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

, the second of the name, of an ancient family, admiral of France, was born the 16th of February 1516, at Chatillon-sur-Loing. He bore arms from his very infancy. He signalized himself under Francis I. at the battle of Cerisoles, and under Henry II. who made him colonel-general of the French infantry, and afterwards admiral of France, in 1552; favours which he obtained by the brilliant actions he performed at the battle of Renti, by his zeal for military discipline, by his victories over the Spaniards, and especially by the defence of St. Quintin. The admiral threw himself into that place, and exhibited prodigies of valour; but the town being forced, he was made prisoner of war. After the death of Henry II. he put himself at the head of the protestants against the Guises, and formed so powerful a party as to threaten ruin to the Romish religion in France. We are told by a contemporary historian, that the court had not a more formidable enemy, next to Conde, who had joined with him. The latter was more ambitious, more enterprising, more active. Coligni was of a sedater temper, more cautious, and fitter to be the leader of a party; as unfortunate, indeed, in war as Conde, but often repairing by his ability what had seemed irreparable; more dangerous after a defeat, than his enemies after a victory; and moreover adorned with as many virtues as such tempestuous times and the spirit of party would allow. He seemed to set no value on his life. Being wounded, and his friends lamenting around him, he said to them with incredible constancy, “The business we follow should make us as familiar with death as with life.” The first pitcht battle that happened between the protestants and the catholics, was that of Dreux, in 1562. The admiral fought bravely, lost it, but saved the army. The duke of Guise having been murdered by treachery, a short time afterwards, at the siege of Orleans, he was accused of having connived at this base assassination; but he cleared himself of the charge by oath. The civil wars ceased for some time, but only to recommence with greater fury in 1567. Coligni and Conde fought the battle of St. Denys against the constable of Montmorenci. This indecisive day was followed by that of Jarnac, in 1569, fatal to the protestants. Concle having been killed in a shocking manner, Coligni had to sustain the whole weight of the party, and alone supported that unhappy cause, and was again defeated at the affair of Men Icon tour, in Poitou, without suffering his courage to be shaken for a moment. An advantageous peace seemed shortly after to terminate these bloody conflicts, in 1571. Coligni appeared at court, where he was loaded with caresses, in common with all the rest of his party. Charles IX. ordered him to be paid a hundred thousand francs as a reparation of the losses he had sustained, and restored to him his place in the council. On all hands, however, he was exhorted to distrust these perfidious caresses. A captain of the protestants, who was retiring into the country, came to take leave of him: Coligni asked him the reason of so sudden a retreat: “It is,” said the soldier, “because they shew us too many kindnesses here: I had rather escape with the fools, than perish with such as are over-wise.” A horrid conspiracy soon broke out. One Friday the admiral coming to the Louvre, was fired at by a musquet from a window, and dangerously wounded in the right hand and in the left arm, by Maurevert, who had been employed by the duke de Guise, who had proposed the scheme to Charles IX. The king of Navarre and the prince of Cond6 complained of this villainous act. Charles IX. trained to the arts of dissimulation by his mother, pretended to be extremely afflicted at the event, ordered strict inquiry to be made after the author of it, and called Coligni by the tender name of father. This was at the very time when he was meditating the approaching massacre of the protestants. The carnage began, as is well known, the 24th of August, St. Bartholomew’s day, 1572. The duke de Guise, under a strong escort, marched to the house of the admiral. A crew of assassins, headed by one Besme, a domestic of the house of Guise, entered sword in hand, and found him sitting in an elbow-chair. “Young man,” said he to their leader in a calm and tranquil manner, “thou shouldst have respected my gray hairs but, do what thou wilt thou canst only shorten my life by a few days.” This miscreant, after having stabbed him in several places, threw him out at the window into the court-yard of the house, where the duke of Guise stood waiting. Coligni fell at the feet of his base and implacable enemy, and said, according to some writers, as he was just expiring “If at least I had died by the hand of a gentleman, and not by that of a turnspit!” Besme, having trampled on the corpse, said to his companions: “A good beginning! let us go and continue our work!” His body was exposed for three days to the fury of the populace, and then hung up by the feet on the gallows of Montfaucon. Montmorenci, his cousin, had it taken down, in order to bury it secretly in the chapel of the chateau de Chantilli. An Italian, having cut off the head of the admiral, carried it to Catherine de Medicis; and this princess caused it to be embalmed, and sent it to Rome. Coligni was in the habit of keeping a journal, which, after his death, was put into the hands of Charles IX. In this was remarked a piece of advice which he gave that prince, to take care of what he did in assigning the appanage, lest by so doing he left them too great an authority. Catherine caused this article to be read before the duke of Alei^on, whpm she knew to be afflicted at the death of the admiral: “There is your good friend!” said she, “observe the advice he gives the king!” “I cannot say,” returned the duke, “whether he was very fond of me; but 1 know that such advice could have been given only by a man of strict fidelity to his majesty, and zealous for the good of his country.” Charles IX. thought this journal worth being printed; but the marshal de Retz prevailed on him to throw it into the fire. We shall conclude this article with the parallel drawn by the abbe“de Mably of the admiral de Coligni, and of Francois de Lorraine, due de Guise.” Coligni was the greatest general of his time; as courageous as the duke of Guise, but less impetuous, because he had always been less successful. He was fitter for forming grand projects, and more prudent in the particulars of their executioj. Guise, by a more brilliant courage, which astonished his enemies, reduced conjunctures to the province of his genius, and thus rendered himself in some sort master of them. Coligni obeyed them, but like a commander superior to them. In the same circumstances ordinary men would have observed only courage in the conduct of the one, and only prudence in that of the other, though both of them had these two qualities, but variously subordinated. Guise, more successful, had fewer opportunities for displaying the resources of his genius: his dexterous ambition, and, like that of Pompey, apparently founded on the very interests of the princes it was endeavouring to ruin, while it pretended to serve them, was supported on the authority of his name till it had acquired strength enough to stand by itself. Coligni, less criminal, though he appeared to be more so, openly, like Caesar, declared war upon his prince and the whole kingdom of France. Guise had the art of conquering, and of profiting by the victory. Coligni lost four battles, and was always the terror of his victors, whom he seemed to have vanquished. It is not easy to say what the former would have been in the disasters that befell Coligni; but we may boldly conjecture that the latter would have appeared still greater, if fortune had favoured him as much. He was seen carried in a litter, and we may add in the very jaws of death, to order and conduct the longest and most difficult marches, traversing France in the midst of his enemies, rendering by his counsels the youthful courage of the prince of Navarre more formidable, and training him to those great qualities which were to make him a good king, generous, popular, and capable of managing the affairs of Europe, after having made him a hero, sagacious, terrible, and clement in the conduct of war. The good understanding he kept up between the French and the Germans of his army, whom the interests of religion alone were ineffectual to unite; the prudence with which he contrived to draw succours from England, where all was not quiet; his art in giving a spur to the tardiness of the princes of Germany, who, not having so much genius as himself, were more apt to despair of saving the protestantsof France, and deferred to send auxiliaries, who were no longer hastened in their march by the expectation of plunder in a country already ravaged; are master-pieces of his policy. Coligni was an honest man. Guise wore the mask of a greater number of virtues; but all were infected by his ambition. He had all the qualities that win the heart of the multitude. Coligni, more collected in himself, was more esteemed by his enemies, and respected by his own people. He was a lover of order and of his country. Ambition might bear him up, but it never first set him in motion. Hearty alike in the cause of protestantism and of his country, he was never able, by too great austerity, to make his doctrine tally with the duties of a subject. With the qualities of a hero, he was endowed with a gentle soul. Had he been less of the great man, he would have been a fanatic; he was an apostle and a zealot. His life was first published in 1575, 8vo, and translated and published in English in 1576, by Arthur Golding. There is also a life by Courtilz, 1686, 12mo, and one in the “Hommes Illustres de France.”

, judge advocate and historian of the new settlement in South Wales, the son of gen. A. T. Collins, and of Harriet Frazer, of Pack, in the king’s county, Ireland, was born March 3, 1756, and received a liberal education at the grammar-school of Exeter, where his father then resided. In 1770 he was appointed lieutenant in the marines; and, in 1772, was with the late admiral M'Bride, in the Southampton frigate, when the unfortunate Matilda, queen of Denmark, was rescued from the dangers that awaited her by the energy of the British government, and conveyed to a place of safety in the king her brother’s Hanoverian dominions. On that occasion he commanded the guard that received her majesty, and had the honour of kissing her hand. In 1775, he was at the battle of Bunker’s-hill; in which the first battalion of marines, to which he belonged, so signally distinguished itself, having its commanding officer, the gallant major Pitcairne, and a great many officers and men, killed in storming the redoubt, besides a very large proportion of wounded. In 1777, he was adjutant of the Chatham division; and, in 1782, captain of marines on-board the Courageux, of 74 guns, commanded by the late lord Mulgrave, and participated in the partial action that took place with the enemy’s fleet, when lord Howe relieved Gibraltar. Reduced to half-pay at the peace of 1782, he resided at Rochester in Kent (having previously married an American lady, who survives him, but without issue); and on its being determined to found a colony, by sending convicts to Botany Bay, he was appointed judge advocate to the intended settlement, and in that capacity sailed with governor Philip in May 1787 (who also appointed him his secretary), which situation he filled with the greatest credit to himself and advantage to the colony, until his return to England in 1797. The History of the Settlement, which he soon after published, followed by a second volume, is a work abounding with information, highly interesting, and written with the utmost simplicity. The appointment of judge advocate, however, proved eventually injurious to his real interests. While absent, he had been passed over when it came to his turn to be put on full pay; nor was he permitted to return to England to reclaim his rank in the corps; nor could he ever obtain any effectual redress; but was afterwards compelled to come in as junior captain of the corps, though with his proper rank in the army, and died a captain instead of a colonel-commandant, his rank in the army being merely brevet. He had then the mortification of finding that, after ten years’ distinguished service in the infancy of a colony, and the sacrifice of every real comfort, his only reward had been the loss of many years’ rank, a vital injury to an officer. A remark which his wounded feelings wrung from him at the close of the second volume of his History of the Settlement, appears to have awakened the sympathy of those in power; and he was, almost immediately after its publication, offered the government of the projected settlement on Van Diemen’s land, which he accepted, and sailed once more for that quarter of the globe, where he founded his new colony; struggled with great difficulties, which he overcame; and, after remaining there eight years, was enjoying the flourishing state his exertions had produced, when he died suddenly, after a few days’ confinement from a slight cold, on, the 24rth of March, 1810.

There was also another Thomas Comber, D. D. who lived in the same century, and was of Trinity college in Cambridge. He was born -in Sussex, Jan. 1, 1575 5 admitted scholar of Trinity college, May 1593; chosen fellow of the same, October 1597; preferred to the deanery of Carlisle, August 1630; and sworn in master of Trinity college, Oct. 1631. In 1642, he was imprisoned, plundered, and deprived of all his preferments; and died February 1653, at Cambridge. He was a man of very extensive learning, particularly in the classical and oriental languages; and Neal, the historian of his persecutors, bears testimony to the excellence of his character in this and other respects. He is here however noticed, chiefly to correct the mistakes of the Biog. Britannica, Wood’s Athenas, &c. in which he is confounded with the dean of Durham, and said to have entered into a controversy with Selden on the subject of tithes. He was, however, related to him, the dean’s grandfather John Comber, esq. being his uncle.

, or Commines, Lat. Cominæus (Philip de), an excellent French historian, was born of a noble family in Flanders, 1446. He was a man of great abilities, which, added to his illustrious birth, soon recommended him to the notice of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, with whom he lived in intimacy for about eight years. He was afterwards 'invited to the court of France by Louis XI. and became a man of consequence, not only from the countenance which was given him by the monarch, but from other great connections also, which he formed by marrying into a noble family. Louis made him his chamberlain, and seneschal or chief magistrate of the province of Poictou. He also employed him in several negotiations, which he executed in a satisfactory manner, and enjoyed the high favour of his prince. But after the death of Louis, when his successor Charles VIII. came to the throne, the envy of his adversaries prevailed so far, that he was imprisoned at Loches, in the county of Berry, and treated with great severity; but by the application of his wife, he was removed at length to Paris. After some time he was convened before the parliament, in which he pleaded his own cause with such effect, that, after a speech of two hours, he was discharged. In this harangue he insisted much upon what he had done both for the king and kingdom, and the favour and bounty of his master Louis XI. He remonstrated to them, that he had done nothing either through avarice or ambition; and that if his designs had been only to have enriched himself, he had as fair an opportunity of doing it as any man of his condition in France. He died in a house of his own called Argenton, Oct. 17, 1509; and his body, being carried to Paris, was interred in the church belonging to the Augustines, in a chapel which he had built for himself. In his prosperity he had the following saying frequently in his mouth: “He that will not work, let him not eat:” in his adversity he used to say, “I committed myself to the sea, and am overwhelmed in a storm.”

