the Arian bishops. The catholics at first remonstrated against obeying this order without the approbation of the transmarine bishops. The meeting, however, having taken place, the first debates were respecting the title of Catholics, by which Eugenius and his party were distinguished, and the title of Patriarch assumed by Cyrita, the head of the Arian bishops. Eugenics then presented a confession of faith, or statement of his principles, and offered to defend them in argument with the Arians; but Hunneric, who was himself an Arian, not only refused to hear him, but banished all the catholic bishops, and among them Eugenius, who was sentenced to the desarts in the province of Tripoly, where he remained until the death of Hunneric in the year 484. During the reign of Gondebald, he continued on his diocese in peace; but Thrasamund, the next king, banished him again, into that part of Gaul where Alaricus, king of the Visigoths, then reigned. Eugenius retired to Albi, where he was unmolested during the remainder of his life. He died at Viance in that territory, Sept. 6, in the year 505. There are some small discourses of his extant, in defence of the catholic faith, as, “Expositio fidei Catholici;” “Apologeticus pro fide;” “Altercatio cum Arianis,” &c.

, a very eminent mathematician, was born at Basil, on the 14th of April, 1707: he was the son of Paul Euler and of Margaret Brucker (of a family illustrious in literature), and spent the first year of his life at the village of Richen, of which place his father was protestant minister. Being intended for the church, his father, who had himself studied under James Bernoulli!, taught him mathematics, as a ground-work of his other studies, or at least a noble and useful secondary occupation. But Euler, assisted and perhaps secretly encouraged by John Bernoulli, who easily discovered that he would be the greatest scholar he should ever educate, soon declared his intention of devoting his life to that pursuit. This intention the wise father did not thwart, but the son did not so blindly adhere to it, as not to connect with it a more than common improvement in every other kind of useful learn-, ing, insomuch that in his latter days men often wondered how with such a superiority in one branch, he could have been so near to eminence in all the rest. Upon the foundation of the academy of sciences at St. Petersburgh, in, 1723, by Catherine I. the two younger Bernouillis, NichoJas and Daniel, had gone thither, promising, when they set out, to endeavour to procure Euler a place in it: they accordingly wrote to him soon after, to apply his mathetics to physiology, which he did, and studied under the best naturalists at Basil, but at the same time, i. e. in 1727, published a dissertation on the nature and propagation of sound; and an answer to the question on the masting of ships, which the academy of sciences at Paris judged worthy of the accessit. Soon after this, he was called to St. Petersburgh, and declared adjutant to the mathematical class in the academy, a class, in which, from the circumstances of the times (Newton, Leibnitz, and so many other eminent scholars being just dead), no easy laurels were to be gathered. Nature, however, who had organized so many mathematical heads at one time, was not yet tired of her miracles and she added Euler to the number. He indeed was much wanted the science of the calculus integralis, hardly come out of the hands of its creators, was still too near the stage of its infancy not to want to be made more perfect. Mechanics, dynamics, and especially hydrodynamics, and the science of the motion of the heavenly bodies, felt the imperfection. The application of the differential calculus, to them, had been sufficiently successful; but there were difficulties whenever it was necessary to go from the fluxional quantity to the fluent. With regard to the nature and properties of numbers, the writings of Fermat (who had been so successful in them), and together with these all his profound researches, were lost. Engineering and navigation were reduced to vague principles, and were founded on a heap of often contradictory observations, rather than a regular theory. The irregularities in the motions of the celestial bodies, and especially the complication of forces whitfh influence that of the moon, were still the disgrace of geometers. Practical astronomy had jet to wrestle with the imperfection of telescopes, insomuch, that it could hardly be said that any rule for making them existed. Euler turned his eyes to all these objects he perfected the calculus integralis he was the inventor of a new kind of calculus, that of sines he simplified analytical operations and, aided by these powerful help-mates, and the astonishing facility with which he knew how to subdue expressions the most intractable, he threw a new light on all the branches of the mathematics. But at Catherine’s death the academy was threatened with extinction, by men who knew not the connection which arts and sciences have with the happiness of a people. Euler was offered and accepted a lieutenancy on board one of the empress’s ships, with the promise of speedy advancement. Luckily things changed, and the learned captain again found his own element, and was named Professor of Natural Philosophy in 1733, in the room of his friend John Bernouilli. The number of memoirs which Euler produced, prior to this period, is astonishing, but what he did in 1735 is almost incredible, An important calculation was to be made, without loss of time; the other academicians had demanded some months to do it. Euler asked three days—in three days he did it; but the fatigne threw him into a fever, and the fever left him not without the loss of an eye, an admonition which would have made an ordinary man more sparing of the other. The great revolution, produced by the discovery of fluxions, had entirely changed the face of mechanics; still, however, there was no complete work on the science of motion, two or three only excepted, of which Euler felt the insufficiency. He saw, with pain, that the best works on the subject, viz. “Newton’s Principia,” and “Herman’s Phoronomia,” concealed the method by which these great men had come at so many wonderful discoveries, under a synthetic veil. In order to lift this up, Euler employed all the resources of that analysis which had served him so well on so many other occasions; and thus uniting his own discoveries to those of other geometers, had them published by the academy in 1736. To say that clearness, precision, and order, are the characters of this work, would be barely to say, that it is, what without these qualities no work can be, classical of its kind. It placed Euler in the rank of the first geometricians then existing, and this at a time when John Bernouilli was still living. Such labours demanded some relaxation; the only one which Euler admitted was music, but even to this he could not go without the spirit of geometry with him. They produced together the essay on a new theory of music, which was published in 1739, but not very well received, probably, because it contains too much geometry for a musician, and too much music for a geometrician. Independently, however, of the theory, which is built on Pythagorean principles, there are many things in it which may be of service, both to composers, and to makers of instruments. The doctrine, likewise, of the genera and the modes of music is here cleared up with all the clearness and precision which mark the works of Euler. Dr. Burney remarks, that upon the whole, Euler seems not to have invented much in this treatise; and to have done little more than arrange and methodize former discoveries in a scientific and geometric manner. He may, indeed, not have known what antecedent writers had discovered before; and though not the first, yet to have imagined himself an inventor. In 1740, his genius was again called forth by the academy of Paris (who, in 1738, had adjudged the prize to his paper on the nature and properties of fire) to discuss the nature of the tides, an important question, which demanded a prodigious extent of calculations, aud an entire new system of the world. This prize Euler did not gain alone; but he divided it with Maclaurin and D. Bernouilli, forming with them a triumvirate of candidates, which the realms of science had not often beheld. The agreement of the several memoirs of Euler and Bernouilli, on this occasion, is very remarkable. Though the one philosopher had set out on the principle of admitting vortices, which the other rejected, they not only arrived at the same end of the journey, but met several times on the road; for instance, in the determination of the tides under the frozen zone. Philosophy, indeed, led these two great men by different paths; Bernouilli, who had more patience than his friend, sanctioned every physical hypothesis he was obliged to make, by painful and laborious experiment. These Euler’s impetuous genius scorned; and, though his natural sagacity did not always supply the loss, he made amends by his superiority in analysis, as often as there was any occasion to simplify expressions, to adapt them to practice, and to recognize, by final formulae, the nature of the result. In 1741, Euler received some very advantageous propositions from Frederic the Second (who had just ascended the Prussian throne), to go and assist him in forming an academy of sciences, out of the wrecks of the Royal Society founded by Leibnitz. With these offers the tottering state of the St. Petersburgh academy, under the regency, made it necessary for the philosopher to comply. He accordingly illumined the last volume of the “Melanges de Berlin,” with five essays, which are, perhaps, the best things in it, and contributed largely to the academical volumes, the first of which was published in 1744. No part of his multifarious labours is, perhaps, a more wonderful proof of the extensiveness and facility of his genius, than what he executed at Berlin, at a time when he contrived also that the Petersburgh acts should not suffer from the loss of him. In 1744, Euler published a complete treatise of isoperimetrical curves. The same year beheld the theory of the motions of tb.e planets and comets; the well-known theory of magnetism, which gained the Paris prize; and the much-amended translation of Robins’ s “Treatise on Gunnery.” In 1746, his “Theory of Light and Colours” overturned Newton’s “System of Emanations;” as did another work, at that time triumphant, the “Monads of Wolfe and Leibnitz.” Navigation was now the only branch of useful knowledge, for which the labours of analysis and geometry had done nothing. The hydrographical part alone, and that which relates to the direction of the course of ships, had been treated by geometricians conjointly with nautical astronomy. Euler was the first who conceived and executed the project of making this a complete science. A memoir on the motion of floating bodies, communicated to the academy of St. Petersburgh, in 1735, by M. le Croix, first gave him this idea. His researches on the equilibrium of ships furnished him with the means of bringing the stability to a determined measure. His success encouraged him to go on, and produced the great work which the academy published in 1749, in which we find, in systematic order, the most sublime notions on the theory of the equilibrium and mo. tion of floating bodies, and on the resistance of fluids. This was followed by a second part, which left nothing to be desired on the subject, except the turning it into a language easy of access, and divesting it of the calculations which prevented its being of general use. Accordingly in 1773, from a conversation with admiral Knowles, and other assistance, out of the “Scientia Navalis,” 2 vols. 4to, was produced, the “Theorie complette de la Construction et de la Manoeuvre des Vaisseaux.” This work was instantly translated into all languages, and the author received a present of 6000 livres from the French king: he had before had 300l. from the English parliament, for the theorems, by the assistance of which Meyer made his lunar tables . And now it was time to collect into one systematical and continued work, all the important discoveries on the infinitesimal analysis, which Euler had been making for thirty years, and which lay dispersed in the memoirs of the different academies. This, accordingly, the professor undertook; but he prepared the way by an elementary work, containing all the previous requisites for this study. This is called “An Introduction to the analysis of Infinitesimals,” and is a work in which the author has exhausted all the doctrine of fractions, whether algebraical or transcendental, by shewing their transformation, their resolution, and their developernent. This introduction was soon, followed by the author’s several lessons on the “calculus integralis, and differentialis.” Having engaged himself to count Orlow, to furnish the academy with papers sufficient to fill their volumes for twenty years after his death, the philosopher is likely to keep his word, having presented seventy papers, through Mr. Golofkin, in the course of his life, and left two hundred and fifty more behind him; nor is there one of these that does not contain a discovery, or something that may lead to one. The most ancient of these memoirs form the collection then published, under the title of “Opuscula Analytica.” Such were Euler’s labours, and these his titles to immortality His memory shall endure till science herself is no more! Few men of letters have written so much as Euler no geometrician, has ever embraced so many objects at one time or has equalled him, either in the variety or magnitude of his discoveries. When we reflect on the good such men do their fellow-creatures, we cannot help indulging a wish (vain, alas as it is) for their illustrious course to be prolonged beyond the term allotted to mankind. Euler’s, though it has had an end, was very long and very honourable; and it affords us some consolation for his loss, to think that he enjoyed it exempt from the ordinary consequences of extraordinary application, and that his last labours abounded in proofs of that vigour of understanding which marked his early days, and which he preserved to his end. Some swimmings in the head, which seized him on the first days of September, 1783, did not prevent his laying hold of a few facts, which reached him through the channel of the public papers, to calculate the motions of the aerostatical globes; and he even compassed a very difficult integration, in which the calculation had engaged him . But the decree was gone forth: on the 7th of September he talked with Mr. Lexell, who had come to dine with him, of the new planet, and discoursed with him upon other subjects, with his usual penetration. He was playing with one of his grand-children at tea-time, when he was seized with an apoplectic fit. “I am dying,” said he, before he lost his senses; and he ended his glorious life a few hours after, aged seventy-six years, five months, and three days. His latter days were tranquil and serene. A few infirmities excepted, which are the inevitable lot of an advanced age, he enjoyed a share of health which allowed him to give little time to repose. Euler possessed to a great degree what is commonly called erudition he had read all the Latin classics was perfect master of ancient mathematical literature and had the history of all ages, and all nations, even to the minutest facts, ever present to his mind. Besides this, he knew much more of physic, botany, and chemistry, than could be expected from any man who had not made these sciences his peculiar occupation. “I have seen,” says his biographer, Mr. Fuss, “strangers go from him with a kind of surprise mixed with admiration; they could not conceive how a man, who for half a century had seemed taken up in making and publishing discoveries in natural philosophy and mathematics, could have found means to preserve so much knowledge that seemed useless to himself, and foreign to the studies in which he was engaged. This was the effect of a happy memory, that lost nothing of what had ever been entrusted to it nor was it a wonder that the man who was able to repeat the whole Æneis, and to point out to his hearers the first and last verses of every page of his own edition of it, should not have lost what he had learned, at an age when the impressions made upon us are the strongest. Nothing can equal the ease with which, without expressing the least degree of ill-humour, he could quit his abstruse meditations, and give himself up to the general amusements of society. The art of not appearing wise above one’s fellows, of descending to the level of those with whom one lives, is too rare in these days not to make it a merit in Euler to have possessed it. A temper ever equal, a natural and easy chearfulness, a species of satirical wit, tempered with urbane humanity, the art of telling a story archly, and with simplicity, made his conversation generally sought. The great fund of vivacity which he had at all times possessed, and without which, indeed, the activity we have just been admiring could not have existed, carried him sometimes away, and he was apt to grow warm, but his anger left him as quickly as it came on, and there never has existed a man to whom he bore malice. He possessed a precious fund of rectitude and probity. The sworn enemy of injustice, whenever or by whomsoever committed, he used to censure and attack it, without the least attention to the rank or riches of the offender. Recent examples of this are in the recollection of all who hear me.” As he was filled with respect for religion, his piety was sincere, and his devotion full of fervour. He went through all his Christian duties with the greatest attention. Euler loved all mankind, and if he ever felt a motion of indignation, it was against the enemy of religion, particularly against the declared apostles of infidelity. He was of a very religious turn of mind. He published a New Demonstration of the Existence of God, and of the Spirituality of the Soul, which last has been admitted into several divinity schools as a standard book. With scrupulous exactness he adhered to the religion of his country, that of Calvinism, and, fortified by its principles, he was a good husband, a good father, a good friend, a good citizen, a good member of private society.