He was a man of great parts, but not learned. He spoke several modern languages well, the German, French, and Spanish especially; but he knew nothing of the ancient, which he used to lament. His “Memoirs of his own times,” commence from 1464, and include a period of thirty-four years; in which are commemorated the most remarkable actions of the two last dukes of Burgundy, and of Louis XL and Charles VIII. kings of France; as likewise the most important contemporary transactions in EngJand, Flanders, Germany, Italy, and Spain. The great penetration and judgment which Comines has shewn in, these memoirs, the extensive knowlege of men and things, the wonderful skill in unfolding counsels and tracing actions to their first springs, and the variety of excellent precepts, political and philosophical, with which the whole is wrought up, have long preserved the credit of this work. Catherine de Medicis used to say, that Comines had made as many heretics in politics as Luther had in religion. He has one qualification not yet mentioned, which ought particularly to recommend him to our favour; and that is, the great impartiality he shews to the English. Whenever he has occasion to mention our nation, it is with much respect; and though, indeed, he thinks us deficient in political knowledge, when compared with his own countrymen, he gives us the character of being a generous, boldspirited people; highly commends our constitution, and never conceals the grandeur and magnificence of the English nation. Dryden, in his life of Plutarch, has made the historian some return for his civilities in the following elogium: “Next to Thucydides,” says that poet, “in this kind may be accounted Polybius among the Grecians; Livy, though not free from superstition, nor Tacitus from, ill-nature, amongst the Romans; amongst the modern Italians, Guicciardini and d'Avila, if not partial: but above all men, in my opinion, the plain, sincere, unaffected, and most instructive Philip deComines amongst the French, though he only gives his history the humble name of Commentaries. I am sorry I cannot find in our own nation, though it has produced some commendable historians, any proper to be ranked with these.” There are a very great number of editions of these “Memoirs” in French, enumerated by Le Long: the best, in the opinion of his countrymen, is that of the abbe Lenglet du Fresnoy, Paris, 1747, 4 vols. 4to, under the title of London. It was translated into English in 1596, as noticed by Ames and Herbert, who have, however, confounded him with Philip de Mornay. The last English translation was that of Uvedale, 1712, 2 vols. 8vo.

, usually called the Great, is memorable for having been the first emperor of the Romans who established Christianity by the civil power, and was born at Naissus, a town of Dardania, 272. The emperor Constantius Chlorus was his father; and was the only one of those who shared the empire at that time, that did not persecute the Christians. His mother Helena was a woman of low extraction, and the mistress of Constantius, as some say; as others, the wife, but never acknowledged publicly: and it is certain, that she never possessed the title of empress, till it was bestowed on her by her son, after the decease of his father. Constantine was a very promising youth, and gave many proofs of his conduct and courage which however began to display themselves more openly a little before the death of his father; for, being detained at the court of Galerius as an hostage, and discerning that Galerius and his colleagues intended to seize upon that part of the empire which belonged to his father, now near his end, he made his escape, and went to England, where Constantius then was. When he arrived there, he found Constantius upon his death-bed, who nevertheless was glad to see him, and named him for his successor. Constantius died at York in 306, and Constantine was immediately proclaimed emperor by the soldiers. Galerius at first would not allow him to take any other title than that of Csesar, which did not hinder him from reigning in England, Gaul, and Spain: but having gained several victories over the Germans and Barbarians, he took the title of Augustus in 308, with the consent of Galerius himself. Some time after, he marched into Italy, with an army of 40,000 men, against the emperor Muxentius, who had almost made desolate the city of Rome by his cruelties; and after several successful engagements, finally subdued him. Eusebius relates, that Constantine had protested to him, that he had seen in that expedition a luminous body in the heavens, in the shape of a cross, with this inscription, Tola vixat, “By this thou shall conquer:” and that Jesus Christ himself appeared to him afterwards in a dream, and ordered him to erect a standard cross-like; which, after his victory, he did in the midst of the city of Rome, and caused the following words to be inscribed on it: “By this salutary sign, which is the emblem of real power, I have delivered your city from the dominion of tyrants, and have restored the senate and people of Rome to their ancient dignity and splendour.” This, which is one of the most striking events in ecclesiastical history, has also been one of the most contested. Gibbon endeavours to explain it thus: While (says this historian) his anxiety for the approaching day, which must decide the fate of the empire, was suspended by a short and interrupted slumber, the venerable form of Christ, and the well-known symbol of his religion, might forcibly offer themselves to the active fancy of a prince who reverenced the name, and had perhaps secretly implored the power of the God of the Christians; and with regard to the credit due to Eusebius, be thinks Eusebius sensible, that the recent discovery of this marvellous anecdote would excite some surprize and distrust amongst the most pious of his readers. Much has certainly been said against the credibility of this story by authors less prejudiced against the Christian religion than Gibbon. By some the whole is regarded as a fiction, a stratagem and political device of Constantine, yet it is related by Eusebius, a grave historian, who declares that he had it from the emperor, who confirmed the narration by an oath. By Fabricius, we are told, that the appearance in the heavens was generally looked upon as a reality, and a miracle: but for his own part, he is inclined to consider it as the result of a natural phenomenon in a solar halo; he accordingly admits of the reality of the phenomenon, but does not suppose it to be properly miraculous. Upon a full and candid review of the evidence, Dr. Lardner seems inclined to doubt the relation given by the emperor, upon whose sole credit the story is recorded, though it was twenty years after the event, when Eusebius wrote his account, during which period he must have heard it frequently from eye-witnesses, if the emperor’s relation were accurate that the appearance was visible to his whole army as well as to himself. The oath of Constantine, on the occasion, with Dr. Lardner, brings the fact into suspicion, and another striking circumstance is that Eusebius does not mention the place where this wonderful sight appeared. Without, however, entering, at present, farther into the discussion, we may observe, that Eusebius has led us to the period, when the sign of the cross began to be made use of by Constantine, among his armies, and at his battles; this was probably the day before the last battle with Maxentius, fought on the 27th of October, 312. About this period, it is admitted, that Constantine became a Christian, and continued so the remainder of his life, taking care also to have his children educated in the same principles. His conversion seems to have been partly owing to his own reflections on the state of things, partly to conversation and discourse with Christians, with whom, the son of Constantius, their friend and favourer, must have been some time acquainted, but perhaps, chiefly to the serious impressions of nis early years, which being once made can never be wholly obliterated. Constantine was however a politician as well as a Christian, and he probably hit upon this method to reconcile the minds of his army to the important change in their religious profession and habits, as well as making use of it as a mean of success in his designs against his enemies, for which purpose he rightly judged, that the standard of the cross, and the mark of it as a device on his soldier’s shields, would be of no small service.

, earl of Shaftesbury, an eminent statesman of very dubious character, was son of sir John Cooper, of llockborn in the county of Southampton, bart. by Anne, daughter of sir Anthony Ashley of Winborne St. Giles in the county of Dorset, bart. where he was born July 22, 1621. Being a boy of uncommon parts, he was sent to Oxford at the age of fifteen, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Exeter college, under Dr. John Prideaux, the rector of it. He is said to have studied hard there for about two years; and then removed to Lincoln’s inn, where he applied himself with great vigour to the law, and especially that part of it which related to the constitution of the kingdom. He was elected for Tewksbury in Gloucestershire, in the parliament which met at Westminster, April 13, 1640, but was soon dissolved. He seems to have been well affected to the king’s service at the beginning of the civil war: for he repaired to the king at Oxford, offered his assistance, and projected a scheme, not for subduing or conquering his country, but for reducing such as had either deserted or mistaken their duty to his majesty’s obedience. He was afterwards invited to Oxford by a letter from his majesty; but, perceiving that he was not in confidence, that ins behaviour was disliked, and his person in danger, he retired into the parliament quarters, and soon after went up to London, where he was well received by that party “to which,” says Clarendon, “he gave himself up body and soul.” He accepted a commission from the parliament and, raising forces, took Wareham by storm, October 1644, and soon after reduced all the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire. This, and some other actions of the same nature, induced the above-mentioned historian to say that he “became an implacable enemy to the royal family.” The next year he was sheriff of Wiltshire, in 1651 he was of the committee of twenty, appointed to consider of ways and means for reforming the law. He was also one of the members of the convention that met after Cromwell had turned out the long parliament. He was again a member of parliament in 1654, and one of the principal persons who signed that famous protestation, charging the protector with tyranny and arbitrary government; and he always opposed the illegal measures of that usurper to the utmost. When the protector Richard was deposed, and the Rump came again into power, they nominated sir Anthony one of their council of state, and a commissioner for managing the army. He was at that very time engaged in a secret correspondence with the friends of Charles II. and greatiy instrumental in promoting his restoration; which brought him into peril of his life with the powers then in being. He was returned a member for Dorsetshire, in that which was called the healing parliament, which sat in April 1660; and a resolution being taken to restore the constitution, he was named one of the twelve members of the house of commons to carry their invitation to the king. It was in performing this service that he had the misfortune to be overturned in a carriage upon a Dutch road, by which he received a dangerous wound between the ribs, which ulcerated many years after, and was opened when he was chancellor.

Upon the king’s coming over he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was also one of the commissioners for the trial of the regicides; and though the Oxford historian is very severe on him on this occasion, yet his advocates are very desirous of proving that he was not any way concerned in betraying or shedding the blood of his sovereign. By letters patent, dated April 20, 1661, he was created barou Ashley of Winborne St. Giles; soon after made chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer, and then one of the lords commissioners for executing the office of high-treasurer. He was afterwards made lord lieutenant of the county of Dorset; and, April 23, 1672, created baron Cooper of Pawlet in the county of Somerset, and earl of Shaftesbury. November 4 following, he was raised to the post of lord high chancellor of England. He shone particularly in his speeches in parliament; and, if we judge only from those which he made upon swearing in the treasurer Clifford, his successor sir Thomas Osborne, and baron Thurland, we must conclude him to have been a very accomplished orator. The short time he was at the helm was a season of storms and tempests; and it is but doing him justice to say that they could not either affright or distract him. November 9, 1673, he resigned the great seal under very singular circumstances. Soon after the breaking up of the parliament, as Echard relates, the earl was sent for on Sunday morning to court; as was also sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general, to whom the seals were promised. As soon as the earl came he retired with the king into the closet, while the prevailing party waited in triumph to see him return without the purse. His lordship being alone with the king, said, “Sir, I know you intend to give the seals to the attorney-general, but 1 am sure your majesty never intended to dismiss me with contempt.” The king, who could not do an ill-natured thing, replied, “Gods fish, my lord, I will not do it with any circumstance that may look like an affront.” “Then, sir,” said the earl, “I desire your majesty will permit me to carry the seals before you to chapel, and send for them afterwards from my house.” To this his majesty readily consented; and the earl entertained the king with news and diverting stories till the very minute he was to go to chapel, purposely to amuse the courtiers and his successor, who he believed was upon the rack for fear he should prevail upon the king to change his mind. The king and the earl came out of the closet talking together and smiling, and went together to chapel, which greatly surprised, them all: and some ran immediately to tell the duke of York, that all his measures were broken. After sermon the earl went home with the seals, and that evening the king gave them to the attorneygeneral.

It was perhaps lord Shaftesbury’s misfortune, that those who were angry with him, have transmitted to posterity the history of the times in which he lived, and of that government in which he had so large a share. Marchmont Needham published a severe pamphlet against him, entitled “A packet of advices and animadversions, sent from London to the men of Shaftesbury, which is of use for all his majesty’s subjects in the three kingdoms,” Lond. 1676; and much of it is transferred verbatim into the account given of him by the Oxford historian. He was also represented as having had the vanity to expect to be chosen king of Poland; and this made way for calling him count Tapsky, alluding to the tap, which had been applied upon the breaking out of the ulcer between his ribs, when he was chancellor. It was also a standing jest with the lower form of wits, to style him Shiftsbury instead of Shaftesbury, The author who relates this, tells us also, that when he was chancellor, one sir Paul Neal watered his mares with rhenish and sugar: that is, entertained his mistresses. In his female connections he was very licentious; and it is recorded, that Charles II. who would both take liberties and bear them, once said to the earl at court, in a vein of raillery and good humour, and in reference only to his amours, “I believe, Shaftesbury, thou art the wickedest fellow in my dominions:” to which, with a low bow and very grave face, the earl replied, “May it please your majesty, of a subject I believe I am;” at which the merry monarch laughed heartily.