, archbishop of Toledo in the ninth century, was of an ancient Christian family of Cordova. In his youth he joined the community of ecclesiastics of St. Zoilus, then in the monastery of Cutelar, where he became intimate with Alvarus. In the year 844 he travelled into Navarre, and after his return to Cordova, in the year 850, he was imprisoned, under the reign of Abderamus, with some other Christians, on account of his religion. From this, however, he appears to have been released, and continued to exhort the Christians to maintain their faith at the risk of their lives. Having concealed a young Christian female named Leocritia, whom her Mahometan parents would have forced to apostatize, he was apprehended with her, and both were condemned to be beheaded, which sentence was executed in the year 859. This was soon after his appointment to the archbishopric of Toledo, to which, however, he was never consecrated. He wrote “Memoriale Sanctorum,” an account of the martyrdom of the Christians who had suffered before him in Cordova and afterwards he wrote an apology or defence of the same martyrs. These and his other writings are inserted in the Bibl. Patrum, vol. XV. and were printed separately by Morales in 1554, and by Poncius Leo in 1574.

, a celebrated orator of the fourth century, was a Greek by family, as his name imports, but was born at Autun, as he himself informs us in the fine panegyrie which he spoke at Treves in the year 309, in the presence of Constantine the Great. In the year 311 he again delivered an oration before that prince at Treves, as spokesman for the inhabitants of Autun, whom Constantine had honoured with a visit, and on whose city he had bestowed marks of liberality and favour. Eumenius long taught rhetoric in that city, and was highly esteemed by Constantine, as he had before been by Constantius Chlorus, the emperor’s father, who died in the year 306. Eumenius appeared to most advantage in the oration which he delivered before Rictiovarus, or Riccius Varus, the prefect of Lyons, in favour of the public schools for the young Gauls, of which he himself had the care. They had been destroyed by the incursions of some rebels, and Eumenius, in order to their re-establishment, offered the whole of his salary, which is said to have amounted to 600,000 sesterces, or more than 3000l. of our money; but this appears to have included his salary as imperial secretary, an office which he also held. All that remain of his works are printed in the “Panegyrici veteres.” His style indicates the declension of pure Latinity.

Eunomius wrote many works; and his writings were so highly esteemed by his followers, that they thought their authority preferable to that of the gospels. The greatest part of them are lost: there is, however, besides two or three small pieces, “a confession of his faith” still remaining, which Cave took from a ms. in archbp. Tenison’s library, and inserted into his “Historia Literaria,” and Whiston afterwards published it in his “Primitive Christianity revived.” The substance of his opinions is, “There is one. God, uncreate and without beginning; who has nothing existing before him for nothing can exist before what is uncreate nor with him, for what is uncreate must be one; nor in him, for God is a simple and uncompounded being. This one, simple and eternal being, is God the creator and ordainer of all things: first indeed, and principally of his only begotten Son, and then through him of all other things. For God begot, created, -and made the Son only, by his own direct operation and power, before all things and every other creature; not producing however any other being like himself, nor imparting any of his own proper substance to the Son: for God is immortal, uniform, indivisible, and therefore cannot communicate any part of his own proper substance to another. He alone is unbegotten; and it is impossible that any other being should be formed of an unbegotten substance. He did not use his own substance in begetting the Son, but his will only; nor did he beget him in the likeness of his substance, but according to his own good pleasure. He then created the Holy Spirit, the first and greatest of all spirits by his own power indeed and operation mediately, yet by the immediate power and operation of the Son. After the Holy Spirit, he created all other things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, corporeal and incorporeal, mediately by himself, by the power and operation of the Son, &c. &c.”

, the son of Polymnestus of Chalcis in Fubcca, a Greek poet and historian, was born, according to Suidas, in the 26th olympiad, at the time when Pyrrhns was defeated by the Romans, which was in the third year of that olympiad, or B. C. 274. Although his person was not captivating, he is said to have been beloved by Nicia, the wife of Alexander the king of his country. Towards the latter end of his life, he grew rich, and became librarian to Antiochus the Great, king of Syria, at the time of whose accession he was above fifty years of age. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote in heroic verse, some few fragments of which are still extant. Cicero speaks of his compositions as obscure: but he was highly esteemed by the emperor Tiberius, who imitated his style, and placed statues of him in the libraries of Rome. There was also another Euphphoron, a son of Æschylus, who gained prizes at Athens for some posthumous tragedies of his father’s; and wrote a few himself; and a third, author of some Greek epigrams in the Authologia, who flourished in the 126th olympiad.

, a heretic of the second century, was the founder of the sect of Ophites or Serpentarians, one of whose dogmas was, “that the serpent by which our first parents were deceived, was either Christ himself or Sophia (wisdom) concealed under that form,” for which reason they paid a kind of divine honours to certain serpents kept for that purpose. In most points he adhered to the Oriental or Gnostic philosophy, of two opposite principles with the Æons, and other dreams of those sects. Origen did not consider the disciples of Euphrates as Christians, but as calumniators of Jesus Christ; but Dr. Lardner, in their defence, has proved that they believed in Jesus, as an excellent man, and the true Messiah.

, a celebrated tragic poet, the contemporary and rival of Sophocles, was born of a creditable Athenian family; especially on his mother Clito’s side, whom Suidas reports to have been nobly descended, though Aristophanes in jest calls her a cabbage-seller, and Valerius Maximus has recorded it in earnest. He was born in the island Salamis, whither his father and mother had fled, with a great many other eminent families of Athens, upon the formidable invasion of Greece by Xerxes: and his birth is supposed to have happened in the first year of the 75th olympiad, 480 years before Christ. His name is supposed to have been formed from the Euripus, or narrow sea, in which the battle of Salamis was fought, and the Persians defeated. It is said, that while his mother was with child, her husband Mnesarchus consulted the oracle of Apollo, to know what he might hope for; and that he received in answer, that the child who should be born to him would reach the summit of glory, and gain the honour of the sacred garland. Mnesarchus merely interpreting this promise of the oracle, that his son should win the prize in the Olympic games, took care to educate him in the same manner with those whom the Greeks designed for athletae or wrestlers: but Euripides, though he made so good a progress in these feats of the body, as to gain the crown at the Athenian sports in honour of Ceres and Theseus, had always a more laudable ambition: and therefore, while his father was labouring to have him perfect in the paltcstra, became a constant auditor of Anaxagoras in philosophy, and Prodicus in rhetoric; and diverted his leisure hours by studying painting, which some will have to have been at first his profession. It is not probable, that Euripides learnt morality of Socrates, as Gellius reports: Socrates was ten or twelve years younger than Euripides, and therefore is more likely to have profited by him; but it is certain that fchey were friends, and Socrates is thought to have been consulted by him in the composition of his dramas. Socrates very rarely frequented the theatre, except when the pieces of Euripides were represented. In the character of Palamedes, Euripides is supposed to have delineated that of his friend, and some verses are quoted addressing the Greeks as having slain the best and wisest of thir nation, which the audience are said to have applied to the fate of Socrates, and to have burst into tears at the recollection of their crime. This, however, seems rather to savour of conjecture, and if the Athenians were ever thus affected, it must have been at some representation of the play subsequent to the death of Socrates, who survived Euripides some years, and therefore, in the character of Palamedes could have only alluded to his death, as the probable result of the jealousy and rashness of the Athenians.

It was almost impossible for two great poets, such as Sophocles and Euripides, who were contemporary, and aspired to the same glory, to love one another, or to continue long in friendship; and Athenseus relates several particulars of their enmity, which are no way honourable to them. Yet Sophocles discovered a great esteem for Euripides, when he heard of his death, and caused a tragedy to be represented, in which he himself appeared in a mourning habit, and made his actors take off their crowns. Aristophanes took great pleasure in ridiculing Euripides in his comedies, which perhaps might give him more uneasiness than his quarrel with Sophocles.