, a French historian, was born at Paris, of a noble family, originally of Auvergne, and having studied law, was admitted to the bar, which he quitted for the philosophy of Descartes. Bossuet, who was no less an admirer of that philosopher, procured him the appointment of reader to the dauphin, which office he filled with success and zeal, and died the 8th of October 1684, member of the French academy, at an advanced age. We are indebted to his pen for, 1. “The general History of France during the two first races of its kings,” 1685, 2 vols. fol. a work which the French critics- do not appreciate so justly as it deserves. 2. Divers tracts in metaphysics, history, politics, and moral philosophy, reprinted in 1704, 4to, under the title of “CEuvres de feu M. de Cordemoi.” They contain useful investigations, judicious thoughts, and sensible reflections on the method of writing history. He had adopted in philosophy, as we before observed, the sentiments of Descartes, but without servility; he even sometimes differs from them. In the latter part of his life, he was assisted in his literary labours by his son Lewis, who was born in 1651, and who became successively a licentiate of Sorbonne, and an abbot in the diocese of Clermont. He was a voluminous writer, chiefly on theological subjects; and was considered among the catholics as an able advocate of their cause against the attacks of the defenders of protestantism. He was, however, of considerable service to his father in the latter part-of his “General History of France;” and, it is believed, wrote the whole of that part which extends from about the conclusion of the reign of Lewis V. to the end of the work. By order of Lewis XIV. he continued that history from the time of Hugh Capet until the year 1660, which he did not live to finish. He died at the age of seventy-one, in the year 1722.

The performance and compositions of this admirable musician, says Dr. Burney, form an sera in instrumental music, particularly for the violin, and its kindred instruments, the tenor and violoncello, which he made respectable, and fixed their use and reputation, in all probability, as long as the present system of music shall continue to delight the ears of mankind. Indeed, this most excellent master had the happiness of enjoying part of his fame during mortality; for scarce a contemporary musical writer, historian, or poet, neglected to celebrate his genius and talents; and his productions have contributed longer to charm the lovers of music by the mere powers of the bow, without the assistance of the human voice, than tho.se of any composer that has yet existed. Haydn, indeed, with more varied abilities, and a much more creative genius, when instruments of all kinds are better understood, has captivated the musical world in perhaps a still higher degree; but whether the duration of his favour will be equal to that of Corelli, who reigned supreme in all concerts, and excited undiminished rapture full half a century, must be left to the determination of time, and the encreased rage of depraved appetites for novelty.

, a French historian, was born at Poitou in 1605, entered the society of the Jesuits in 1620, and quitted them in 1640, after having taught classical learning in their schools for some time. He afterwards devoted his time to historical and geographical pursuits, and published: 1. “Traite historique des rivieres de France,” Paris, 1644, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. An enlarged edition of “Tresor de l'Histoire de France de Gilles Corrozet,” 1645, 8vo. 3. “Histoire universelle du royatime de la Chine,” translated from the Italian of Alvares Semedo, 1645, 4to. 4. An enlarged edition of “Introducteur en la Cosmographie,” supposed to have been written by M. de Renti, 1645. 5. A translation of Turselin’s “Universal History,” continued to 1647, 1647, 2 vol. 8vo. 6. An enlarged edition of “Voyages de Vincent de Blanc,” 1648 and 1658, 4to. 7. A translation of Platina’s “Lives of the Popes,” with a continuation to Innocent X. 1651, 4to. 8. An original “Histoire des Vies des Papes,” 1656, 12mo, often reprinted, with additions and alterations by other hands. 9. “Harmonic des Evangelistes stir la Passion de notre Seigneur, avec des eclaircissemens,” 1645, 12mo. 10. “Lexicon Homericum,” 1643, 8vo. 11. “Histoire de Juifs,” 3 vojs. 12mo, two only of which were Coulon’s, the third being completed by his friend father Comte. Coulon died in 1664, and this history of the Jews was published the year after.

Mr. Cracherode left no formal will; and as he never was married, his fortune devolved by inheritance to his sister, a maiden lady, who died July 17, 1802. He left detached memoranda, bequeathing his immense collection of books, medals, drawings, &c. to the British Museum, of which he had for some years been a trustee. He was also a fellow of the royal and antiquarian societies. Every friend to literature must rejoice to hear that this unparalleled library (with the exception of his Polyglott Bible, which he left to the bishop of Durham, and his copy of the first edition of Homer, formerly belonging to the celebrated historian Thuanus, which he gave to Dr. Cyril Jackson, late dean of Christ church) went entire to this excellent repository, where they now are placed under the title of the Museum Cracherodiqnum.

, of another family, a German divine and poet, doctor and professor of divinity at the university of Kiel, was born in 1723, at Jostadt, near Aunaberg. He was educated at Leipsic, where he made great proficiency in learning, but was soon under the necessity of employing his talents to defray the expences of the university, which he did partly in teaching, and partly in translating for the booksellers. He soon, however, acquired great reputation, and in 1750 was invited to Copenhagen, where he became court-chaplain. In 1765 he was appointed professor of divinity in the university of Copenhagen, and in 1773 was appointed to the same office in the university of Kiel, where he died June 12, 1738. He ranks as an orator, historian, poet, and translator, but his countrymen distinguish him principally as an historian, and a poet. His translation of, and additions to Bossuet’s “Introduction to Universal History,” bespeak the highest talents, and his translation of the “Psalms” is said to breathe the true spirit of Oriental poetry. His two lyric odes of “David” and “Luther” are excellent; and, though inferior to Klopstock and Ramler in spirit, he far surpasses them in versification and ease. His principal works are: 1. “A Translation of the Sermons of St. Chrysostom, with an Introduction and Remarks,” ten parts, Leipsic, 1748 51. 2. Bossuet’s Introduction, with additions, ibid. 1748 72. 3. Poetical Translation of the “Psalms,” in four parts, ibid. 1762 64. 4. “Gospel Imitation of the Psalms of David, and other holy songs,” Copenhagen, 1769. 5. “Luther,” an ode, 1771. 6. “Melancthon,” an ode. He was also concerned with Klopstock in publishing the “Northern Inspector,” one of the best periodical publications in Germany.

, an Italian poet, and poetical historian, the son of John Philip Crescimbeni, a lawyer, and Anna Virginia Barbo, was born Oct. 9, 1663, at Macerata in the marche ofAncona. Jerome Casanati, afterwards cardinal, was his godfather, and gave him the names of John-Maria-Ignatius-Xavier-Joseph-Antony, of which he retained only John Maria, and afterwards changed the latter into Mario. After receiving grammatical education at home, his uncle Antony-Francis, an advocate, invited him to Rome in 1674; hut the following year his father and mother recalled him to Macerata, where he engaged in a course of study among the Jesuits. His teacher of rhetoric was Charles d' Aquino, under whom he made great progress in eloquence and poetry. Among his early attempts, he wrote a tragedy in the style of Seneca, “The Defeat of Darius, king of Persia,” and translated the first two hooks of Lucan’s Pharsalia into Italian verse from which performances he derived so much reputation, as to be admitted a member of the academy of the Disposti, in the town of Jesi, although only in his fifteenth year. About that time he continued his classical studies for eight months under Nicolas Antony Raffaelli, and entered upon a course of philosophy. His father now recommending the law as a profession, Crescimbeni took his doctor’s degree Oct. 3, 167 y, and was appointed to lecture on the institutes, which he did for a year. His uncle before mentioned, aoain inviting him to Rome, he divided his time there between law and polite literature, and in 1685, the academy of the Infecondi admitted him a member. Hitherto his studies in Italian poetry had not been conducted so as to inspire him with a very pure taste; but about 1687, he entered on a course of reading of the best Italian poets, which not only enabled him to correct his own taste and style, but gave him hopes that tie might improve those of his countrymen. With this intention he endeavoured to form a new society, or, as they are called in Italy, academy, rindcr the name of Arcadia, the members to be called the shepherds of Arcadia, and each to take the name of a shepherd, and that of some place in ancient Arcadia, and his own name accordingly was Alfesibeo Cario. Such was the origin of this celebrated academy, and surely no origin was ever mure childishly romantic, or unpromising as to any beneficial e licet on solid or elegant literature, to which purposes, however, we are told it has eminently contributed. It was established Oct. 5, 1690. A short account of it, written in 1757, informs us that the first members were those itained persons chiefly who were about queen Christina of Sweden. (See Christina, vol. IX.) It admits all sciences, all arts, all nations, all ranks, and both sexes. The number of its members is not determined; they are said at present to be upwards of two thousand, but we have heard a much larger number assigned, for they sometimes aggregate whole academies. At Home, the academicians assemble in pastoral habits, in a most agreeable garden, called Bosco Parrhasia. The constitution of the society being democratic, they never chusje a prince for their protector. At the end of each olympiad, for that is the method of computing adopted by the Arcadians, they cbuse a custode, who is the speaker, and has the sole right of assembling the society, who are also represented by him alone, when they are not assembled. In order to be admitted a member, it is requisite that the person should be twenty-four years of age complete, of a reputable family, and to have given some specimen of abilities in one or more branches of education. As to the ladies, a poem, or a picture, is a testimony of genius that is held sufficient. The stated assemblies of this academy are fixed to seven different days, between the first of May and the seventh of October. In the first six they read the works of the Roman shepherds, the productions of strangers being reserved for the seventh and last. Each author reads his own compositions, except ladies and cardinals, who are allowed to employ others.

, a French historian, was born at Pads in 1693. His father was a journeyman printer. He studied under the celebrated Rollin, and became professor of rhetoric in the college de Beauvais. After Rollin’s death, he undertook the continuation of his Roman history, and published various works, in which, as in the education of his pupils, he preserved a sacred regard for the interests of religion, virtue, and literature. He died at Paris, Dec. I, 1765, after publishing, 1. an edition of “Livy,” with notes, 6 vols. 4to, which, says Gibbon, contains a sensible life of the historian, a judicious selection of the best remarks on his work, and displays as much intelligence as taste on the part of the editor. Ernesti is not less in favour of this edition, which has been reprinted in 8vo and 12mo. 2. Continuation of “llollin’s Roman History,” already noticed. 3. “Histoire des Empereurs Remains jusqu' a Constantin,” Paris, 1756, 6 vols. 4to, which was soon after translated into English, and published in 8vo. 4. “Histoire de l'universite” de Paris,“7 vols. 12mo; a very useful work, for which his countrymen think he was better qualified than to write the Roman history. 5.” Observations sur V Esprit des Lois,“12mo, some remarks on Montesquieu’s celebrated work, from which Crevier derived little reputation. 6.” Rhetorique Fransoise," 1765, 2 vols. 12mo, which was well received, and was reprinted at Liege, in 1787. Crevier, like most voluminous writers, is careless in his style, but generally correct and precise in his narrative.

On his return to England, the university of Oxford invited him to settle there, with which he complied in 1532, and taught Greek in Peckwater school (on the site of which Peckwater quadrangle is built), and soon after he was made a canon of Cardinal Wolsey’s college, which he held until 1545, when he removed to Exeter college on a pension of 26l. 135. 6d. per annum, from the smallness of which it has been inferred that he had not now the same interest at court as formerly but long before this, in 1532 f when, upon the death of dean Higden, the canons supplicated his majesty, through lord Cromwell, that he might be appointed to that office, the request was denied, nor was he afterwards made a canon of the college upon the new foundation by Henry VIII. when it had the name of the King’s college. It appears by his will that he had only the living of Long Buckby, in Northamptonshire, which Dodd supposes was conferred upon him in queen Mary’s time. The same historian thinks that in king Edward’s reign he did not go all the lengths of the reformers, and gives as a proof some reflections against Leland on account of his inconstancy in religion. There can be no doubt, however, of Dr. Croke’s remaining Jinn in the popish religion, for we find him enumerated among the witnesses appointed to discover heresy in archbishop Cranmer’s writings. Dr. Croke died at London in 1558, but where buried is not known. His writings are, 1. “Oratio de Groecarum disciplinarum laudibus,” dated July 1519, and probably printed about that time, 4to. It is dedicated to his fellow collegian, Nicholas West, bishop of Ely; and the date shows the error of those biographers who inform us that he was not chosen Greek professor at Cambridge until 1522. With this is printed “Oratio qua Cantabrigienses est hortatus, ne Grascarum literarum desertores essent.” Before, and at the end of these orations, Gilbert Ducher wrote an epistle in praise of Croke’s learning. 2. “Introductiones ad Grascam linguam,” Cologn, 1520, 4to. 3. “In Ausonium annotationes.” 4. “Elementa Gr. Gram.” 5. “De Verborum constructione.” His Letters from Italy to Henry VIII. on the subject of the divorce may be seen in Burnet’s History of the Reformation, with a full account of his proceedings there, which gives us no very favourable notion of the liberality of his royal employer, and proves that Collier’s accusation of bribery has not much foundation. Croke is also said to have made some translations from the Greek of Theodore Gaza and Elysius Calentinus. Hody says that he and Erasmus translated Gaza’s Greek Grammar in 1518, which may be the same mentioned above; and we suspect that the work “De Verborum constructione” is also from Gaza. Bale and Pits are seldom to be depended on in the titles of books. The fame of Croke has been recently revived on the continent by John Gott. Boehmius, in his “Specimen Literature Lipsicae Saeculo XVI.” 1761, 4to, in which he notices Croke as the reviver of Greek literature in that university. The same author, in his “Opuscula Academica de Litteratura Lipsiensi,” has published Croke’s “Encomium Academic Lipsiensis.”