About a year after the Sicilian defeat, Euripides left Athens, and went to the Macedonian court, to which king Archelaus, who was fond of learned men, invited them by acts of munificence, gave them a gracious reception, and often raised them to very high honours. Euripides, if Solinus may be credited, he made his prime minister. Kpthing can, be a more express proof of the high esteem, Archelaus had for him, than his resenting some personal insults of one Decamnichus offered to Euripides. Our poet was seventy-two years of age when he went to that court, and had passed but few years there, when an unhappy accident concluded his life. He was walking in a wood, and, according to his usual manner, in deep meditation; when unfortunately meeting with Archelaus’s hounds, he was by them torn to pieces. Every account gives him the same end, though it differs from the rest in some minute circumstances. Some indeed relate that he was pulled to pieces by women, to revenge the honour of their sex; but this is a fable, copied from that of Orpheus, who is said to have been destroyed by Bacchanals. It is not certain, whether his death happened by chance, or through envy of some of the courtiers. The anthor of an epigram in the Anthology denies all these accounts, and ascribes his death to a decay of nature. Archelaus, however, buried him with great magnificence; and not contented with solemnizing his funeral obsequies, he also cut his hair, and assumed all the marks of grief. The Athenians were so moved with his death, that the whole city went into mourning; and one of his friends, named Philemon, declared that, could he be persuaded that the dead enjoy a sense of things, he would hang himself, in order to be with Euripides. The Athenians also sent ambassadors to Macedonia, to request of Archelaus that his body might be removed to his native country; but the king refused their demand, and erected in memory of the poet a noble monument in the vicinity of Pella, his chief city. Disappointed of this, the Athenians testified their respect for Euripides by a cenotaph on the road leading from the city to the Pirjcus. Thucydides the historian is said to have written an epitaph on him, to this purpose “All Greece is the monument of Euripides the Macedonian land possesses his bones, for there he reached the boundary of his life. His country is Athens, the Greece of Greece. Having afforded general delight by his muse, he enjoys the recompense of general praise.” That he was the friend of Socrates, may be thought a circumstance which strongly testifies the virtues of his private character. He seems not to have possessed the social qualities which distinguished his rival Sophocles. Both Euripides and his fellow-disciple Pericles are said to have imitated the austere manners of their master Auaxagoras. An ancient noet, Alexander Ætolus, quoted by Gellius, says of him, that he was morose in social intercourse, averse from laughter, and even during the festivity of the banquet, ignorant how to promote hilarity; but that whatever he wrote he tempered with the sweetness of honey, and the charms of the Sirens. He has been charged with a professed antipathy to the fair sex. This should seem to be contradicted by his having been twice married; but it appears that he was unhappily married in both instances, and may from his own experience have contracted some degree of prejudice against the sex in general. Yet although he seems eager to take every opportunity of uttering a bitter or malignant sentiment against women, Sophocles is said to have observed, that the hatred which he expressed against them was confined to the stage. And even there our countryman, Barnes, observes that if he has described some females with all the vices incident to human nature, yet he has delineated many others with all the virtues that can adorn their sex. He was near seventy-five years old when he died; and, notwithstanding some aspersions recorded by Athenaeus, he was, according to the best accounts, a man of great gravity and severity in his conduct, and regardless of pleasures.

The earliest edition of any part of the works of Euripides was printed at Florence, about the end of the fifteenth century. It is a small volume in 4to, printed in capital Jetters, and containing only the Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, and Andromache. This was followed by the princeps or Aldine edition, Venice, 1503, 8vo, containing eighteen tragedies, but not taken from very good manuscripts. Three editions, printed at Basil by Hervagius, 1537, 1544, and 1551, 8vo, were chiefly taken from the Aldine copy. To the last is annexed the Electra, first published by P. Victorius, at Florence, 1545. The edition of Oporinus, Basil, 1562, fol. contains the nineteen tragedies, with the Latin version of Stiblinus, and the notes of Brodaeus on several of the tragedies. A small edition was published by Canter, at Antwerp, 1571, 12mo, the Qreek only, which is correct, and was the basis of several of the subsequent editions. This edition was reprinted at Heidelberg, 1497, 2 vols. 8vo, with a Latin version, and the commencement of the imperfect play (the Danae) found in a ms. of the Palatine library. The notes of Æmilias Portus, printed separately, are frequently annexed to it. Joshua Barnes’s magnificent edition appeared at Cambridge, 1694, and still maintains considerable estimation; but there is no editor to whom Euripides is more indebted than to Dr. Musgrave, whose edition was printed at Oxford, 1778, 4 vota 4to. Beck’s edition, Leipsic, 1778 1788, 3 vols. 4to, contains a reprint of that of Barnes, with a collation of Musgrave’s edition, and his notes. An account of the editions of the separate plays may be seen in our authorities. By the laudable labours of Mr. Wodhull and Mr. Potter, the English language can now boast of two good poetical translations of Euripides.

And Oldmixon, in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” p. 413, is not sparing of his reflexions on the poet and his patron. His censures, however, are plainly those of a disappointed competitor, and perhaps great part of the ridicule, which has been thrown on Eusden, may arise from his succeeding so ingenious a poet as Rowe. That he was no inconsiderable versifier, the poems he has left will evince; and, as his moral character appears to have been respectable, the duke acted a generous part in providing for a man who had conferred an obligation on him. The first-rate poets were either of principles very different from the government, or thought themselves too distinguished to undergo the drudgery of an annual ode. Eusden, however, seems to have been but little known before his preferment, if we judge by the manner in whieh he is mentioned in the duke of Buckingham’s “Session of the Poets:”

Eusden has been mentioned among the writers of the Spectators and Guardians, but only one or two trifles can be attributed to him on good authority. Gray, in a letter to Mason, says that Eusden set out well in life, but afterwards turned out a drunkard, and besotted his faculties away. He died at his rectory at Coningsby, Lincolnshire, the 27th of September, 1730; and left behind him in ms. a translation of the works of Tasso, with a life of that poet, Some of his best poems may be seen in Nichols’s “Select” Collection."

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian, surnamed Pamphilus, from his friendship with Pamphilus the Martyr, was born in Palestine, about A. D. 267. Cave thinks it probable, that he was born at Coesarea; but we have no account of his parents, or his masters. He tells us himself, that he was educated in Palestine, and saw Constantine there, while he travelled through that country in the retinue of Diocletian. He was ordained priest by Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, where he contracted an intimacy with Pamphilus, an eminent presbyter of that church. During the persecution under Diocletian, he exhorted the Christians to suffer resolutely for the faith of Christ; and particularly assisted his friend Pamphilus, who suffered martyrdom in the year 309, after two years imprisonment. In the time of the same persecution he went to Tyre, where he was ah eye-witness of the glorious combats of the five Egyptian martyrs. He was likewise in Egypt and at Thebais, where he saw the admirable constancy of many martyrs of both sexes, and was himself imprisoned. He has been reproached with having offered incense to idols in this persecution, in order to free himself from prison. This imputation was fixed upon him by Potomon, bishop of Heraclea, at the council of Tyre. Epiphanius informs us that Potomon, seeing Eusebius sitting in the council, cried out, “Is it fit, Eusebius, that you should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judged by you Who can bear such things as these Tell me, were not you in prison with me during the time of the persecution I lost an eye in defence of the truth but you are maimed in no part of your body, nor did you suffer martyrdom, but are whole and alive. By what means did you escape out of prison, unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the detestable thing, and perhaps have done it” Epiphanius adds, that Eusebius, hearing this, rose and broke the assembly, saying, “If, when you are out of your own country, you say such things against us, it is certain that your accusers must be in the right: for, if you exercise your tyranny here, you will do it with much more assurance in your own country.” Valesius observes, from the above-cited passage of Epiphanius, that those persons are mistaken, who relate that Eusebius had sacrificed to idols, and that it was openly objected to him in the council of Tyre; since Potomon did not charge him with it, but only grounded a suspicion on his being dismissed safe and whole. Besides, as Cave very properly remarks, had he really sacrificed, the discipline of the church was then so rigid, that he would have been degraded from his orders; at least, would never have been advanced to the episcopal dignity. Dr. Lardner has also brought various authorities to prove this accusation unfounded.

When the persecution was over, and peace restored to the church, Eusebius was elected bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, in the room of Agapius, who was dead; and this was about the year 3 13 or 315. He had afterwards a considerable share in the contest relating to Arius, priest of Alexandria; whose cause he, as well as other bishops of Palestine, defended at first, upon a persuasion that Arius had been unjustly persecuted by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. He not only wrote to that bishop in favour of Arius, but likewise, not being able to procure his restoration, permitted him and his followers to preserve their rank, and to hold in their churches the ordinary assemblies of the faithful, on condition that they should submit to their bishop, and intreat him to restore them to communion. He assisted at the council of Nice, held in the year 325, and made a speech to the emperor Constantine, at whose right hand he was placed, when he came to the council. He at first refused to admit of the term Consubstantial; and the long and formal opposition which he made to it occasioned a suspicion for which there seems to be very good ground, that he was not altogether sincere, when he subscribed, as he did at length, to the Nicene creed. About the year 330 he was present at the council of Antioch, in which Eustathius. bishop of that city, was deposed, but though he consented to his deposition, and was elected to the see of Antioch in his room, he absolutely refused it; and when the bishops wrote to Constantine to desire him to oblige Eusebius to consent to the election, he wrote also to the emperor, to request him that he would not urge him to accept of it; which Constantine readily granted, and at the same time commended his moderation. Eusebius assisted at the council of Tyre held in the year 335 against Athanasius; and at the assembly of bishops at Jerusalem, when the church was dedicated there. He was sent by those bishops to Constantine, to defend what they had done against Athanasius; and it was then that he pronounced his panegyric upon that emperor, during the pubHe rejoicings in the 30th year of his reign, which was the last of his life. He was honoured with very particular marks of Constantine’s esteem: he frequently received letters from him, several of which are inserted in his books; and he was often invited to the emperor’s table, and admitted into private discourse with him. When Constantine wanted copies of the scriptures for the use of those churches which he had built at Constantinople, he conn mitted the care of transcribing them to Eusebius, whom he knew to be well skilled in those affairs; and when Eusebius dedicated to him his book “concerning Easter,” he ordered it immediately to be translated into Latin, and desired our author to communicate as soon as possible the other works of that nature which he had then in hand.