, an ancient historian, was a native of Cnidos, who accompanied Cyrus the son of Darius in his expedition against his brother Artaxerxes; by whom he was taken prisoner about 400 B. C. But curing Artaxerxes of a wound he received in the battle, he became a great favourite at the court of Persia, where he continued practising physic for seventeen years, and was employed in several negotiations. He wrote the “History of Persia,” in 23 books; and a “History of the Indies;” but these works are now lost, and all we have remaining of them is an abridgment compiled by Pbotius. Although the most judicious among the ancients looked upon Ctesias as a fabulous writer, several of the ancient historians and modern Christian writers have adopted in part his chronology of the Assyrian kings; but Dr. Vincent, a writer of the first authority, after a careful examination of his character and writings, decides that he must still be classed among the fabulous historians. In Gale’s Herodotus, Lond. 1679, fol. we have “Excerpta e Ctesise Persicis et Indicis,” and Henry Stephens published “Ex Ctesia, Agatharcide, et Memnone excerpta,” 1557.

, an accomplished antiquary, descended from a family seated in Suffolk early in the fifteenth century, and at Hawsted in that county in 1656, of which latter place he has himself been the historian, was born in 1733; educated at Catherine-hall, Cambridge, of which society he was afterwards fellow; and obtained the first senior bachelor’s dissertation prize in 1758. In April 1762 he was presented to the rectory of Hawsted, in Suffolk, by his father, who died in 1774; as did his mother in 1784. In March 1774, he became F. S. A.; in December that year he was instituted to the vicarage of Great Thurlow, in the same county, on the presentation of his brother-in-law, the late Henry Vernon, esq.; and in March 1775 was elected F. R. S. His admirable History of the Parish of Hawsted (of which he was lord and patron), and Hardwick House, a perfect model for every work of the same nature, was originally published as the twenty-third number of the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica,” and has in the present year (1813) been again offered to the public in a superior style of typography, with the addition of seven new plates.

That sir John Cullum was a profound antiquary, a good natural historian, and an elegant scholar, the “History of Hawsted” sufficiently evinces. That he most punctually and conscientiously discharged the proper duties of his profession as a divine, has been testified by the grateful recollection of his parishioners. His discourses in the pulpit were plain, unaffected, and rarely in any degree controversial; adapted to the village congregation which he gladdened by residing very near them. His attention to their truest interest was unremitted, and his example their best guide. His friendships in private life were amiable; and in his general commerce with the world, the uniform placidity of his manners, and his extensive literary acquirements, secured to him universal esteem. He was among the most valued correspondents of Mr. Gough, who sincerely lamented his loss. A specimen of his familiar letters will be found in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1797, vol. LXVII. p. 995.

, an historian, was born in Scotland, in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation, in 1654; his father was minister at Ettrick, in the shire and presbytery of Selkirk. He was educated, according to the custom of the Scotch gentlemen of those times who. were of the presbyterian sect, in Holland, where we may suppose he imbibed his principles of government, and was much with the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague before the revolution, particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland. He came over to England with the prince of Orange; and was honoured with the confidence and intimacy of many leading men among the friends of king William and the revolution. We find him employed, at different times, in the character of a travelling companion or tutor; first to the earl of Hyndford and his brother Mr. William Carmichael, solicitor-general in the reign of queen Anne for Scotland; secondly, with the lord Lome, afterwards so well known under the name of John duke of Argyle; and thirdly, with the lord viscount Lonsdale. In 1703 we find him at Hanover with the celebrated Atldison, and graciously received by the elector and princess Sophia.

Lord Lome, at the time he was under the tuition of Mr. Cunningham, was colonel of a regiment, which the father of the earl of Argyle had raised for his majesty’s service in Flanders. Mr. Cunningham’s connection with the duke of Argyle, with whom he had the honour of maintaining an intimacy as long as he lived, together with the opportunities he enjoyed of learning in his travels what may be called military geography, naturally tended to qualify him for writing intelligibly on military affairs. On this subject Achilles, it is probable, communicated information to his preceptor Chiron. When we reflect on these circumstances, we shall the less wonder that his accounts of battles and sieges, and in general of all the operations of war, should be so copious, and at the same time so conceivable and satisfactory. It is not unnatural on this occasion to call to mind, that the historian Poly bins, so justly renowned for his knowledge of both civil and military affairs, was tutor to Scipio Africanus.

A question has, no doubt, been anticipated by the reader of these memorials of Mr. Cunningham, whether he was not the celebrated critic on Horace, and the author of the posthumous criticisms in an edition of Virgil published by Hamilton and Balfour of Edinburgh in 1742. On this question, which is, no doubt, not a little interesting to philologists, but not perhaps so interesting as it would have been 50 or 60 years ago, his editor Dr. Thomson has exhausted not a little reading, inquiry, and probable conjecture, and bestows perhaps more consideration on it than the importance of the question deserves. It must be owned, at the same time, that the circumstances tending to prove the identity of the critic and the historian, and those tending to prove their diversity, are so many, and the evidence for and against each so nicely balanced, that it becomes a question of infinite curiosity on this account, and of importance too as illustrating the uncertainty of both direct and circumstantial evidence. The historian Alexander Cunningham was born in Scotland in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation; was educated in Holland, where he was intimately acquainted with many of the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague, and particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland: he enjoyed, in an eminent degree, the favour and familiarity of the great: he travelled with the duke of Argyle: he was distinguished by his skill in the game of chess: he was in politics a whig; and he lived to extreme old age. Now there is very strong evidence that all these circumstances belong to the life, and point to Alexander Cunningham, the editor and commentator of Horace. It would seem strange indeed, if two Alexander Cunninghams, countrymen, contemporaries, so distinguished for erudition and the familiarity and favour of men of rank and power, and the same men too, should have flourished at the same sera, in modes of life, in places of residence, in peculiarities of character, and other circumstances so nearly parallel. And yet, notwithstanding these accumulated coincidences, there are circumstances too of diversity and opposition that seem incompatible with their identity; and therefore Dr. Thomson, after all his inquiries cdncerning the identity or the diversity of the historian and the critic, on that subject remains sceptical; and from those curious points of coincidence and opposition draws the following pertinent inference: “If the writings of our author have increased the stores of history, the incidents of his life, by shewing the uncertainty of oral tradition, have illustrated its importance.”

The compilers of the Encyclopaedia Britanriica thus conclude their article on this subject: “Alexander Cunningham, the author of the History of Great Britain, has been supposed to be the same person with Alexander Cunningham who published an edition of Horace at the Hague, in 2 vols. 8vo. 1721, which is highly esteemed. But, from the best information we have been able to collect, they were certainly different persons; though they were both of the same name, lived at the same time, had both been travelling tutors, were both said to have been eminent for their skill at the game of chess, and both lived to a very advanced age. The editor of Horace is generally said to have died in Holland, where he taught both the civil and canon laws, and where he had collected a very large library, which was sold in that country.” That these remarks are just has been since placed beyond a doubt by a writer, under the signature of Crito, in the Scots Magazine for October 1804, who proves that the editor of Horace died at the Hague in 1730, and the historian at London in 1737.

, is the name, or assumed name, of a Latin historian, who has written the actions of Alexander the Great, in ten books; the two first of which are indeed not extant, but yet are so well supplied by Freinshemius, as to be thought equal to the others. Where this author was born, and when he lived, are disputed points among the learned, and never likely to be settled. Some have fancied, from the elegant style of his history, that he must have lived in or near the Augustan age; but there are no explicit testimonies to confirm this opinion; 'and a judgment formed upon the single circumstance of style will always be found precarious. Others place him in the reign of Vespasian, and others have brought him down so low as to Trajan’s: Gibbon is inclined to place him in the time of Gordian, in the middle of the third century; and some have imagined that the name of Quintus Curtius was forged by an Italian, who composed that history, or romance as it has been called, about three hundred years ago; yet why so good a Latin writer, who might have gained the reputation of the first Latin scholar of his time, should have been willing to sacrifice his glory to that of an imaginary Quintus Curtius, is a question yet to be resolved. On the other hand it is certain that Quintus Curtius was an admired historian of the romantic ages. He is quoted in the “Policraticon” of John of Salisbury, who died in the year 1181; and Peter Blesensis, archdeacon of London, a student at Paris, about 1150, mentioning the books most common in the schools, declares that “he profited much by frequently looking into this author.” All this is decidedly against the opinion that Quintus Curtiuis a forgery of only three hundred years old.

Cardinal du Perron was so great an admirer of this historian, that he declared one page of him to be worth thirty of Tacitus. This extravagant admiration, however, may be somewhat abated by a view of what Le Clerc has written about this author, at the end of his book upon the art of of criticism; in which are manifestly shewn several great faults in him, ignorance of astronomy and geography, contradictions, erroneous descriptions, bad taste in the choice of matter, carelessness in dating the events, &c. though perhaps, as Bayle rightly observes, the greatest part of those faults might be found in most ancient historians, if one would take the pains, or had the opportunity, to criticise them severely. He has nevertheless many qualities as a writer, which will always make him admired and applauded; and notwithstanding the censures of some critics, this historian deserves to be commended for his sincerity, for he speaks the good and the bad of his hero, without the least prepossession of his merit. If any fault is to be found with his history, it is for being too highly polished.

There is a singular anecdote, relating to this historian, preserved of Alphonso king of Naples, which may be mentioned as another proof of what we have advanced above, respecting the forgery of Quintus Curtius. This prince, who lived in the thirteenth century, labouring under an indisposition at Capua, from which none of his physicians could relieve him, every one strove to bring him such things as they thought would divert him best. Antonius Panormita made choice of books, and among the rest, the history of Alexander, by Quintus Curtius. To this the prince listened very attentively, and was so extremely pleased with it, that he almost entirely recovered the very first day it was read to him. Upon which occasion he could not help rallying his physicians, and telling them, that whatever they might think of their Hippocrates and their Avicenna, Quintus Curtius was worth a thousand of them.

, whose German name was Speishammer, an eminent historian, was born in 1473, at Sweinfurt, in Franconia, and became distinguished as a philosopher, historian, orator, poet, and physician, although his historical works only have survived. He was educated at Vienna, where his studies were confined to medicine and poetry, and soon became in high favour with the emperor Maximilian I. who made him his librarian, and afterwards employed him in various important negociations in Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland, and for many years admitted him to his presence as a confidential adviser, and placed him at the head of the senate of Vienna. When Cuspinian meditated his historical writings, the emperor ordered the libraries and archives to be thrown open to him. He died in 1529. His biographer, Gerbelius, describes him as a man of elegant person, address, and manners; and his works attest his learning and diligence in historical research. In this branch he wrote: 1. “De Cicsaribus et Imperatoribus Romanorum,” 1519, fol.; reprinted at Strasburgh, 1540; Basil, by Oporinus, 1561, and Francfort, 1601. 2. “Austria, sive Commentarius de rebus Austrice Marchionum, Ducum, &c.” Basil, 1553, fol. Franc fort, 1601. 3. “Commonefactio ad Leonem X. papam, ad Carolum V. imperatorem, &c. de Constantinopoli capta a Turcis, &c.” Leipsic, 1596, 4to. 4. “Commentarius in Sexti Rufi libellum de regia, consulari, imperialique dignitate, &c.” Basil, 1553, fol. with his life by Gerbelius, reprinted at Francfort, 1601, fol. 5. “De origine Turcorum,” Antwerp, 1541, 8vo. 6. “Panegyric! variorum Auctorum,” Vienna, 1513.

About the middle of December, he embarked at Gravesend on board the Suffolk Indiaman, commanded by captain William Wilson, and the vessel sailed from the Downs Dec. 25, 1752, and arrived at Madras on May 11. At first Mr. Dalrymple was put under the store-keeper, but was soon after removed to the secretary’s office, and on lord Pigot’s being appointed governor, was noticed by his lordship with great kindness, as well as by Mr. Orme, the historian, then a member of council and accountant, who continued his friendship to him during the remainder of his life. While in the secretary’s office, examining the old records, to qualify himself, by the knowledge of them, to fill the office of secretary, which he was in succession to expect, he found the commerce of the eastern islands was an object of great consideration with the company, and he was inspired with an earnest desire to recover that important object for this country.

, an English poet and historian, the son of a music-master, was born near Taunton, in Somersetshire, in 1562. In 1579 he was admitted a commoner of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he continued about three years, and by the help of an excellent tutor, made considerable improvement in academical studies. He left the university, however, without taking a degree, and pursued the study of history and poetry under the patronage of the earl of Pembroke’s family. This he thankfully acknowledges in his “Defence of Rhime,” which is printed in the late edition of his works, as a necessary document to illustrate the ideas of poetry entertained in his time. To the same family he was probably indebted for an university education, as no notice occurs of his father, who, if a music-master, could not well have escaped the researches of Dr. Burney. The first of his product ions, at the age of twenty-three, was a translation of Paulns Jovius’s ' Discourse of Rare Inventions, both military and amorous, called Imprese,“London, 1585, 8vo, to which he prefixed an ingenious preface. He afterwards became tutor to the lady Anne Clifford, sole daughter and heiress to George, earl of Cumberland, a lady of very high accomplishments, spirit, and intrepidity. To her, when at the age of thirteen, he addressed a delicate admonitory epistle. She was married, first to Richard, earl of Dorset, and afterwards to the earl of Pembroke,” that memorable simpleton,“says lord Orford,” with whom Butler has so much diverted himself." The pillar which she erected in the county of Westmoreland, on the road-side between Penrith and Appleby, the spot where she took her last leave of her mother,

“He was born not far from Taunton, in this county (Somersetshire), whose father was a master of musick and his harmonious mind made an impression on his son’s genius, who proved an exquisite poet. He carried in his Christian and surname, two holy prophets, his monitors so to qualify his raptures, that he abhorred all prophaneness. He was also a judicious historian, witness his Lives of our English kings since the conquest, until king Edward III. wherein he hath the happiness to reconcile brevity with clearness, qualities of great distance in other authors. He was a servant in ordinary to queen Anne, who allowed him, a fair salary. As the tortoise burieth himself all the winter under the ground, so Mr. Daniel would lye hid at his garden-house in Old -street, nigh London, for some months together (the more retiredly to enjoy the company of the muses) and then would appear in publick, to converse with his friends, whereof Dr. Cowel and Mr. Camden were principal. Some tax him to smack of the old cask, as resenting of the Romish religion, but they have a quicker palate than I, who can make any such discovery. In his old age he turned husbandman, and rented a farm in Wiltshire, nigh the Devizes. I can give no account how he thrived thereupon. For though he was well versed in Virgil, his fellow-husbandman-poet, yet there is more required to make a rich farmer, than only to say his Georgics by heart; and I question whether his Italian will fit our English husbandry. Besides, I suspect that Mr. Daniel his fancy was too fine and sublimated to be wrought down to his private profit.”

Mr. Headly, who appears to have studied his works with much attention, thus appreciates his merit: “Though very rarely sublime, he has skill in the pathetic; and his pages are disgraced with neither pedantry nor conceit. We find, both in his poetry and prose, such a legitimate and rational flow of language as approaches nearer the style of the 18th than the 16th century, and of which we may safely assert, that it never will become obsolete. He certainly was the Atticus of his day. It seems to have been his error to have entertained too great a diffidence of his own abilities. Constantly contented with the sedate propriety of good sense, which he no sooner attains than he seems to rest satisfied, though his resources, had he but made the effort, would have carried him much farther. In thus escaping censure, he is not always entitled to praise. From not endeavouring to be great, he sometimes misses of being respectable. The constitution of his mind seems often to have failed him in the sultry and exhausting regions of the muses; for though generally neat, easy, and perspicuous, he too frequently grows slack, languid, and enervated. In perusing his long historical poem, we grow sleepy at the dead ebb of his narrative, notwithstanding being occasionally relieved with some touches of the pathetic. Unfortunate in the choice of his subject, he seems fearful of supplying its defects by digressional embellishment; instead of fixing upon one of a more fanciful cast, which the natural coolness of his judgment would necessarily have corrected, he has cooped himself up within the limited and narrow pale of dry events; instead of casting his eye on the general history of human nature, and giving his genius a range over her immeasurable fields, he has confined himself to an abstract diary of fortune; instead of presenting us with pictures of truth from the effects of the passions, he has versified the truth of action only; he has sufficiently, therefore, shown the historian, but by no means the poet. For, to use a sentiment of sir William Davenant’s, ‘ Truth narrative and past is the idol of historians, (who worship a dead thing); and truth operative, and by its effects continually alive, is the mistress of poets, who hath not her existence in mutter, but in reason.’ Daniel Las often the softness of Rowe without his effeminacy. In his Complaint of Cleopatra, he has caught Ovid’s manner very happily, as he has no obscurities either of style or language, neither pedantry nor affectation, all of which have concurred in banishing from use the works of his contemporaries. The oblivion he has met with is peculiarly undeserved; he has shared their fate, though innocent of their faults.”

This play had success enough to procure him the recommendation, if nothing more substantial, of many persons of distinction, and of the wits of the times; and with such encouragement he renewed his attendance at court, adding to its pleasures by his dramatic efforts, and not sparingly to the mirth of his brethren the satirists, by the unfortunate issue of some of his licentious gallantries. For several years his plays and masks were acted with the greatest applause, and his character as a poet was raised very high by all who pretended to be judges. On the death of Ben Jonson, in 1638, the queen procured for him. the vacant laurel, which is said to have given such offence to Thomas May, his rival, as to induce him to join the disaffected party, and to become the advocate and historian of the republican parliament. In 1639, Davenaut was appointed “Governor of the king and queen’s company acting at the Cockpit in Drurv-lane, during the lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson, hath or doth hold in the said house.” When the civil commotions had for some time subsisted, the peculiar nature of them required that public; amusements should be the decided objects of popular resentment, and Davenant, who had administered so copiously to the pleasures of the court, was very soon brought under suspicions of a more serious kind. In May 16M, he was accused before the parliament, of being a partner with many of the king’s friends, in the design of bringing the army to London for his majesty’s protection. His accomplices effected their escape, but Davenant was apprehended at Feversham, and sent up to London. In July following he was bailed, but on a second attempt to withdraw to France, was taken in Kent. At last, however, he contrived to make his escape without farther impediment, and remained abroad for some time. The motive of his flight appears not to have been cowardice, but an unwillingness to sacrifice his life to popular fury, while there was any prospect of his being able to devote it to the service of his royal master. Accordingly, when the queen sent over a considerable quantity of military stores for the use of the earl of Newcastle’s army, Davenant resolutely ventured to return to England, and volunteered his services under that nobleman, who had been one of his patrons. The earl ma.le him lieutenant-general of his ordnance, a post for which, if he was not previously prepared, he qualified himself with so much skill and success, that in September 1643, he was rewarded with the honour of knighthood for the service he rendered to the royal cause at the siege of Gloucester. Of his military prowess, however, we have no farther account, nor at what time he found it necessary, on the decline of the king’s affairs, to retire again into France. Here he was received into the confidence of the queen, who in 1646 employed him in one of her importunate and ill-advised negociations with the king, who was then at Newcastle. About the same time Davenant had embraced the popish religion, a step which probably recommended him to the queen, but which, when known, could only tend to increase the animosity of the republicans against the court, which was already too closely suspected of an attachment to that persuasion. The object of his negociation was to persuade the king to save his crown by sacrificing the church; a proposition which his majesty rejected with becoming dignity; and this, as lord Clarendon observes, “evinced an honest and conscientious principle in his majesty’s mind, which elevated him above all his advisers.” The queen’s advisers in the measure were, his majesty knew, men of no religious principle, and he seems to have resented their sending an ambassador of no more consequence than the manager of a play-house.

He married, while in Ireland, Eleanor, the third daughter of lord Audley, by whom he had one son, who was an idiot and died young, and a daughter, Lucy, who was married to Ferdinando lord Hastings, afterwards earl of Huntingdon. Sir John’s lady appears to have been an enthusiast; a volume of her prophecies was published in 1649, 4to. Anthony Wood informs us that she foretold the death of her husband, who turned the matter off with a jest. She was harshly treated during the republic for her officious prophecies, and is said to have been confined several years in Bethlem hospital, and in the Tower of London, where she suffered all the rigour that could be inflicted by those who would tolerate no impostures but their own. She died in 1652, and was interred near her husband in St. Martin’s church. The late earl of Huntingdon informed lord Mountmorres the historian of the Irish parliament, that sir John Davies did not appear to have acquired any landed property in Ireland from his great employments. The character of sir John Davies as a lawyer, is that of great ability and learning. As a politician he stands unimpeached of corruption or servility, and his “Tracts” are valued as the result of profound knowledge and investigation. They were republished with some originals in 1786 by Mr. George Chalmers, who prefixed a Life of the Author, to which the present sketch is greatly indebted.

, a celebrated historian, was the son of Anthony Davila, who was constable of the kingdom of Cyprus when it was under the power of the Venetians; but having lost his situation by the conquest made by the Turks in 1570, retired to Venice, and being possessed of some property at Sacco in the territory of Padua, determined to settle there. His son was born in this place in 1576, and named Henry Catherine, in honour of Henry III. and Catherine de Medicis, who had shown marks of great respect and kindness for the constable, when he was in France a little before the war of Cyprus. When young Davila had attained his seventh year, his father sent him to France, where he was placed under the care of the marechal D‘Hemery, who had married his father’s sister. D’Hemery, who resided at Villars in Normandy, gave his nephew an excellent education, and at a suitable age introduced him at court as one of the pages to the queen mother. At the age of eighteen, he served in the war against the League, and distinguished himself by an ardour which frequently endangered his life. In 1599, the war being concluded by the peace of Vervins, Davila was recalled by his father and by the Venetians, and returned to Italy. The republic of Venice entrusted him with various employments, both military and civil, such as the government of Candy, and of Dalmatia, and what pleased him most, the title of constable was confirmed to him, and in the senate and on all public occasions he took precedence after the doge. The last office to which he was appointed, but which he never enjoyed, was that of commander of Crema. On his way to this place, the different towns and villages, through which he was to pass, were ordered to furnish him with a change of horses and carriages; but when he arrived at a place near Verona, and requested the usual supplies, they were denied; and on his remonstrating, a brutal fellow shot him dead with a pistol. The assassin was immediately killed by one of Davila’s sons, who happened to be with him. This misfortune happened in 1631, exactly a year after he had published, in Italian, his history of the civil wars of France, under the title “Istoria delle Guerre civili di Francia,” Venice, 4to, reprinted in 1634, 1638, and often since. The finest editions are tnose of Paris, 1644, 2 vols. folio, and of Venice, 1733, 2 vols. folio. We have two old translations into English, 1647, by Aylesbury, and 1678. by dottrel, folio; but the best is that by Farneworth, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. The French have likewise translations by Baudouin, 1642, and by Grosley and the abbe Mallet, 1757, 3 vols. 4to, and there is a Latin translation by Cornazano, Rome, 1743, 3 vols. 4to.

This history is divided into fifteen books, and contains every thing worth notice that passed, from the death of Henry II. 1559, to the peace of Vervins 1598. Lord Bolingbroke calls it a noble history, and says, that he “should not scruple to confess it in many respects equal to that of Livy.” Davila has indeed been accused of too much refinement and subtlety, in developing the secret motives of actions, in laying the causes of events too deep, and deducing them often through a series of progression too complicated, and too artfully wrought. But yet, as the noble lord goes on in his “Letters on the Study of History,” 1. v. “the suspicious person, who should reject this historian upon such general inducements as these, would have no grace to oppose his suspicions to the authority of the first duke of Epernon, who had been an actor, and a principal actor too, in many of the scenes that Davila recites. Girard, secretary to this duke, and no contemptible biographer, relates, that this history came down to the place where the old man resided in Gascony, a little before his death; that he read it to him; that the duke confirmed the truth of the narrations in it; and seemed only surprised, by what means the author could be so well informed of the most secret councils and measures of those times.”

, son of Mr. John Davis, of Windsor, was born July II, 1756, and educated at Eating, Middlesex; whence he removed to Baliol college, Oxford, May 17, 1774, where he took his degree of B. A. about January 177-. In the spring of that year he wrote an Examination of Gibbon’s “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” in which he evinced more knowledge than is usually found at the age of twenty-one. This was answered by the historian in a Vindication, which brougut out a reply by Mr. Davis, who, it is evident, gave Gibbon no small uneasiness by attacking him on his veracity and fairness of quotation, in which Gibbon fancied himself impregnable. In 1780, Mr. Davis having taken his master’s degree, and entered into priest’s orders, was made a fellow of his college; and, for some time before his death, had the office of tutor, which he discharged with a solicitude and constancy too great for the sensibility of his mind, and the delicacy of his constitution. A lingering illness removed him from the society of his many estimable friends, and deprived the public of his expected services. Affected by the strongest and tenderest of those motives, which endear life and subdue fortitude, he sustained the slow approaches of dissolution, not only resigned but cheerful, supported by the principles he had well defended. Feb. 10, 1784, without any apparent change, between a placid slumber and death, he expired. He was buried at Windsor, the place of his nativity. He had cultivated a taste for elegant literature, particularly in poetry. Though his voice was not strong, his elocution was distinct, animated, unaffected, and pathetic. The cheerfulness and vivacity of his conversation, the warmth and benevolence of his heart, fixed by principle, and animated by sentiment, rendered him in his private character, alike amiable and worthy of esteem.

The historian of his college says very justly, that whether Dr. Denne is to be considered as the minister of a parish, or as a governor in the church, he never failed, by an uncommon degree of application, to acquit himself with credit in each station. His abilities as a scholar and divine maybe estimated from his printed sermons, amounting to sixteen, preached on occasional subjects; a “Concio ad Clerum,” 174-5; “Articlesof inquiry for a parochial Visitation,” 1732; “The State of Bromley College, in Kent” and “A Register of Benefactions to the parish of Shoreditch,” drawn up in 1745, with notes, but not printed till 1772, 4to. His assiduityand usefulness in promoting what he conceived to be for the interest and credit of this parish, were conspicuous, in his successful researches after the benefactions, and the application of them 5 in the business of rebuilding the church from its origin to the completion; and in establishing upon the present plan the vegetable lecture founded by Mr. Faircliild.