Eusebius did not long survive Constantine, for he. died about the year 33 o, according to Dupin; or the year 340, according to Valesius. He wrote several great and important works, of which among those that are extant we have, 1. “Chronicon” divided into two parts, and carried down to A. D. 325 in which, not long before the council of Nice, Cave supposes this work to have been finished. The first part, which is at present extremely mutilated, contains an history of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Jews, Egyptians, &c. from the creation of the world. In the second part, which is called “Canon Chronicus,” he digests the history of the several nations according to the order of time. St. Jerom translated both parts into Latin: but we have remaining of the version of the first part, only some extracts, containing the names of the kings, printed with the translation of the second part. It was printed at Basil, and afterwards published more accurately by Arnauld de Pontac, bishop of Baras, at Bourdeaux in 1604. But no person ever undertook to collect the Greek fragments of the original, till Joseph Scaliger published them at Leyden, 1606, in folio, under the following title: “Thesaurus temporum, complectens Eusebii Pamphili chronicon Latine, S. Hieronymo interprete, cum ipsius chronici fragmentis Graecis antehac non editis, et auctores omnes derelicta ab Eusebio continuantes. Edente Josepho Justo Scaligero, qui notas et castigationes in Eusebium, nee non Isagogicorum Chronologix canonum libros tres adjecit.” There, was another edition, much enlarged, printed at Amsterdam in 1658, in 2 vols. fol. under the care of Alexander Morus. Dupin says, that “this work of Eusebius displays a prodigious extent of reading, and consummate erudition. It is necessary to have read an infinite number of books and ancient monuments, in order to compile an universal history; and to have been master of a very clear understanding at the same time, in order to collect such a multitude of facts, and dispose them in their proper order. This is an immense labour, which is a strong proof of the vast reading and prodigious memory of Eusebius. It must be owned, indeed, that Africanus’s Chronicle was of great service to him, and that he has copied that author throughout his work. However, he has corrected several of Africanus’s mistakes, though he has fallen into others himself. But it is almost impossible not to err in a work of such vast extent and difficulty as an universal chronicle. Mistakes are excusable in a performance of this kind; nor can they hinder it from being deservedly considered as one of the molt useful works of antiquity.” His next work is, 2. “Prseparationis Evangelicae, Hbri XV.” Valesius tells us that this book, as well as his treatise “De Demonstratione Evangelica,” was written before the Nicene council, since they are expressly cited in his “Ecclesiastical History,” which Valesius affirms to have been written also before it; but Cave is of opinion that the book “De Prseparatione Evangelica” was written after that council, undoubtedly after his “Chrdnicon,” since his “Canones Chronici” are expressly cited in it. 3. “De Demonstratione Evangelical” We have of this work only ten books extant, though Eusebius wrote twenty. A beautiful edition of this and the former book was printed in Greek by Robert Stephens in 1544 and 1545, in 2 vols. fol. They were reprinted at Paris, 1628, in 2 vols. fol. with a new version of the book “De Praeparatione,” by the Jesuit Francis Vigerus, and with Donatus’s translation! of the book “De Demonstratione.” 4. “Historic Ecclesiasticae, libri V.” containing the history of the church from the beginning to the death of Licinius the elder, which includes a period of 324 years. Valesius observes, that he wrote this after almost all his other works; and Cave says, that it was written after the Nicene council, since he mentions in it not only his “Chronicon,” but likewise his treatise “De Demonstratione.” At the end of the eighth book we find a small treatise “Of the Martyrs of Palestine;” in which he describes the martyrdom of those who suffered for the faith of Christ iri that province. This has been erroneously confounded with the 8th book of the history; whereas it is a separate tract, which serves for a supplement to that book. The Ecclesiastical History has been often translated and printed: but the best edition is that of Henry Valesius^ who, having remarked the defects of all the former translations, undertook a new one, which he has joined to the Greek text revised by four manuscripts, and has added notes full of erudition. Valesius’s edition was printed at Paris in 1659 and 1671, and at Francfort in 1672, with the rest of the ecclesiastical historians. It was printed again at Cambridge in 1720, in three vols. folio, by William Reading, who has joined to the notes of Valesius such observations of modern authors as he could collect; but, in Le Clerc’s opinion, somewhat too harsh, “they might as well have been placed at the end of the book, since they are much interior to those of Valesius, both for style and matter; and appear with the same disadvantage as an ordinary painting placed by the work of an eminent master.”

. Of the bishops of this name who lived in the fourth or fifth centuries, the following only seem deterving of brief notice. They were in general polemics, and their lives were spent in contrdversy, for or against the Arian doctrines. Of these, Eusebius, bishop of Berytus and Nicometftfl in the fourth century, adopted the errors of Arius, persecuted St. Athanasius, was assiduous about the emperor Constantino till his death, and gained Constantius and all the imperial family to his party. Eusebius usurped the see of Constantinople, after procuring the banishment of Paul, the legal bishop, and died in the year 342.

, bishop of Verceli, in the fourth century, was a warm defender of 8t. Athanasius, whose firmness on that occasion offending the emperor Constantius, he was sent into exile. At his return he opposed Auxentius, the Arian bishop of Milan. He died about the year 370. A Latin version of the four Evangelists is attributed to him, which was published at Milan by John Andrew Trici, 1748, 4to; and whether this version was really by St. Eusebius or not, it is said to be very valuable. Two of his letters are in the library of the fathers.

The learned works for which he is chiefly memorable are his “Commentaries upon Homer and Dionysius Periegetes.” His “Commentaries upon Homer” were first published with that poet at Rome in 1550, under the pontificate of Julius Hi. to whom they were dedicated; and were reprinted by Frobenius at Basil ten years after. They are very copious, and frequently illustrate the text; but are principally valued by grammarians, for the great assistance they afford, in understanding the Greek language. The learned Duport, in his f< Gnomologia Homerica,“wonders that Eustathius, who was a Christian and an archbishop, should never mention Holy Scripture, and very seldom the ecclesiastical writers, throughout his Commentaries, though he had so many opportunities of introducing both. Fabricius, however, imputes this silence to his having collected the materials of them from the more ancient commentators upon Homer, who knew nothing of the sacred books, which is not improbable. Eustatliius’s” Commentaries upon the Periegesis of Dionysius,“were first published at Paris in 1577, but very imperfectly; they were afterwards greatly augmented by Fabricius, who supplied a hiatus between verses 889 and 917; and this addition was inserted in its proper place by Hudson, in his edition at Oxford, 1697, 8vo. From the similarity of the name, the” Loves of Ismenias and Ismene“have very unjustly been attributed to him.” Eustathii Comment, in Hexaemeron,“Leyden, 1629, has also by some been attributed to him, but the real author and the time he lived are unknown. Among the Mss. in the library of the Escurial, are two discourses attributed to him; the one,” Oratio ad eos qui in templo erant Sancti Myroblytæ, id est Demetrii, in principio indictionis, anno mundi 670.2 (A. C. 1194);“the other,” Oratio ad Michaelem Stathmitem, Saccularium et Chartophylacem, quod saepe cum melodiis celebrare debeaut inemoriam Sancti martyris Demetrii.“Oudin, who informs us of these manuscripts, adds, that among the Mss. upon paper in the library of Basil, theVe is a very beautiful oije in Greek, of the quarto size, whii'h is titled” The Homilies of Eustathius the metropolitan of Thessalo.iica,“and in the Bodleian are some Mss. attributed to him, as, an” Oratio in Imperatorem Em. Comnenuin;“” Supplicatio,“as it appears to be,” ad eundem Imperatorem, nomine civitatis cum siccitate laboiMvit,“&” Lamentatio in obitu fratris." In the same collection also, are two funeral orations delivered on the death of Eustathius, one of which, Fabricius assures us was by Michael Chonita Acominat, archbishop of Athens; the other bears the name of Euthymius, who, according to Fabricius and Oudin, was Eutbynius Zigubeaus, or Zigadenus, who flourished under Alexis Camnenus, but this is doubtful. Du Cange notices a correspondence between Eustathius and Michael Psellus in the French king’s library, and in that of Vienna is a commentary by him on John of Damascus’s hymn for the day of Pentecost. In Aldus’s collection of Greek grammarians is a treatise by him on the dialects used by Homer. The manuscript copies of his Commentary on Homer are not scarce in France, and there are some in Italy, of which Polito availed himself when he began his new edition of Eustathius in 1730, &c. but he finished only the first five books of the Iliad. The only complete editions are those mentioned above.

a Greek monk of Constantinople, was in favour with the emperor Alexis Comnenus, whom he survived, the emperor dying in 1118. At the command of Alexis, he composed his great work, entitled “Panoplia dogmatica Orthodoxos fidei,” or, the whole armour of the doctrine of the orthodox faith, against heretics of all kinds; which has lately been rendered famous by being cited in the dispute concerning 1 John v. 7. It was printed at Leyden, 1556, 8vo, and reprinted at Tergovist in Wallnchia, 1710. He wrote besides nine other works on various theological subjects, which are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Biblioth. Graec. \. v. c. 11 the principal are a commentary on the four Gospels and the Psalms, and on Solomon’s Song these commentaries are literal, moral, and allegorical but in the use of allegory, he is more rational than most of the authors of the thirteenth century. In some of his works he very highly praises Alexis for his theological knowledge and excellence in disputation It is not known at what time he died. We have mentioned him above as the supposed author of a funeral oration on the Greek commentator Eustathius. There is also a Georgius Zigabenus mentioned by Fabricius.

, of Ascalon in Palestine, a Greek mathematician of the sixth century, was one of the most intelligent of those who lived in the decline of Greek literature. He wrote Commentaries on the Conies of Apollonius, which were addressed to Anthcmius, and are inserted in Halley’s edition of that author, published at Oxford in 1710; and on the most important works of Archimedes, which lately appeared with every advantage of elegance and correctness, in the folio edition of Archimedes, jssued from the Clarendon press in 1792, which was prepared for publication by Torelli of Verona. Eutocius has some of the best qualities of a commentator. He very seldom passes over a difficult passage in his author without explaining it, or a chasm in the reasoning without supplying the defect. His remarks are usually full; and so anxious is he to render th text perspicuous, that sometimes he undertakes to elucidate where his author may be thought sufficiently clear. Writers have differed about his age; Saxius, one of the latest, and generally most accurate, authorities, places him in the fifth century; but Eutocius addresses Anthemius; and we find from his own writings, that Isidorus was his preceptor, both of whom were, according to Procopius, the architects of the church of St. Sophia, built at Constantinople, about the year 532; consequently, Eutocius must have flourished in the middle of the sixth century.

, an Italian sophist, according to Snidas, but probably a Greek by birth, wrote a compendious history of Roman affairs, divided into ten books, from the foundation of the city to the reign of Valens, to whom it was dedicated: that is, to A. D. 364. He was secretary to Constantine the Great, and afterwards served as a soldier under Julian the Apostate, whom he attended in his unfortunate expedition against the Persians. It appears, too, that he bore the offices of Proconsul, and Praetorian Praefect. There have been two opinions about his religion, some supposing him to have been a Christian, others a heathen. The former ground their opinion chiefly upon a passage, where he speaks of Julian as a persecutor of Christians: “Nimius Religionis Christianas insectator, perinde tamen ut cruore abstineret;” a persecutor of the Christian religion, yet abstaining from sanguinary methods. But it is more probable that he was an heathen, not only from his situation and character under Julian, but from the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras, who declares him to have been “of the same age and sect” with that emperor. Vossius thinks that he might be neither Christian nor heathen; and seems inclined to rank him with many ethers of his times, who hesitated between the two religions, without embracing either. A passage in some editions of his history, in which he speaks of Jesus Christ as our God and Lord, is acknowledged to be spurious. The best editions of Eutropius, are those of Havercarnp, 1729, and ofVerheyk, published at Leyden in 1762, in 8vo, with every useful illustration. At the end of the tenth book, he promises another historical work, or rather a continuation of this; and he tells us, that he “must raise his style, and double his diligence, when he enters upon the reign of such respectable and illustrious princes as Valens and VaJentian:” but death, probably, prevented the execution of his purpose. There are two Greek versions of this short history of Eutropius, one by Capito Lycius, and another by Paeanias, both ancient. There is a French translation by the abbé Lezeau but no good one in English. Eutropius has long been one of our most common school-books but as his style is not of the first purity, some eminent teachers have lately discontinued the use of his history.