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

D‘Ewes (Sir Symonds), an English historian and antiquary, was the son of Paul D’Eues, esq. and born in 1602, at Coxden in Dorsetshire, the seat of Richard Syxnonds, esq. his mother’s father. He was descended from an ancient family in the Low Countries, from whence his ancestors removed hither, and gained a considerable settlement in the county of Suffolk. In 1618, he was entered a fellow- commoner of St. John’s college in Cambridge and about two years after, began to collect materials for forming a correct and complete history of Great Britain. He was no less studious in preserving the history of his own times; setting down carefully the best accounts he was able to obtain of every memorable transaction, at the time it happened. This disposition in a young man of parts recommended him to the acquaintance of persons of the first rank in the republic of letters, such as Cotton, Selden, Spelman, &c. In 1626, he married Anne, daughter to sir William Clopton of Essex, an exquisite beauty, not fourteen years old, with whom he was so sincerely captivated, that his passion for her seems to have increased almost to a degree of extravagance, even after she was his wife. He pursued his studies, however, as usual, with great vigour and diligence, and when little more than thirty years of age, finished that large and accurate work for which he is chiefly memorable. This work he kept by him during his life-time it being written, as he tells us, for his own private use. It was published afterwards with this title “The Journals of all the Parliaments during the reign of queen Elizabeth, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons, collected by sir Symonds D'Ewes, of Stowhall in the county of Suffolk, knt. and bart. revised and published by Paul Bowes, of the Middle Temple, esq. 1682,” folio. In 1633, he resided at Islington in Middlesex. In 1639, he served the office of high sheriff of the county of Suffolk, having been knighted some time before and in the long parliament, which was summoned to meet Nov. 3, 1640, he was elected burgess for Sudbury in that county. July 15, 1641, he was created a baronet; yet upon the breaking out of the civil war, he adhered to the parliament, and took the solemn league and covenant in 1643. He sat in this parliament till Dec. 1648, when he was turned out among those who were thought to have some regard left for the person of the king, and the old constitution in church and state. He died April 18, 1650, and was succeeded in his titles and large estate by his son Willoughby D'Ewes; to whom the above Journals were dedicated, when published, by his cousin Paul Bowes, esq. who was himself a gentleman of worth and learning.

, a disciple of Aristotle, was born at Messina in Sicily. He was a philosopher, historian, and mathematician, and composed a great many books on various subjects, and in all sciences, which were much esteemed. Cicero speaks frequently in the highest terms both of the man and his works. Geography was one of his principal studies; and we have a tieatise, or rather a fragment of a treatise, of his still extant upon that subject. It was first published by Henry Stephens in 1589, with a Latin version and notes; and afterwards by Hudson at Oxford in 1703, among the “Veteris geographiae scriptures Graecos minores, &c.” Pliny tells us that “Dicearchus, a man of extraordinary learning, had received a commission from some princes to take the height of the mountains, and found Pelion, the highest of them, to be 1250 paces perpendicular, from whence he concluded it to bear no proportion which could affect the rotundity of the globe.” He published some good discourses upon politics and government; and the work he composed concerning the republic of Lacedaemon was thought so excellent, that it was read every year before the youth in the assembly of the ephori. As a philosopher, his tenets have little to recommend them* He held that there is no such thing as mind, or soul, either in man or beast; that the principle by which animals perceive and act, is equally diffused throngh the body, is inseparable from it, and expires with it; that the human race always existed; that it is impossible to foretel future events; and that the knowledge of them would be an infelicity.

, an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, the son of John Dickson, a merchant in Glasgow, was born about 1583, and educated at the university of his native city. After taking the degree of M. A. he was admitted regent, or professor of philosophy, an office which, at that time, somewhat after the manner of the foreign universities, was held only for a term of years (in this case, of eight years) after which these regents received ordination. Accordingly, in 1618, Mr. Dickson was ordained minister of the town of Irvine, which preferment he held about twenty-three years, and became a very popular preacher. Although always inclined to the presbyterian form of church-government, he had shewn no great reluctance to the episcopal forms until the passing of what are known, in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, by the name of the Perth articles; five articles, which enjoined kneeling at the sacrament; private adtninistratioa of it in extreme sickness; private baptism, if necessary; episcopal confirmation; and the observation of Epiphany, Christmas, &c. These, however harmless they may appear to an English reader, were matters not only of objection, but abhorrence to a great proportion of the Scotch clergy; and Mr. Dickson having expressed his dislike in strong terms, and probably in the pulpit, was suspended from his pastoral charge, and ordered to remove to Turriff, in the north of Scotland, within twenty days. After much interest, however, had been employed, for he had many friends among persons of rank, who respected his talents and piety, he was allowed in 1623 to return to Irvine. As during the progress of the rebellion in England, the power of the established church decayed also in Scotland, Dickson exerted himself with considerable effect in the restoration of the presbyterian form of church-government, and there being a reluctance to this change on the part of the learned divines of Aberdeen, he went thither in 1637, and held solemn disputations with Doctors Forbes, Barron, Sibbald, &c. of that city, which were afterwards published. In 1641 he was removed from Irvine to be professor of divinity in the university of Glasgow; and in 1643 he assisted in drawing up some of those formularies which are contained in the “Confession of Faith,” a book which is still subscribed by the clergy of Scotland. The “Directory for public worship,” and “The sum of saving knowledge,” were from his pen, assisted, in the former, by Henderson and Calderwood and in the latter, by Durham. Some years after, probably about 1645, he was invited to the elmir of professor of divinity at Edinburgh, which he held until the restoration, when he was ejected for refusing the oath of supremacy. He did not survive this long, dying in 1662. He was esteemed one of the ablest and most useful men of his time, in the promotion of the church of Scotland as now established, and his writings have been accounted standard books with those who adhere to her principles as originally laid down. His principal works are, I. “A Commentary on the Hebrews,” 8vo. 2. “On Matthew,” 4to. 3. “On the Psalms,” 1655, 3 vols. 12mo. 4. “On the Epistles,” Latin and English, folio and 4to. 5. “Therapeutica Sacra, or Cases of Conscience resolved,” Latin 4to, English 8vo. 6. “A treatise on the Promises,” Dublin, 1630, 12mo. Besides these he wrote some pieces of religious poetry for the common people, and left several Mss. As he had had a considerable hand in the “Confession of Faith,” he lectured, when professor of divinity, on that book, the heads of which lectures were afterwards published, as he had delivered them, in Latin, under the title “Prelectiones in Confessionem Fidei,” folio but they have been since translated and often reprinted, under the title of “Truth’s Victory over Error,” one of the most useful, and now, we believe, the only one of his works which continues still popular in Scotland. Prefixed is a life of the author by Woodrow, the ecclesiastical historian, from which we have extracted the above particulars.

, is the supposed name of a very ancient historian, who, serving under Idomeneus, a king of Crete, in the Trojan war, wrote the history of that expeilition in nine books; and Tzetzes tells us, that Homer formed his Iliad upon his plan: but the Latin history of Dictys, which we have at present, is altogether spurious. There are two anonymous writers still extant, who pretend to have written of the Trojan war previously to Homer, one of whom goes under the name of Dictys Cretensis, the other that of Dares Phrygius, of which last we have already taken some notice. Before the history of Dictys there are two prefaces the first of which relates that Dictys wrote six volumes of the Trojan war in the Phœnician characters; and in his old age, after he was returned to his own country, ordered them, a little before his death, to be buried with him in a leaden chest or repository, which was accordingly done; that, however, after many ages, and under the reign of Nero, an earthquake happened at Cnosus, a city of Crete, which uncovered Dictys’s sepulchre, and exposed the chest; that the shepherds took it up, and expecting a treasure, opened it; and that, finding this history, they sent it to Nero, who ordered it to be translated, or rather transcharactered, from Phoenician into Greek. It has been inferred from this story that the history was forged by some of Nero’s flatterers, as he always affected a fondness for any thing relating to Trojan antiquities. The other preface to Dictys is an epistle of L. Septimius, the Latin translator, in which he inscribes it to Arcadius Kuffinus, who was consul in the reign of Constantino; and tells nearly the same story of the history we have already related. That the present Latin Dictys had a Greek original, now lost, appears from the numerous Grecisms with which it abounds; and from the literal correspondence of many passages with the Greek fragments of one Dictys cited by ancient authors. The Greek original was very probably, as we have just hinted, forged under the name of Dictys, a traditionary writer on the subject, in the reign of Nero. The best editions of Dictys and Dares Phrygius, are that of madame Dacier, Paris, 1680, 4to, and that of Smids, 4to and 8vo, Anist. 1702, 2 volumes.

It has been justly observed by the editors of the last edition of the Biog. Britannica, that sir Kenelm Digby seems to have obtained a reputation beyond his merit; yet his merit was great, and his personal character has been admirably drawn by lord Clarendon: “He was,” says that historian, “a person very eminent and notorious throughout the whole course of his life, from his cradle to his grave; of an ancient family and noble extraction; and inherited a fair and plentiful fortune, notwithstanding the attainder of his father. He was a man of a very extraordinary person and presence, which drew the eyes of all men upon him, which were more fixed by a wonderful graceful behaviour, a flowing courtesy and civility, and such a volubility of language, as surprised and delighted; and though in another man it might have appeared to have somewhat of affectation, it was marvellous graceful in. him, and seemed natural to his size, and mould of his person, to the gravity of his motion, and the tune of his voice and delivery. He had a fair reputation in arms, of which he gave an early testimony in his youth, in some encounters in Spain and Italy, and afterwards in an action in the Mediterranean sea, where he had the command of a squadron of ships of war set out at his own charge, under the king’s commission; with which, upon an injury received or apprehended from the Venetians, he encountered their whole fleet, killed many of their men, and sunk one of their galeasses; which in that drowsy and unactive time was looked upon with a general estimation, though the crown disavowed it. In a word, he had all the advantages that nature and art, and an excellent education could give him, which, with a great confidence and presentness of mind, buoyed him up against all those prejudices and disadvantages (as the attainder and execution of his father for a crime of the highest nature; his own marriage with a lady, though of an extraordinary beauty, of as extraordinary a fame; his changing and rechanging his religion; and some personal vices and licences in his life) which would have suppressed and sunk any other man, but never clouded or eclipsed him from appearing in the best places, and the best company, and with the best estimation and satisfaction.” We cati entertain no doubt, therefore, of the estimation in which he was held", and of the merit which deserved it; but on the other hand it is impossible to acquit him of excessive credulity, or of deliberate imposture. His sympathetic powder, and his belief, or his assertion of the power of transmuting metals, will not now bear examination, without affecting his character in one or other of these respects.

or Dion Cassius, an ancient historian, known also by the surnames of Cocceius or Cocceianus, was born at Nicsea, a city of Bithyuia, and flourished in the third century. His father Aproniatius, a man of consular dignity, was governor of Dalmatia, and some time after proconsul of Cilicia, under the emperors Trajan and Adrian. Dio was with his father in Cilicia; and from thence went to Rome, where he distinguished himself by public pleadings. From the reign of Commodus he was a senator of Rome; was made prtetor of the city under Pertinax; and raised at length to the consulship, which he held twice, and exercised the second time, jointly with the emperor Alexander Severus. He had passed through several great employments under the preceding emperors. Macrinus had made him governor of Pergamus and Smyrna; he commanded some time in Africa; and afterwards had the administration of Austria and Hungary, then called Pannonia, committed to him. He undertook the task of writing history, as he informs us himself, because he was admonished and commanded to do it by a vision from heaven; and he tells us also, that he spent ten years in collecting materials for it, and twelve more in composing it. His history began from the building of Rome, and proceeded to the reign of Alexander Severus. It was divided into So books, or eight decades; many of which are not now extant. The first 34 books are lost, with part of the 35th. The 25 following are preserved intire; but instead of the last 20, of which nothing more than fragments remain, we have only the epitome, which Xiphtliuus, a monk of Coustantinople, has given of them. Photius observes, that he wrote his Roman history, as others had also done, not from the foundation of Rome only, but from the descent of Æneas into Italy; which he continued to the year of Home 982, and of Christ 228, when, as we have observed, he was consul a second time with the emperor Alexander Severus. What we now have of it, begins with the expedition of Lucullus against Mithridates king of Pontus, about the year of Rome 684, and ends with the death of the emperor Claudius about the year 806.