, originally a monk of the fifth century, and for his piety elected abbot of the convent near Constantinople to which he belonged, is said to have lived to an advanced age before he distinguished himself by any peculiar opinions. Then, through a violent desire to oppose the Nestorian heresy, which was supposed to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, he became the leader of a new heresy, by absorbing the human nature of Christ entirely in the divine, and maintaining that the human body of Christ was only apparent. His doctrines were first noticed in a council assembled at Constantinople by Fluvianus, in the year 448, where they were condemned, and himself deposed from his dignity of abbot. Eutyches, however, had interest enough with the emperor Theodosius to procure another council at Ephesus, in the year 449, in which the former acts were reversed, Flavian and other bishops who had opposed Eutyches deposed, and every thing carried with such violence, that this council is generally named woJoj xwrrpun), the convention of robbers. A third council was necessary to settle these differences; and pope Leo the First, (called St. Leo, or Leo the Great) prevailed on Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to cull one at Chalcedon, which met in the year 451, and was reckoned the fourth recumenical or general council. Six hundred and thirty bishops were present. Here Kutyches was condemned, though absent, and the following doctrine laid down in opposition to his heresy: “That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture, or confusion.” Yet even after this decision, violent disputes and divisions subsisted for a considerable time. It is uncertain what became of Eutyches after the council of Ephesus; Leo certainly applied ta Marcian and to Pulcheria to have him deposed; but whether he succeeded or not, is unknown. Two supplications to Theodosius, one confession, and a fragment of another by Eutyches, are still extant.

or Eutychus, a grammarian of the sixth century, was a disciple of Priscian, and wrote a treatise “De aspiratione.” which is noticed by Cassiodorus, in the ninth chapter of his work on Orthography. He left also two books, " De discernendis conjugationibus, which Joachim Camerarius printed along with some pieces by Victorinus and Servius, at Tubingen, in 1537, 4to; but Eutyches’ s work is said to be printed more completely in the edition of the ancient grammarians by Putchius, at Hanover, 1605, 4to. Simler says that the commentary of one Sedulius, on Eutyches’s work, is in the library at Zurich.

, a Christian author, of the sect of the Melchites, was born at Cairo, in Egypt, in the year 876, and became eminent in the knowledge of physic; which he practised with so much success and reputation, that even the Mahometans reckoned him one of the best physicians in his time. Towards the latter part of his life, he applied himself to divinity; and was chosen in the year 935, patriarch of Alexandria. He then took the name of Eutychius; for his Arabic name was Said Ebn Batrick; Said, meaning happy, in Arabic, as Eutychius does in, Greek. He had the misfortune not to be very acceptable to his people; for there were continual jars between them, from his first accession to the see, to the time of his death, which happened in the year 950, or, according to SaxiuSj in the year 940. He wrote annals from the beginning of the world to the year 900; in which may be found many things which occur no where else; but certainly many which were collected from legends, and are entirely fabulous. An extract from these Annals, under the title of “Annals of the Church of Alexandria,” was published by Selden, in Arabic and Latin, London, 1642, 4td and the Annals entire were published by Pocock, in Arabic and Latin, in 1659, Oxford, 2 vols. 4to, with a preface and notes by Selden. Besides these, Eutycbius wrote a book “De rebus Siciliac,” after Sicily was conquered by the Saracens the manuscript of which is now in the public library at Cambridge, subjoined to the Annals; also “A disputation between the heterodox and the Christians,” together with some small medical performances.

, was a Welch conjuror, of whom Wood has extracted the following account from a manuscript life of the famous William Lilly, astrologer, written by himself, and preserved in Ashmole’s museum. Evans is said to have applied his mind to astrology, after he had continued some time in the university of Oxford, where he was brought up. Then, entering into orders, he obtained a cure in Staffordshire; but was forced to fly from it some years after, not only on account of debaucheries, for which he was infamous, but for “giving judgment upon things lost, which,” as Lilly saith, “-is the only shame of astrology.” He is described as the most saturnine person that ever was beheld; of a middle stature, broad forehead, beetle-browed, thickshouldered, flat-nosed, full-lipped, down-looked, of black curling stiff hair, and splay-footed. But, says Wood, to give him his due, he had a most piercing judgment, naturally, upon a figure of theft, and many other questions; though for money he would at any time give contrary judgment. He was addicted to drinking, we are told, as well as to women; and in his liquor was so very quarrelsome and abusive, that he was seldom without a black eye, or a bruise of some kind or other. He made a great many antimonial cups, upon the sale of which he principally subsisted. After he was forced from Enfield, he retired with his family to London; where Lilly found him in 1632, and received from him instructions in astrology. Wood relates, that he had done some acts above and beyond astrology, having been well versed in the nature of spirits; and had many times used the circular way of invocating, of which he produces the following instance: In 1630 he was desired by lord Bothwell and sir Kenelm Digby to shew them a spirit; which he promised to do. When they were all in the body of the circle which he had made, Evans upon, a sudden, after some time of invocation, was taken out of the room, carried into the field, and flung down near Battersea Causey, close to the Thames. Next morning -a countryman going by to his labour, and espying a man in black clothes, came to him; and awakening him, for it seems he was asleep, asked him how he came there. Evans by this understood his condition; and, when Lilly inquired afterwards of him upon what account the spirits carried him away, he answered, that “he did not at the time of invocation make any suffumigation; at which the spirits were vexed.” If the reader should be in pain about what became in the mean time of lord Bothwell and sir Kenelm Digby, we are able to make him easy upon that head. They both got home without any harm. During the reigns of Elizabeth and James I. these ridiculous impostures were the fashionable credulity of the times; and the greatest men were often the dupes of these pretenders to occult science. Ben Jonson, in his excellent comedy of the Alchemist, for a time gave almost as fatal a blow to the black art, as Cervantes did in Spain to chivalry; but since avarice and curiosity are passions most difficult to conquer, it rose again with fresh vigour, and maintained its ground till the restoration.

Absurd as this man appears to be, the strong-minded Warburton wrote “An account of the Prophecies of Arise Evans,” 1751. Dr. Jortin having mentioned Evans’s name in his “Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,” Warburton, who happened to have some of Evans’s prophecies, published under the title of an “Echo from Heaven,” sent Jortin an extract, with a large commentary upon it, which the doctor inserted in the Appendix to the first book of his “Remarks.” Warburton speaks here of Evans as a prophet, and mentions one of his visions as a prediction, which, he says, “astonishes all who carefully consider it.” This exposed the bishop to some ridicule, particularly in a pamphlet entitled “Confusion worse confounded Rout on Rout or the bishop of Gloucester’s Commentary upon Rice or Arise Evans’s Echo from Heaven, examined and exposed. By Indignatio,” 1772, 8vo. Indignatio, who employs learning, wit, and argument, in this pamphlet, was the rev. Henry Taylor, rector of Crawley, and vicar of Portsmouth, and one of the writers against Gibbon.

, D. D. a dissenting minister of the baptist persuasion at Bristol, was the son, and successor in the ministry, of the rev. Hugh Evans, M. A. pastor of a congregation at Broadmead, in that city, where he was born, in 1737. Having gone through the usual course of studies at the dissenting academy^ Mile-end, London, he was admitted a preacher, and for some time exercised his function in the metropolis, but afterwards became assistant to his father in the congregation at Broadmead, Bristol. On his father’s death he succeeded him, and remained in that office for about thirty-two years, admired and beloved by his people, and not less esteemed as the superintendant of a seminary for the education of young men who were designed for the ministry. He was likewise a man of unwearied benevolence, and liberally promoted the establishment of schools for the instruction and clothing of destitute children at Broadmead, Downend, Mangotfield, &c. and himself set a bright example of personal charity and contributions, while he stirred up others to the performance of a similar duty. His publications having procured him considerable reputation as a divine and scholar, he received in 1789, the degree of D. D. from King’s-college, Aberdeen. He died of a paralytic affection, Aug. 9, 1791. Dr. Evans was twice married; first, in 1762, to miss Sarah Jeffries, the only daughter of the rev. Joseph Jeffries, of Taunton, in Somersetshire, by whom he had five children, one of whom, Joseph Jeffries Evans, esq. a merchant of London, died very lately. Mrs. Evans died in 1771; and in 1774, Dr. Evans married miss Sarah Hazle, of Bristol, who survived him. His publications are,1. “Sermons on the Scripture doctrine of the Son and Holy Spirit,” 1766, 12mo, in answer to a petulant attack on the doctrine of the Trinity by one Williams, who was, or pretended to be, a livery-servant. 2. “A collection of Hymns, adapted to public Worship,” 1769, 12mo. 3. “An address to the serious and candid professors of Christianity,” 1772, 12mo, 5th edit. 4. “Christ crucified; or the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement, in four discourses,” 1789, 12mo. 5. Seventeen occasional Sermons, and a few tracts on fugitive subjects.

, a Welch divine and poet, was born at Cynhavvdrew, in Cardiganshire, about 1730, and was entered of Jesus college, Oxford, about the beginning of 1751, where he probably took a bachelor’s degree, but left college after taking orders, and officiated as curate in several places, particularly Newick in Kent, Llanvair Talhaiarn in Denbighshire, and Towyn in Merion. He was at the same time an assiduous student of Welch literature, employing all his leisure hours in transcribing an cient manuscripts, of which labour he left behind him about an hundred volumes of various sizes. Having passed a great part of his life in such pursuits, without being able to procure the smallest promotion in the church, his fortitude deserted him, and, to chase away his vexations, he fell into that which increased them, a habit of drinking, which at times produced symptoms of derangement, and precluded his chance of obtaining any new friends. He inherited a small freehold in Cardiganshire, which he conveyed over to a younger brother to raise money to support himself at the university. Such a sacrifice to the laudable ambition of learning ought not to have gone unrewarded. Mr. Evans died at his birth-place in 1790. lu 1764 he published a 4to vol. “Dissertatio de Bardis,” or “Some Specimens of the Poetry of the ancient Welch Bards. Translated into English, with explanatory notes on the historical passages, and a short account of the men and places mentioned by the Bards; in order to give the curious some idea of the taste and sentiments of our ancestors, and their manner of writing,” 4to. Although these specimens appeared to considerable disadvantage in a translation, yet Mr. Evans’s Latin Dissertation proved his very intimate acquaintance with the subject, and that his researches into the history of his poetical countrymen had been profound and successful. His other works were an English poem called “The Love of our Country, with historical notes,” 1772, 4to, in which, with some not inelegant versification, there is rather too much of prejudice and personal complaint; several Welch compositions, printed in the “Diddanwch Tenluaidd,” and two volumes of Sermons by Tillotson and others, translated into Welch. All the manuscripts that Mr. Evans possessed at his death became the property of Paul Pan ton, esq. of Plas Gwyn, in Mona, in consideration of an annuity of twenty pounds, which that gentleman settled upon him.

, a bookseller of London, and deserving notice not only for spirit and integrity in business, but for considerable literary taste and talents, was born in. 1742, and served his apprenticeship with Mr. Charles Marsh, a bookseller of reputation in Round-court, Strand, and at Charing-cross. Mr. Evans soon after his apprenticeship had terminated, set up in business, and by his acquaintance with English literature, which he had assiduously cultivated, was enabled to strike out many of those schemes of publication which do credit to the discernment of the trade, and as far as his own fortune permitted to embark alone in many republications which shewed the correctness of his judgment and his regard for the literary character of his country. Among these we may enumerate new editions of, 1. “Shakspeare’s Poems,” 1774. 2. “Buckingham’s Works,” 1775. 3. “Nicolson’s Historical Library,” 1776. 4. “Four volumes of Old Ballads, with notes,” l?7l 1784. Of this his son has lately published an improved edition. 5. “Cardinal de Retz’s Memoirs.” 6. “Savage’s Works,” 1777. 7. “Goldsmith’s Works,” 1777. 8. “Prior’s Works,” 1779. 9. “Rabelais’s Works.” 10. “History of Wales.” 11. “Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa,” 1779, in an advertisement to which he announced an intention of re-printing the “Notitia Monastica” of bishop Tanner, which has since been accomplished by Dr. Nasmith. To all these works Mr. Evans prefixed Dedications written with neatness and elegance, addressed to his literary patrons, Garrick, sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Sheridan, &c. He died in the prime of life, April 30, 1784, leaving a widow and son, the latter now a bookseller in Pall-mall, and the well-known and successful vendor of the most curious and valuable library ever sold in this, or perhaps, in some respects, in any other country, that of the late duke of Roxburgh.