Though all that is lost of this historian is much to be regretted, yet that is most so which contains the history of the forty last years; for within this period he was an eyewitness of all that passed, and a principal actor in a great part. Before the reign of Commodus, he could relate nothing but what he had from the testimony of others; after that, every thing fell under his own cognizance; and a man of his quality, who had spent his life in the management of great affairs, and had read men as well as books, must have had many advantages in delineating the history of his own times; and it is even now allowed, that no man has revealed more of those state-secrets, which Tacitus styles arcana imperii, and of which he makes so high a mystery. He is also very exact and full in his descriptions, in describing the order of the comitia, the establishing of magistrates, &c. and, as to what relates to the apotheosis, or consecration of emperors, perhaps he is the only writer who has given us a good account of it, if we except Ilerodian, who yet seemh to have been greatly indebted to him. Besides his descriptions, there are several of his speeches, which have been highly admired; those particularly of Maecenas and Agrippa, upon the question, whether Augustus should resign the empire or no. Yet he has been exceedingly blamed for his partiality, which to some has appeared so great, as almost to invalidate the credit of his whole history; of those parts at least, where he can be supposed to have been the least interested. The instances alleged are his partiality for Ciesar against Pompey, for Antony against Cicero, and his strong prejudices against Seneca. “The obvious cause of the prejudice which Dio had conceived against Cicero,” Dr. Middleton supposes “to have been his envy to a man who for arts and eloquence was thought to eclipse the fame of Greece-; 11 but he adds another reason, not less probable, deducible from Dio’s character and principles, which were wholly opposite to those of Cicero.” For Dio,“as he says,” flourished under the most tyrannical of the emperors, by whom he was advanced to great dignity; and, being the creature of despotic power, thought it a proper compliment to it, to depreciate a name so highly revered for its patriotism, and whose writings tended to revive that ancient zeal and spirit of liberty for which the people of Rome were once so celebrated: for we find him taking all occasions in his history, to prefer an absolute and monarchical government to a free and democratical one, as the most beneficial to the Roman state."

, an ancient historian, was born, at Agyrium, in Sicily, and nourished in the times of Julius Caesar and Augustus, in the first century. He informs us that he was no less than thirty years in writing his history, in the capital of the world, viz. Rome; where he collected materials which he could not have procured elsewhere. Nevertheless, he did not fail to travel through the greatest part of the provinces of Europe and Asia, as well as to Egypt, that he might not commit the usual faults of those who had ventured to treat particularly of places which they had never visited. He calls his work, not a history, but an Historical Library; and with some reason; since, when it was intire, it contained, according to the order of time, all which other historians had written separately. He had comprized in forty books the most remarkable events which had happened in the world during the space of 1138 years; without reckoning what was comprehended in his six first books of the more fabulous times, viz. of all which happened before the Trojan war. But of these forty, only fifteen books are now extant. The first five are intire, and give us an account of the fabulous times, explaining the antiquities and transactions of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Libyans, Grecians, and other nations, before the Trojan war. The five next are wanting. The llth begins at Xerxes’s expedition into Greece; from whence, to the end of the 20th, which brings the history down to the year of the world 3650, the work is intire; but the latter twenty are quite lost. Henry Stephens asserts, from a letter communicated to him by Lazarus Baif, that the Historical Library of Diodorus remains intire in some corner of Sicily upon which, says la Mothe le Vayer, “I confess I would willingly go almost to the end of the world, in hopes to find so great a treasure. And I shall envy posterity this important discovery, if it be to be made when we are no more; when, instead of fifteen books only, which we now enjoy, they shall possess the whole forty.”

The contents of this whole work are thus explained in the preface by Diodorus himself; “Our six first books,” says he, “comprehend all that happened before the war of Troy, together with many fabulous matters here and there interspersed. Of these, the three former relate the antiquities of the barbarians, and the three latter those of the Greeks. The eleven next include all remarkable events in the world, from the destruction of Troy to the death of Alexander the Great. And lastly, the other twentythree extend to the conquest of Julius Caesar over the Gauls, when he made the British ocean the northern bounds of the Roman empire.” Since Diodorus speaks of Julius Caesar, as he does in more places than one, and always according to the pagan custom, with an attribute of some divinity, he cannot be more ancient than he. When Eusebius writes in his Chronicon, that Diodorus lived under this emperor, he seems to limit the life of the former by the reign of the latter; yet Suidas prolongs his days even to Augustus; and Scaliger observes in his “Animadversions upon Eusebius,” that Diodorus must needs have lived to a very great age; and that he was alive at least half the reign of Augustus, since he mentions on the subject of the olympiads, the Roman bissextile year: now this name was not used before the fasti and calendar were corrected; which was done by Augustus, to make the work of his predecessor more perfect. Diodorus has met with a different reception from the learned. Pliny affirms him to have been the first of the Greeks who wrote seriously, and avoided trifles: “primus apud Graccos desiit nugari,” are his words. Bishop Montague, in his preface to his “Apparatus,” gives him the praise of being an excellent author; who, with great fidelity, immense labour, and uncommon ingenuity, has collected an “Historical Library,” in which he has exhibited his own and the studies of other men. This history, without which we should have been ignorant of the antiquities and many other particulars of the little town of Agyrium, or even of Sicily, presents us occasionally with sensible and judicious reflections. Diodorus takes particular care to refer the successes of war and of other enterprises, not to chance or to a blind fortune, with the generality of historians; but to a wise and kind providence, which presides over all events. Yet he exhibits proofs of extraordinary credulity, as in his description of the Isle of Panchaia, with its walks beyond the reach of sight of odoriferous trees; its fountains, which form an infinite number of canals bordered with flowers; its birds, unknown in any other part of the world, which warble their enchanting notes in groves of uninterrupted verdure; its temple of marble, 4000 feet in length, &c. The first Latin edition of Diodorus is that of Milan, 1472, folio. The first of the text was that of Henry Stephens, in Greek, 1559, finely printed: Wesseling’s, Amsterdam, Gr. and Lat. with the remarks of different authors, various lections, and all the fragments of this historian, 1745, 2 vols, folio, was long accounted the best, but is not so correct as was supposed. Poggius translated it into Latin, the abbe Terasson into French, and Booth into English, 1700, fol. Count Caylus has an ingenious essay on this historian in vol. XXVIL of the “Hist. de l'academie des Belles Lettres,” and professor Heyne has a still more learned and elaborate memoir in “The Transactions of the Royal Society of Gottingen,” vol. V. on the sources of information from which Diodorus composed his history. This was afterwards inserted among the valuable prolegomena to Heyne’s edition of Diodorus, 1798, &c. 10 vols. 8vo, which is now reckoned the best.

, a historian and critic of antiquity, was born at Halicarnassus, a town in Caria; which is also memorable for having before produced Herodotus. He came to Rome soon after Augustus had put an end to the civil wars, which was about 30 years before Christ; and continued there, as he himself relates, twentytwo years, learning the Latin tongue, and making all necessary provision for the design he had conceived of writing the Roman history. To this purpose he read over, as he tells us, all the commentaries and annals of those Romans who had written with any reputation about the antiquities and transactions of their state; of such as old Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, and others; but owns, after all, that the conferences he had with the great and learned men at Rome upon this subject, were almost as serviceable to him as any thing he had read. His history is entitled “Of the Roman antiquities,” and was comprised in twenty books, of which only the first eleven are now extant. They conclude with the time when the consuls resumed the chief authority of the republic, after the government of the decemviri; which happened 312 years after the foundation of Rome. The entire work extended to the beginning of the first Punic war, ending where Polybius begins his history, which is about 200 years later. Some have imagined that Dionysius never ended his work, but was prevented by death from composing any more than eleven books out of the twenty which he had promised the public; but this is contrary to the express testimony of Stepbanus, a Greek author, who quotes the 16th and 17th books of Dionysius’ s Roman antiquities; and Photius, in his Bibliotheca, says, that he had read all the twenty, and had seen the compendium or abridgment which Dionysius made of his own history into five books, but which is now lost. The reputation of this historian stands very high on many accounts, notwithstanding the severe attacks made on him by Mr. Hooke, in his “Observations, &c.” on Middleton and Chapman, &c. 1750, 4to. As to what relates to chronology, all the critics have been apt to prefer him even to Livy himself: and Scaliger declares, in his animadversions upon Eusebius, that we have no author remaining, who has so well observed the order of years. He is no less preferable to the Latins on account of the matter of his history; for his being a stranger was so far from being prejudicial to him, that on this single consideration he made it his business to preserve an infinite number of particulars, most curious to us, which their own authors neglected to write, either because, by reason of their familiarity, they thought them below notice, or that all the world knew them as well as themselves. His style and diction, however, although pure, insomuch that many have thought him the best author to be studied by those who would attain a perfect knowledge of the Greek tongue, is not so elegant or lively as that of Livy, to whom he has been compared in historic merit.

Besides the Roman Antiquities, there are other writings of his extant, critical and rhetorical. His most admired piece in this way is “De structura Orationis,” first printed by Aldus at Venice in 1508, which has undergone several impressions since, with a Latin version joined to it; the last and best by Upton, printed at London in 1702. Several other compositions of the same kind, as his “Vita Isa^i et Dinarchi” “Judicium de Lysia” “Homeri vita;” “De Priscis Scriptoribus” “De antiquis Oratoribus,” of which Rowe Mores published an edition in 1749, reprinted in 1781, after his death, with additional notes taken from his copy of Hudson’s edition of Dionysius. All these shew Dionysius to have been a man of taste in the belles lettres, and of great critical exactness; and nothing can more clearly convince us of the vast reputation and high authority he possessed at Rome among the learned, than Pompey’s singling him out to give a judgment of the first Greek historians, and especially of Herodotus and Xenophon. There is extant a letter of his upon this subject, written to Pompey, at Pompey’s own request; and if there be any thing exceptionable in that letter, or in the other critical and rhetorical pieces of Dionysius, it is, that he was too rigorous in his criticisms, and contended too obstinately for perfection in an historian or orator. His finding fault with Plato upon his rigid principles, was one of the occasions of the letter which Pompey wrote to him: and we see by his answer^ that though, to gratify Pompey, he professes himself an admirer of Plato, he does not forbear to prefer Demosthenes to him; protesting, that it was only to give the whole advantage to the latter, that he exercised his censure against the former. Nevertheless it appears, that at another season he spared Demosthenes no more than the rest; so prone was his inclination to find fault, merely because writers did not, in their works, come up to that ideal perfection which he had conceived in his mind. The best edition of all Dionysius’s works is that by Hudson, at Oxford, 1704, in 2 vols. fol. His Roman History was translated into English by Edward Spelman, esq. 1757, 4 vols. 4to, with considerable fidelity and elegance, and illustrated with some dissertations, by which it appears that Mr. Spelman had devoted much time and study to his favourite author, as well tis to his subject; but he has likewise bestowed very unnecessary pains in exhibiting the defects of the French translators.

was born at Athens, and educated there. He went afterwards to Heliopolis in Ægypt where, if we may believe some writers of his life, he saw that wonderful eclipse which happened at our Saviour’s passion, and was urged by some extraordinary impulse to cry out, “Ant Deus patitur, aut cum patiente dolet;” Either God himself suffers, or condoles with him who does. At his return to Athens he was elected into the court of Areopagus, from whence he derived his name of Areopagite. About the year 50 he embraced Christianity, and, as some say, was appointed first bishop of Athens by St. Paul, and consecrated by his hands. Of his conversion we have this account in Acts xvii.: Paul, preaching at Athens, was brought before the Areopagus, to give account of himself and his doctrine. He harangued in that court, taking occasion to speak against the prevailing idolatry of the place, from an altar which he found with this inscription, “To the unknown God.” The event of which preaching was, as the sacred historian tells us, that “certain men clave unto him, and believed; among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” He is supposed to have suffered martyrdom; but whether under Domitian, Trajan, or Adrian, is not certain.

, bishop of Corinth, flourished under the reigns of Marcus Antoninus and Commodus; and is supposed to have suffered martyrdom about the year 178. We know little more of him than what appears from some of his epistles, preserved by Eusebius: from which we learn, that he was not only very diligent in his pastoral care over the flock committed to him, but that he extended this care likewise to the inhabitants of all other countries and cities. He wrote a letter to the Lacedaemonians, in which he exhorts them to peace and concord; another to the Athenians, in which he recommends purity of faith and evangelical holiness; a third to the Nicomedians, to guard them against the heresy of Marciou; a fourth to the churches of Crete; a fifth to the churches of Pontus; a sixth to the Gnossians, in which he admonishes Pinytus, their bishop, not to impose too severely upon the brethren the heavy burden of continence, but to consider the frailties and infirmities of the flesh; a proof that monastic austerities were beginning at this early period of the church. He wrote also a seventh letter to the Romans, in which he mentions the famous epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians; which, as we learn from him, was wont at that time to be publicly read in their churches. He recommends to them also to continue a charitable custom, which, from their first plantation, they had always practised; namely, to send relief to divers churches throughout the world, and to assist particularly those who were condemned to the mines; a strong proof, says a recent historian, both that the Roman church continued opulent and numerous, and that they still partook much of the spirit of Christianity. None of these epistles are now extant, but Eusebius has preserved some fragments of them.