, one of the most determined opponents of revealed religion in modern times, was born at Warrington, Lancashire, April, 1731, and at first educated by an uncle, who sent him to Emanuel college, Cambridge, when in his fourteenth year. Here he took the degree of Ib. A. in 1749, and that of M. A. in 1753. At a proper age he was ordained, and for several years officiated as curate to his uncle, who had the living of Mitcham in Surrey. In 1768 he obtained the vicarage of South Mirnms, near Barnet, and resided in the vicarage house about two years, when, by the interest of John Dodd, esq. M. P. for Reading, lord Camden, then lord chancellor, presented him to the rectory of Tewkesbury. In conjunction with this, Mr. Evanson held the vicarage of Longton, a village in Worcestershire, about five miles from Tewkesbury, for which he exchanged that of South Mimms. While settled at Tewkesbury, he seems first to have inclined to those deviations from the opinions of his church, which by degrees led him much farther than he could find any to follow him, even among those who had hitherto been most distinguished for their hostility to orthodoxy. We are told that almost as soon as he began to entertain doubts concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, stating the rise of his first scruples, with the grounds of them, and requesting of his grace to favour him, by means of his secretary, with such information as might assist in removing those doubts, and enable him conscientiously to remain in his office as a minister of the Gospel, &c. At what precise time, or to what archbishop this letter was written, we have not been informed, but no answer was returned, or could indeed have been reasonably expected. Perhaps, however, it was about the same time that Mr. Evanson began to take such liberties in reading the Liturgy as suited his new opinions; and for this, and some of those opinions delivered in the pulpit, particularly in a sermon preached in 1771, on the doctrine of the resurrection, a prosecution was commenced against him, which, after a considerable expence incurred on both sides, on account of some irregularity in the proceedings of the prosecutors, ended in a nonsuit. Seven years after this Mr. Evanson published the sermon, with an affidavit to its literal authenticity. To this he appears to have been obliged by the publication, on the part of his opponents, of “A narrative of the origin and progress of the prosecution against the rev. Edward Evanson.” This last was followed by “A word at parting; being a few observations on a mutilated sermon, and an epistle dedicatory to the worthy inhabitants of Tewkesbury, lately published by Edward Evanson, M. A.: to which are added, the arguraents of counsel in the court of delegates touching Mr. Evanson’s prosecution.” Both these were published by the late Neast Havard, esq. town clerk of Tewkesbury, who had been principally active in instituting the prosecution. In favour of Mr. Evanson, however, we are told that it was only “a small party” who found fault with his doctrines, and that the principal inhabitants of Tewkesbury supported him by subscribing a very large sum to defray his expences. The inhabitants of Longdon were still more partial, for it is said that “they would willingly have kept him among them, permitting him to make, as he had been accustomed, any alterations in the church service that his own views of the subject might have dictated:” Mr. Evanson, however, does not appear to have set a very great value on a licence of this description, and acted a more fair and wise part in resigning both his livings. He then (in 3778) returned to Mitcham, and undertook the education of a few pupils, the father of one of whom, col. EvelynJames Stuart, settled an annuity upon him, which was regularly paid until his death.

His next publication was “A Letter to Dr. Hurd, bishop of Worcester, wherein the importance of the prophecies of the New Testament, and the nature of the grand apostacy predicted in them, are particularly and impartially considered,” 1777. The object of this pamphlet was to prove that either the Christian revelation is not true, or the religion of every orthodox church in Europe is fabulous and false, and as the church of England was in his opinion one of those false and fabulous orthodox churches, this pamphlet was followed by the author’s resignation of his livings, in obedience, as he says, to the “heavenly admonition” in Rev. xviii. 4. “Come out of her my people, &c.”

, an ingenious canon, and grand vicar of Angers, under Messrs. Fouquet, Miron, de Reuil, and Arnaud, was born at Angers in 1572, or 1582, and obtained his preferments in consequence of his superior knowledge of ecclesiastical laws and customs. He was the author of an excellent treatise “des Excommunications, et des Monitoires,” 1672, 4to, and other valuable works. Eveillon also wrote “De Processionibus Ecclesiasticis,” 8vo “De recta psallendi ratione,” 4 to, &c. So great was his charity to the poor, that he denied himself almost every convenience of life for their sakes. Being blamed one day for having no hangings to his room, he replied, “When I come into my house in winter, I do not hear the walls complain of cold; but the poor, who are shivering at my door, tell me they want clothing.” He died at Angers in 1651.

, celebrated as a philosopher, patriot, and learned writer of the seventeenth century, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, a branch of which, at the time of his birth, was settled in the county of Surrey, though it flourished originally in the county of Salop, at a place which is still called Evelyn. George Evelyn, esq. purchased the family estate at Wotton in Surrey, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and had, by two wives, sixteen sons and eight daughters. He died May 30, 1603, in the seventy-third year of his age, leaving his estate at Wotton to Richard Evelyn, esq. his youngest and only surviving son by his second wife. This Richard Evelyn, esq. married Eleanor, or Ellen, daughter and heiress of John Stansficld, of die Cliff" near Lewes, esq. and had by her three sons, George, John, and Richard.

Mr. Evelyn was born at his father’s seat at Wotton, a few miles from Dorking, on Oct. 31, 1620, and was educated at the school of Lewes, under the care of his grandmother Stansfield, where he acknowledges in his own memoirs, that he was too much indulged, and did not make so good use of his time as he ought to have done but for this he made ample amends by his future diligence, and perhaps his neglect here appeared in a more unfavourable light to him in his advanced years than it deserved, for he was only ten when sent to this school. In April 1673 he was entered of the Middle Temple, though then at school; but in the following month, May 9, was admitted fellow commoner of Baliol college, Oxford, where his tutor was a Mr. Bradshaw (which he calls nomen invisum, alluding to serjeant Bradshaw, who presided on the trial of Charles I.) This Bradshaw was a relation of the regicide, and sou of the rector of Ockham. While at college, Mr. Evelyn informs us, that Nathaniel Canopius came thither out of Greece, being sent by the celebrated patriarch Cyrill, and had a pension from archbishop Laud. On the rebellion breaking out, Canopius returned to Constantinople, was made bishop of Smyrna, and, as Mr. Evelyn thinks, patriarch of Alexandria. Having already a turn, for objects of that kind, Mr. Evelyn records in this part of his diary, that Canopius was the first he ever saw or heard of, that drank coffee. Mr. Evelyn’s brother Richard was also -of Baliol college, but his brother George was of Trinity, where he is mentioned by Wood among the benefactors to that house.

Mr. Evelyn’s early affection to, and skill in, the fine arts, appeared during these travels; for we find that he delineated upon the spot, the prospects of several remarkable places that lie between Rome and Naples, particularly “The three Taverns or the forum of Appius,” mentioned in the twenty-eighth chapter of the Acts “The promontory of Auxur” “A prospect of Naples from mount Vesuvius;” “A prospect of Vesuvius, as it appears towards Naples,” and “The mouth of mount Vesuvius.” All these were engraved from our author’s sketches, by Hoare, an artist of character at that time, though some have attributed these engravings to himself. Architecture, painting, and sculpture, Mr. Evelyn particularly studied, and seems to have contracted an acquaintance with those persons who were most eminent in each branch of these arts. Nanteuil, the celebrated French engraver, appears to have been his particular favourite, who, besides drawing a portrait of him in black and white, with Indian ink, engraved a print of him in 1650, which is mentioned by Florent Le Comte in these words, “Yvelin, dit le petit milord Anglois, ou Je portrait Grec; parcequ'il y a du Grec au bas; ou est ecrit aussi, meliora retinete.” The Greek is a sentence from Isocrates, to this purpose, “Let your pictures rather preserve the memory of your virtues, than of your person.”

Being now recommended to sir Richard Brown, bart. the king’s minister there, he made his addresses to his only daughter Mary, whom he married June 27, 1647, and in her right became possessed of Sayes-court near Deptford, in Kent, where he resided after his return to England, which was in October of that year. Soon after his arrival he went to Hampton court, where he had the honour to kiss his majesty’s hand, and gave him an account of several things he had in charge. On Jan. 21, 1648-9, he published his tract on liberty and servitude, for which he wasseverely threatened, and probably on this account he went again to France in July 1649, and in November of that year he attended his father-in-law sir Richard Brown, when he had his first audience at the French court, after the death of Charles I. and delivered his credentials from Charles II. In July 1650 he went again to England, but returned to Paris in the following month. In Jan. 1651-2 he left France, and returning to England, settled at Sayescourt near Deptford, and in May was joined by his wife from France. In all he appears to have spent about seven years in his travels, and with a mind highly improved by what he had seen and read, he silently pursued his studies at this retirement (for such it then was), and wrote and published some of those works which afterwards gave him a distinguished name in the learned world. It was here also that he first shewed his skill in planting and gardening, both then very little understood in England, and rendered this place the wonder and admiration of the most judicious men of his time. The situation, indeed, of public affairs induced him to consider privacy as a very great blessing; and so fond was he of his rural retreat, that he very rarely quitted it, though but a young man, with a considerable fortune, and extremely admired and courted by all his acquaintance. This studious disposition, together with his disgust of the world, occasioned by that strange scene of violence and confusion that was then acted upon the public stage, was so strong, that he actually proposed to the honourable Mr. Robert Boyle, the raising of a kind of college for the reception of persons of the same turn of mind, where they might enjoy the pleasure of agreeable society, and at the same time pass their days without care or interruption. His plan was thus formed: “I propose the purchasing of thirty or forty acres of land, in some healthy place, not above twenty-five miles from London, of which a good part should be tall wood, and the rest upland pastures, or downs sweetly irrigated. If there were not already an house which might be converted, &c. we wonld erect, upon the most convenient site of this near the wood, our building, viz. one handsome pavillion, containing a refectory, library, withdrawing-room, and a closet this the first story for, we suppose the kitchen, larders, cellars, and offices, to be contrived in the half-story under ground. In the second should be a fair lodging-chamber, a palletroom, gallery, and a closet, all which should be well and very nobly furnished, for any worthy person that might desire to stay any time, and for the reputation of the college. The half-story above, for servants, wardrobes, and like conveniences. To the entry fore-front of this court, and at the other back-front, a plot walled in, of a competent square for the common seraglio, disposed into a garden, or it might be only carpet, kept curiously, and to serve for bowls, walking, or other recreations, &c. if the company please. Opposite to the house, towards the wood, should be erected a pretty chapel, and, at equal distances, even within the flanking walls of the square, six apartments or cells for the members of the society, and not contiguous to the pavillion, each whereof should contain a small bed-chamber, an outward room, a closet, and a private garden, somewhat after the manner of the Carthusians. There should likewise be an elaboratory, with a repository for rarities and things of nature; aviary, dovehouse, physic-garden, kitchen-garden, and a plantation of orchard-fruit, &c. all uniform buildings, but of single stories, or a little elevated. At a convenient distance, towards the olitory garden, should be a stable for two or three horses, and a lodging for a servant or two. Lastly, a garden-house and conservatory for tender plants. The estimate amounts thus the pavillion 400l. the chapel, 150. apartments, walls, and out-housing, 600l. the purchase of a fee for thirty acres, at fifteen pounds 1600/, will be the utmost. Three of the cells, or apartments, that is, one moiety with the appurtenances, shall be at the disposal of one of the founders, and the other half at the others. If, I and my wife take up two apartments (for we are to be decently asunder, however, I stipulate, and her inclination will greatly suit with it, that shall be no impediment to the society, but a considerable advantage to the ceeonomicpart), a third shall be for some, worthy person; and, to facilitate the rest, I offer to furnish the whole pavillion completely to the value of 500l. in goods and moveables, if need be for seven years, till there shall be a public stock, &c. There shall be maintained, at the public charge, only a chaplain, well qualified, an ancient woman to dress the meat, wash, and do all such offices; a man to buy provision, keep the garden, horses, &c. a boy to assist him and serve within. At one meal a day, of two dishes only, unless some little, extraordinary upon particular days or occasions (then never exceeding three) of plain and wholesome meat a small refection at night wine, beer, sugar, spice, bread, fish, fowl, candle, soap, oats, hay, fuel, &c. at four pounds per week, 200l. per annum; wages, fifteen pounds; keeping the gardens, twenty pounds; the chaplain, twenty pounds per annum. Laid up in the treasury 145l. to be employed for books, instruments, drugs, trials, &c. The. total, 400l. a year, comprehending the keeping of two horses for the chariot, or the saddle, and two kine; so that 200l. per annum will be the utmost that the founders shall be at to maintain the whole society, consisting of nine persons (the servants included), though there should no others join capable to alleviate the expence. But, if any of those who desire to be of the society be so well qualified as to support their own particulars, and allow for their proportion, it will yet much diminish the charge; and of such there cannot want some at all times, as the apartments are empty. If either of the founders thinks expedient to alter his condition, or that any thing do humanitus contingere, he may resign to another, or sell to his colleague, and dispose of it as he pleases, yet so as it still continue the institution. Orders. At six, in summer, prayers in the chapel. To study till half an hour after eleven. Dinner in the refectory till one. Retire till four. Then called to conversation (if the weather invite) abroad, else in the refectory. This never omitted but in case of sickness. Prayers at seven. To bed at nine. In the winter the same, with some abatements for the hours, because the nights are tedious, and the evening’s conversation more agreeable. This in the refectory. All play interdicted, sans bowls, chess, &c. Every one to cultivate his own garden. One month in spring a course in the claboratory on vegetables, &c. In the winter a month on other experiments. Every man to have a key of the elaboratory, pavillion, library, repository, &c. Weekly fast. Communion once every fortnight, or month at least. No stranger easily admitted to visit any of the society, but upon certain days weekly, and that only after dinner. Any of the society may have his commons to his apartment, if he will not meet in the refectory, so it be not above twice a week. Every Thursday shall be a music-meeting at conversation hours. Every person of the society shall render some public account of his studies weekly, if thought fit, and especially shall be recommended the promotion of experimental knowledge, as the principal end of the institution. There shall be a decent habit and uniform used in the college. One month in the year may be spent in London, or any of the universities, or in a perambulation for the public befiefit, &c. with what other orders shall be thought convenient.”

This scheme, which is characteristic of the state of Mr. Evelyn’s mind, at a time when good men sickened at the contemplation of successful rebellion, would, in all likelihood, have gradually departed from its principles, and is perhaps too romantic to have stood the collision of human passions and human events. But, when a prospect appeared of better times, it occasioned some change in his sentiments; and, upon an attempt being made to damp the desires of the people for the king’s return, he drew his pen in that critical season in defence of his majesty’s character, which, at such a juncture, was both an acceptable and a very important service. The conduct of Mr. Evelyn in this critical year, 1659, which was in truth the most active in his whole life, is hardly taken notice of by any of those who have undertaken to preserve his memoirs. After the death of Oliver and the deposition of Richard Cromwell, there were many of the commanders in the army that shewed an inclination to reconcile themselves to the king; which disposition of theirs was very much encouraged by such as had his majesty’s interest truly at heart. Amongst these, Mr. Evelyn had a particular eye upon colonel Herbert Morley, an old experienced officer in the parliament army, who had two stout regiments entirely at his devotion, was very much esteemed by his party, and had the general reputation of being a person of probity and honour. It was a very dangerous step, as things then stood, to make any advances to one in his situation; yet Mr. Evelyn, considering how much it might be in that gentleman’s power to facilitate the king’s return, fairly ventured his life, by advising the colonel freely to make his peace with, and enter into the service of, the king. The colonel, as might well be expected, acted coldly and cautiously at first, but at last accepted Mr. Evelyn’s offer, and desired him to make use of his interest to procure a pardon for himself, and some of his relations and friends whom he named, promising in return to give all the assistance in his power to the royal cause. At the same time that Mr. Evelyn carried on this dangerous intercourse with colonel Morley, he formed a resolution of publishing something that might take off the edge of that inveteracy, expressed by those who had been deepest in the parliament’s interest, against such as had always adhered to the king and with this view he wrote a small treatise, which had the desired effect, and was so generally well received, that it ran through three impressions that year. The title of this piece was, “An Apology for the Royal Party, written in a letter to a person of the late council of state; with a touch at the pretended plea of the army,” Lond. 1659, in two sheets in 4to. But while Mr. Evelyn and other gentlemen of his sentiments were thus employed, those of the contrary party were not idle; and, amongst these, Marchamont Needham, who first wrote with great bitterness for the king against the parliament, and afterwards with equal acrimony for the parliament against the king, was induced to write a pamphlet, which was deservedly reckoned one of the most artful and dangerous contrivances for impeding that healing spirit that began now to spread itself through the nation, and with that view was handed to the press by Praisegod Barebones, one of the fiercest zealots in those times, the title of which, at large, runs thus: “News from Brussels, in a letter from a near attendant on his majesty’s person, to a person of honour here, dated March 10th, 1659.” The design of this pretended letter was to represent the character of king Charles II. in as bad a light as possible, in order to destroy the favourable impressions that many had received of his natural inclination to mildness and clemency. All the king’s friends were extremely alarmed at this attempt, and saw plainly that it would be attended with most pernicious consequences; but Mr. Evelyn, who had as quick a foresight as any of them, resolved to lose no time in furnishing an antidote against this poison, and with great diligence and dexterity sent abroad in a week’s time a complete answer, which bore the following title: “The late news or message from Brussels unmasked,” London, I 659, 4to. This very seasonable and very important service, for his own safety, our author managed with such secrecy, that hardly any body knew from whom this pamphlet came. But how much soever he had reason to be pleased with the success of his pen upon this occasion, he could not help being extremely mortified at the change he perceived in his friend colonel Morley’s behaviour, who on a sudden grew very silent and reserved, and at length plainly avoided any private conversation with Mr. Evelyn. In this situation our author had the courage to write him an expostulatory letter, which was in effect putting his life into his hands, and yet even this failed of procuring him the satisfaction he expected. However, he felt no inconvenience from it; for this alteration in colonel Motley’s countenance towards him was not the effect of any change in his disposition, but arose from his having entered into new engagements for the king’s service with sir Anthony Ashley Cooper and general Monk, who had tied him down to such absolute secrecy that he was not able at that juncture to give Mr. Evelyn any hint that might make him easy; but the latter soon saw plainly enough, from the colonel’s public behaviour, that he had no reason to apprehend any mischief from the confidence he had reposed in him.

Immediately after the king’s return, Mr. Evelyn was introduced, on June 5, 1660, to the king by the duke of York, and very graciously received; nor was it long before be experienced the king’s esteem and confidence, in a remarkable instance. There had been many disputes between the ambassadors of the crowns of France and Spain, for precedence in the courts of foreign princes, and amongst these there was none more remarkable than that upon Tower-hill, on the landing of an ambassador from Sweden, September 30, 1660, which was so premeditated a business on both sides, that the king, foreseeing it would come to a quarrel, and being willing to carry himself with indifference towards both, which could not be otherwise done than leaving them at liberty to adjust their respective pretences, yet for the sake of public tranquillity, orders were given that a strict guard should be kept upon the place, and all his majesty’s subjects were enjoined not to intermeddle, or take part with either side; and the king was farther pleased to command, that Mr. Evelyn should, after diligent inquiry made, draw up and present him a distinct narrative of the whole affair, which he accordingly did, and it is a very curious and remarkable piece. It is inserted in Baker’s Chronicle, Our author began now to enter into the active scenes of life, but yet without bidding adieu entirely to his studies. On the contrary, he published, in the space of a few months, several learned treatises upon different subjects, which met with great applause; the rather because the author expressed in some of. them his intention to prosecute more largely several philosophical subjects, in a manner that might render them conducive to the benefit of society; and of his capacity for performing these promises, some of these pieces were instances sufficient to satisfy every intelligent reader, as well as to justify the character he had already acquired, of being at once an able and agreeable writer. It is certain that very few authors of his time deserve this character so well as Mr. Evelyn, who, though he was acquainted wkh most sciences, and wrote upon many different subjects, yet was tar from being a superficial writer. He had genius, taste, and learning, and he knew how to give all these a proper place in his works, so as never to pass for a pedant, even with such as were least in love with literature, and to be justly esteemed a polite author by those who knew it best.

During his latter days there was no relaxation of his endeavours to be useful. As his collections were very great, so he was ever ready to communicate them for the benefit of others. He furnished Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, with those additional remarks on the county of Surrey, which are published in his English edition of the "Britannia. 11 He contributed largely to Mr. Houghton’s valuable work on husbandry and trade, and to Burnet’s History of the Reformation; and Mr. Aubrey has testified how often he was indebted to him for his friendly assistance in many of his undertakings. In respect to the royal society, he was equally assiduous in his attendance, and careful in his intelligence. Whatever fell within the compass of his own extensive inquiries, he never failed to transmit to that body, nor was he less active in procuring them proper correspondents both at home and abroad, of which copious testimonies are to be met with in their registers, and in their printed Transactions. He might, therefore, justly style himself, as he did, a pioneer in their service; an expression which marked at once how humble and how indefatigatible he was in whatever might contribute to the advancement of that noble design, which was the basis of their institution. He was a true lover of freedom of thought in philosophical inquiries, which he practised upon all occasions himself, and very readily indulged to others; and though nobody was freer from prejudices, or spoke more discreetly than he did, of books that it was impossible for him to commend, yet he never resented any attack made upon his own, but bore the contradiction of his opinion with all imaginable temper, being persuaded that truth and reason would always triumph in the end, and that it was better to leave things to the decision of the public than to embark in endless controversies, though in the defence of sentiments ever so well founded. When we consider the number of the books he published, and the variety of the subjects upon which he employed his time, our admiration of his industry and application is greatly heightened when we reflect how careful he was in reviewing, correcting, and augmenting, all his original works. Whatever subject appeared weighty enough to attract his attention, never lost its place in his thoughts, but was often revolved, and reaped the continual benefit of the new lights he received.

As considerable light is thrown on the history and merits of Mr. Evelyn from the account given of his works, little apology need be made for the length of the article, taken principally from the Biographia Britannica. These were, 1. His treatise “Of Liberty and Servitude,” 1649, 12mo. This was a translation, and in all probability the first essay of our author’s pen. 2. “A Character of England, as it was lately presented in a letter to a nobleman of France, with reflections upon Callus Castratus,” 1651, 16to. The third edition of this book appeared in 1659; at present it is very scarce. 3. “The State of France,” London, 1652, 8vo. 4. “An Essay on the First Book of Titus Lucretius Carus, de renim natura, interpreted, and made into English verse, by J. Evelyn, esq.” London, 1656, 8vo. The frontispiece to this book was designed by his lady, Mary Evelyn. There is a copy of verses by F.dmun.l Waller, esq. of Beaconsfield, prefixed and directed to his worthy friend Mr. Evelyn, perhaps too extravagant. As there are many faults, however, in this work which do not belong to the author, we shall subjoin the transcript of a ms note in his own hand-writing in the copy at Wotton: “Never was book so abominably misused by printer; never copy so negligently surveied by one who undertooke to looke over the proofe-sheetes with all exactnesse and care, naqely Dr. Triplet, well knowne for his abiilitie, and who pretended, to oblige me in Hiv absence, and so readily offer'd himselfe. This good yet I received by it, that publishing it vaiiu-ly, its ill succese at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest.” 5. “The French Gardener, instructing how to cultivate all sorts of fruit-trees and herbs for the garden, together with directions to dry and conserve them in their natural,” &c. Lond. 1658, in 12mo, and several times after. In most of the editions is added, “The English Vineyard vindicated, by John Rose, gardener to his majesty king Charles II. with a' tract of the making and ordering of wines in France.” The third edition of this French Gardener, which came out in 1676, was illustrated with sculptures. 6. “The golden book of St. Oh ry sos torn, concerning the Education of Children.” Lond. 1659, 12mo, in the preface to which is a very interesting account of his son Richard, an amiable and promising child, who died in infancy, Jan. 27, 1657. This little narrative, as Mr. Evelyn’s work is scarce, may be seen in decade first of Barksdale’s Memorials, which, however, is almost as scarce. 7. “An Apology for the Royal Party, c.” 1659, 4to, mentioned above. 8. “The late News or Message from Brussels unmasked,” 1659, 4 to, also mentioned above. 9. A Panegyric at his, majesty king Charles II. his Coronation,' 1 Loncl. 1661, fol. 10. “Instructions concerning the erecting of a Library, written by Gabriel Naude”, published in English, with some improvements,“Lond. 1661, 8vo. ll.” Fumifugium or the inconveniences of the air and the smoke of London dissipated together with some remedies humbly proposed,“London, 1661, 4to, in five sheets, addressed to the king and parliament, and published by hisma jesty’s express command. Of this there was a late edition in 1772. 12.” Tyrannies or the Mode in a discourse of sumptuary laws“Lond. 1661, 8vo. 13.” Sculptnra; or the history a-id art of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper, with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works; to which is annexed, a new manner of engraving, or mezzo-tinto,. communicated by his highness prince Rupert to the author of this treatise,“Lond. 1662, 8vo. In the dedication to Mr. Robert Boyle, dated: at Sayes-court, April 5th, 1662, he observes, that he wrote this treatise at the reiterated instance of that gentleman. The first chapter treats of sculpture, howderived and distinguished, with the styles and instruments belonging to it. The second, of the original of sculpture in general. la this chapter our author observes, that letters, and consequently sculpture, were lon.g before the flood, Suidas ascribing both letters and all the rest of the sciences to Adam. After the flood, as he supposes, there were but few who make any considerable question, that it might not be propagated by Noah to his posterity, though some admit of none before Moses. The third chapter treats of the reputation and progress of sculpture among the Greeks and Romans down to the middle ages, with a discussion of some pretensions to the invention of copper cuts and their impressions. The fourth, of the invention and progress of chalcography in particular, together with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works. The fifth, of drawing and design previous to the art of chalcography, and of the use of pictures in order to theeducation of children. In this chapter, our author, in honour of the art upon which he writes, discourses thus:” It was in the former chapter that we made rehearsal of the most renowned gravers and their works, not that we had no more to add to that number, but because we would not mingle these illustrious names and qualities there, which we purposely reserved for the crown of this discourse. We did, therefore, forbear to mention what his highness prince Rupert’s own hands have contributed to the dignity of that art, performing things in graving, of which some enrich our collection, comparable to the greatest masters; such a spirit and address there appears in all that he touches, and especially in that of the mezzotinto, of which we shall speak hereafter more at large, having first enumerated those incomparable gravings of that his new and inimitable style, in both the great and little decollations of St. John the Baptist, the soldier holding a spear and leaning his hand on a shield, the two Mary Magdalens, the old man’s head, that of Titian, &c. after the same Titian, Georgion, and others. We have also seen a plate etched by the present French king, and other great persons; the right honourable the earl of Sandwich, sometimes, as we are told, diverting himself with the burine, and herein imitating those ancient and renowned heroes, whose names are loud in the trumpet of fame for their skill and particular affection to these arts. For such of old were Lucius Manilius, and Fabius, noble Romans, Pacuvius, the tragic poet, nephew to Ennius. Socrates, the wisest of men, and Plato himself, Metrodorus and Pyrrhus the philosopher, did both desigii and paint and so did Valentinian, Adrian, and Severus, emperors so as the great Paulus ^milius esteemed it of such high importance, that he would needs have his son to be instructed in it, as in one of the most worthy and excellent accomplishments belonging to a prince. For the art of graving, Quintilian likewise celebrates Euphranor, a polite and rarely endowed person; and Pliny, in that chapter where he treats of the same art, observes that there was never any one famous in it, but who was by birth or education a gentleman. Therefore he and Galen in their recension of the liberal arts, mention that of graving in particular, amongst the most permanent; and in the same catalogue, number it with rhetoric, geometry, logic, astronomy, yea, r grammar itself, because there is in these arts, say they, more of fancy and invention, than strength of hand, more of the spirit than of the body. Hence Aristotle informs us, that the Grecians did universally institute their children in the art of painting and drawing, for an oeconomique reason there signified, as well as to produce proportions in the mind. Varro makes it part of the ladies 1 education, that they might have the better skill in the works of embroidery, &c. and for this cause is his daughter Martia celebrated among those of her fair sex. We have already mentioned the learned Anna Schurman; but the princess Louisa has done wonders of this kind, and is famous throughout Europe for the many pieces which enrich our cabinets, examples sufficient to vindicate its dignity, and the value that has been set upon it, since both emperors, kings, and philosophers, the great and the wise, have not disdained to cultivate and cherish this honourable quality of old, so nobly reputed, that amongst the Greeks a slave might not be taught it. How passionately does Pereskius, that admirable and universal genius, deplore his want of dexterity in this art Baptista Alberti, Aldus Pomponius, Guaricus Durer, and Rubens, were politely learned and knowing men, and it is hardly to be imagined of how great use and conducible a competent address in this art of drawing and designing is to the several advantages which occur, and especially to the more noble mathematical sciences, as we have already instanced in the lunary works of Hevelius, and are no less obliged to celebrate some of ur own countrymen famous for their dexterity in this incomparable art. Such was that Blagrave, who himself cut those diagrams in his Mathematical Jewel; and such at present is that rare and early prodigy of universal science, Dr. Chr. Wren, our worthy and accomplished friend. For, if the study of eloquence and rhetoric were cultivated by the greatest geniuses and heroic persons which the world has produced, and that, by the suffrage of the most knowing, to be a perfect orator a man ought to be universally instructed, a quality so becoming and useful should never be neglected.“In the sixth chapter he discourses of the new way of engraving or mezzotinto, invented and communicated by prince Rupert and he therein observes,” that his highness did indulge him the liberty of publishing the whole manner and address of this new way of engraving; but when I had well considered it, says he (so much having been already expressed, which may suffice to give the hint to all ingenious persons how it is to be performed), I did not think it necessary that an art so curious, and as yet so little vulgar, and which indeed does not succeed where the workman is not an accomplished designer, and has a competent talent in painting likewise, was to be prostituted at so cheap a rate as the more naked describing of it here would too soon have exposed it to. Upon these considerations then, it is, that vvg leave it thus enigmatical; and yet that this may appear no disingenuous rhodomontade in me, or invidious excuse, I profess myself to be always most ready sub sigillo, and by his highness’s permission, to gratify any curious and worthy person with as full and perfect a demonstration of the entire art as my talent and address will reach to, if what I am now preparing to be reserved in the archives of the royal society concerning it be not sufficiently instructive.“There came, however, into the hands of the communicative and learned Richard Micldleton Massey, M. D. and F. 11. S. the original manuscript, written by Mr. Evelyn, and designed for the royal society, entitled” Prince Rupert’s new way of engraving, communicated by his highness to Mr. Evelyn;“in the margin of which is this note:” This I prepared to be registered in the royal society, but I have not yet given it in, so as it still continues a secret.“In this manuscript he first describes the two instruments employed in this new manner of engraving, viz. the hatcher and the style, and then proceeds to explain the method of using them. He concludes with the following words:” This invention, or new manner of chalcography, was the result of chance, and improved by a German soldier, who, espying some scrape on the barrel of his musket, and being of an ingenious spirit, refined upon it, till it produced the effects you have seen, and which indeed is, for the delicacy thereof, much superior to anyinvention extant of this art, for the imitation of those masterly drawings, and, as the Italians call it, that morhidezza expressed in the best of their designs. I have had the honour to be the first of the English to whom it has been yet communicated, and by a special indulgence of his highness, who with his own hands was pleased to direct me with permission to publish it to the world; but I have esteemed it a thing so curious, that I thought it would be to profane it, before I had first offered it to this illustrious society. There is another way of engraving, by rowelling a plate with an instrument made like that which our scriveners and clerks use to direct their rulers by on parchment, only the points are thicker set into the rowel. And when the plate is sufficiently freckled with the frequent reciprocation of it, upon the polished surface, so as to render the ground dark enough, it is to be abated with the style, and treated as we have already described. Of this sort I have seen a head of the queen Christina, graved, if I mistake not, as big as the life, but not comparable to the mezzotinto of prince Rupert, so deservedly celebrated by J. Evelyn."

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

On his advancement to the board of trade, he published, 22. “A short and plain discourse, the chief heads of the history of trade and navigation,” which he dedicated to the king, and which was very graciously rereirecl, and thought then to contain as much matter in as small a compass as any that was ever written upon a topic so copious as well as so important. 23. “Terra: a philosophical discourse of earth, relating to the culture and improvement of it for vegetation, and the propagation of plants, &c. as it was presented to the royal society, April 29th, 1675,” London, 1675, folio and 8vo. Of this, also, Dr. Hunter published an improved edition in 1778. 24. “Mundus Muliebris; or, the ladies dressing-room unlocked, and her toilette spread. In burlesque. Together with the Fop- Dictionary, compiled for the use of the fairsex,” Lond. 1690, 4to. 25. “Monsieur de la Quintinye’s treatise of Orange-Trees, with the raising of Melons, omitted in the French editions; made English by John Evelyn, esq.” Lond. 1693. 26. “Numismata; a discourse of medals, ancient and modern; together with some account of heads and effigies of illustrious and famous persons, in sculps and taille douce, of whom we have no medals extant, and of the uses to be derived from them. To which is added, a digression concerning physiognomy,” Lond. 1697, folio.