, a Polish historian, was born in Ml 5, at Brzeznich, a town in Poland, of which his father was governor. In his sixth year, his father being appointed governor of Korczyn, he was removed thither with the family, and began his education, which was continued in the different places of which his father was successively appointed governor, until he was sent to Cracow. Here and at other places he pursued his studies, with very little encouragement from his father, but found a friend in Zbigneus, bishop of Cracow, who was a patron of learned men. This prelate first placed him at the head of his chancery, after that of his house, and at last made him general manager of his affairs; and he acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of the bishop, that on his death-bed he appointed him one of his executors. He had also ordained him priest at the age of twenty-five, and gave him some church preferment, particularly the living of St. Martin of Klobuczk, and a canonry of Cracow. He was afterwards promoted to be chanter, and treasurer of the church of Vissicza, canon of Sendomir, and got some other preferments less considerable. The only use he made of the wealth arising from these benefices, was to share it with poorer clergymen of talents and character;. or to bestow it on the poor, on the repairs of churches, and other pious purposes. Eugene IV. having appointed Zbigneus to the dignity of cardinal, and several impediments being thrown in the way of this preferment, Dlugoss went to Rome in 1449, and had these difficulties removed. Pope Nicholas V. employed him to carry the cardinal’s cap to the bishop, which he had the honour to put on his head in the cathedral of Cracovr, in the same year. In 1450 he took a journey to the land of Palestine, where he contemplated with veneration the places dignified by being the site of Scripture history. On his return to Poland, king Casimir IV. appointed him tutor to his sons, which office he filled for many years with great reputation. On the death of his early patron, cardinal Zbigneus, in April 1455, Dlugoss was accused by the brother of the deceased for having abused his confidence, a charge which he had little difficulty in repelling, but was less successful with the king, whose displeasure he incurred by espousing the cause of an ecclesiastic whom the pope had nominated bishop of Cracow, while the king had nominated another; and for this slight reason Dlugoss was exiled for the space of three years; at the end of which, however, he was recalled, and his majesty restored him to his favour, and not only consulted him on many public affairs of importance, but employed him to negociate in various parts of Europe, on matters respecting the interests of Poland. At length he was appointed archbishop of Leopold, but died before his consecration, May 29, 1480. His principal historical work is entitled “Historia Polonica,” the first volume of which was printed in 1615, fol. This edition, which is of rare occurrence, is one of the few scarce books which proceed from the private press of Herburt of Dobromil, It contains, however, only the first six books, bringing the history down to 1240; the rest remained in manuscript until 1711, when they were printed at Francfort, along with the preceding, under the title “J. Dlugossi historiie Polonicoe Hbri duodecim, &c.” This hrings the history down to 1444, but a continuation was published by J. G. Krause, which he called the thirteenth book, at Leipsic, 1712, folio, and which extends to 1480, the year of the author’s death. He is esteemed a very correct historian, although not free from the barbarism of his age. His other works are, 1. “Vita St. Stanislai episcopi et martyns,” Cracow, 1611 and 1666. 2. “Plocensium episcoporuin vita 1” which is inserted in “Stanislai Lubienski opera posthum^,” Antwerp, 1643, fol. 3.“Vitae episcoporum Postnajiiensium,” 1G'24, 4to and some other lives of bishops.

, a Roman catholic historian, deserves a fuller memorial than can now be recovered. All we know of him is derived from Mr. Berrington, who informs us that he was a clergyman of the Roman church, resided at Harvington in Worcestershire, and died there about the year 1745. His virtues and talents were eminent, and his labours in the range of literature were incessant and manifold. The work that has principally given celebrity to his name is a “Church History of England,” 1737 1742, 3 vols. folio, with the place of Brussels, but evidently from the type, &c. printed in England. Having had repeated occasion to consult it, we are ready to acknowledge our obligations for information derived from this history, which cost the author the labour of thirty years; and we agree with Mr. Berrington, that it contains much curious matter, collected with great assiduity, and many original records. The author’s style, when the subject admits expression, is pure and unincumbered, his narration easy, and his reflections just and liberal, at least as much so as can be expected from an undisguised zeal for a certain train of opinions, and certain views of history. His materials are perhaps not well arranged, and he was himself, we are told, so dissatisfied, as, with his own hand, to copy this voluminous work into two or three different forms. This history remained for many years almost unknown, and we can remember when it was sold almost at the price of waste-paper. Its worth is now better ascertained, and the last copy offered for sale, belonging to the marquis Tenvnshend’s library, was sold for ten guineas.

Mr. Dodwell came the same year to England, and resjded at Oxford for the sake of the public library. Thence he returned to his native country, and in 1672 published, at Dublin, in 8vo, a posthumous treatise of his late learned tutor John Steam, M. D. to which he put a preface of his own. He entitled this book, “De Obstinatione: Opus posthumum Pietatem Chrisdano-Stoicam scholastico more suadens:” and his own preface, “prolegomena Apologetica, de usu Dogmatum Philosophicorum,” &c. in which he apologizes for his tutor; who, by quoting so often and setting a high value upon the writings and maxims of the heathen philosophers, might seem to depreciate the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Dodwell therefore premises first, that the author’s design in that work is only to recommend moral duties, and enforce the practice of them by the authority of the ancient philosophers; and that he does not meddle with the great mysteries of Christianity, which are discoverable only by divine revelation. His second work was, “Two letters of advice. 1. For the Susception of Holy Orders. 2. For Studies Theological, especially such as are rational.” To the second edition of which, in 1681, was added, “A Discourse concerning the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon,” in which he considers Philo-Byblius as the author of that history. In 1673, he wrote a preface, without his name, to “An introduction to a Devout Life,” by Francis de Sales, the last bishop and prince of Geneva; which was published at Dublin, in English, this same year, in 12mo. He came over again to England in 1674, and settled in London; where he became acquainted with several learned men; particularly, in 1675, with Dr. William Lloyd, afterwards successively bishop of St. Asaph, Litchfield and Coventry, and Worcester . With that eminent divine he contracted so great a friendship and intimacy, that he attended him to Holland, when he was appointed chaplain to the princess of Orange. He was also with him at Salisbury, when he kept his residence there as canon of that church; and spent afterwards a good deal of time with him at St. Asaph. In 1675 he published “Some Considerations of present Concernment; how far the Romanists may be trusted by princes of another persuasion,” in 8vo, levelled against the persons concerned in the Irish remonstrance, which occasioned a kind of schism among the Irish Roman catholics. The year following he published “Two short Discourses against the Romanists. 1. An Account of the fundamental Principle of Popery, and of the insufficiency of the proofs which they have for it. 2. An Answer to six Queries proposed to a gentlewoman of the Church of England, by an emissary of the Church of Rome,” 12mo, but reprinted in 1688, 4to, with “A new preface relating to the bishop of Meaux, and other modern complainers of misrepresentation.” In 1679, he published, in 4to, “Separation of Churches from episcopal government, as practised by the present non-conformists, proved schismatical, from such principles as are least controverted, and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of schism.” This, being animadverted upon by R. Baxter, was vindicated, in 1681, by Mr. Dodwell, in “A Reply to Mr. Baxter’s pretended confutation of a book, entitled, Sepafration of Churches,” &c. To which were added, “Three Letters to Mr. Baxter, written in 1673, concerning the Possibility of Discipline under a Diocesan Government,” &c. 8vo. In 1682 came out his “Dissertations on St. Cyprian,” composed at the reqviest of Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, when he was about to publish his edition of that father. They were printed in the same size, but reprinted at Oxford in 1684, 8vo, under the title “Dissertationes Cyprianse.” The eleventh dissertation, in which he endeavours to lessen the number of the early Christian martyrs, brought upon him the censure of bishop Burnet, and not altogether unjustly. The year following, he published “A Discovirse concerning the One Altar, and the One Priesthood, insisted on by the ancients in the disputes against Schism ,” Lond. 8vo. In 1684, a dissertation of his on a passage of Lactantius, was inserted in the new edition of that author at Oxford, by Thomas Spark, in 8vo. His treatise “Of the Priesthood of Laicks,” appeared in 1686, in 8vo. The title was “De jure Laicorum,” &c. It was written in answer to a book published by William Baxter, the antiquary, and entitled “AntiDodwellism, being two curious tracts formerly written by H. Grotius, concerning a solution of the question, whether the eucharist may be administered in the absence of, or want of pastors.” About the same time he was preparing for the press the posthumous works of the learned Dr. John Pearson, bishop of Chester, Lond. 1688, 4to. He published also,“Dissertations on Irenseus,” 1689, 8vo. On the 2d of April, 1688, he was elected, by the university of Oxford, Camden’s professor of history, without any application of his own, and when he was at a great distance from Oxford; and the 21st of May was incorporated master of arts in that university. But this beneficial and creditable employment of professor he did not enjoy long; being deprived of it in November, 1691, for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance to king William and queen Mary. When their majesties had suspended those bishops who would not acknowledge their authority, Mr. Dodwell published “A cautionary discourse of Schism, with a particular regard to the case of the bishops, who are suspended for refusing to take the new oath,” London, 8vo. And when those bishops were actually deprived, and others put in their sees, he joined the former, looking upon the new bishops, and their adherents, as schismatics. He wrote likewise “A Vindication of the deprived Bishops:” and “A Defence of the same,” 1692, 4to, being an answer to Dr. Hody’s “Unreasonableness of Separation,” &c. After having lost his professorship, he continued for some time in Oxford, and then retired to Cookham, a village near Maidenhead, about an equal distance between Oxford and London; and therefore convenient to maintain a correspondence in each place, and to consult friends and books, as he should have occasion. While he lived there, he became acquainted with Mr. Francis Cherry of Shottesbrooke, a person of great learning and virtue, for the sake of whose conversation he removed to Shottesbrooke, where he chiefly spent the remainder of his days. In 1692, he published his Camdenian lectures read at Oxford; and, in 1694, “An Invitation to Gentlemen to acquaint themselves with ancient History” being a preface to Degory Whear’s “Method of reading history,” translated into English by Mr. Bohun. About this time having lost one or more of the Dodwells, his kinsmen, whom he designed for his heirs, he married on the 24th of June, 1694, in the 52d year of his age, a person, in whose father’s house at Cookham he had boarded several times, and by her had ten children . In 1696 he drew up the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, to accompany the editions of those two authors by Dr. John Hudson and Mr. Edward Wells. Having likewise compiled the annals of Velleius Paterculus, and of Quintilian, and Statius, he published them altogether in 1698, in one volume, 8vo. About the same time he wrote an account of tUe lesser Geographers, published by Dr. Hudson; and “A Treatise concerning the lawfulness of instrumental music in holy offices:” occasioned by an organ being set up at Tiverton in 1696: with some other things on chronology, inserted in “Grabe’s Spicilegium.” In 1701, he published his account of the Greek and Roman cycles, which was the most elaborate of all his pieces, and seems to have been the work of the greatest part of his life. The same year was published a letter of his, inserted in Richardson’s “Canon of the New Testament,” &c. concerning Mr. Toland’s disingenuous treatment of him. The year following appeared “A Discourse [of his] concerning the obligation to marry within the true communion, following from their style of being called a Holy Seed;” and “An Apology for the philosophical writings of Cicero,” against the objections of Mr. Petit; prefixed to Tally’s five books De Finibus, or, of Moral Ends, translated into English by Samuel Parker, gent, as also the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, Oxoa. 4to. In 1703 he published “A Letter concerning the Immortality of the Soul, against Mr. Henry Layton’s Hypothesis,” 4to and, “A Letter to Dr. Tillotson about Schism,” 8vo, written in 1691.The year following came out, his “Chronology of DionX'Sius Halicarnasseus,” in the Oxford edition of that historian by Dr. Hudson, folio; his “Two Dissertations on the age of Phalaris and Pythagoras,” occasioned by the dispute between Bentley and Boyle; and his “Admonition to Foreigners, concerning the late Schism in England.” This, which was written in Latin, regarded the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops. When the bill for preventing occasional conformity was depending in parliament, he wrote a treatise, entitled, “Occasional Communion fundamentally destructive of the discipline of the primitive catholic Church, and contrary to the doctrine of the latest Scriptures concerning Church Communion;” London, 1705, 8vo. About the same time, observing that the deprived bishops were reduced to a small number, he wrote, “A Case in View considered in a Discourse, proving that (in case our present invalidly deprived fathers shall leave all their sees vacant, either by death or resignation) we shall not then be obliged to keep up our separation from those bishops, who are as yet involved in the guilt of the present unhappy schism,” Lond. 1705, 8vo. Some time after, he published “A farther prospect of the Case in View, in answer to some new objections not then considered,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. Hitherto Mr. Dodwell had acted in such a manner as had procured him the applause of all, excepting such as disliked the nonjurors; but, about this time, he published some opinions that drew upon him almost universal censure. For, in order to exalt the powers and dignity of the priesthood, in that one communion, which he imagined to be the pecuHum of God, and to which he had joined himself, he endeavoured to prove, with his usual perplexity of learning, that the doctrine of the soul’s natural mortality was the true and original doctrine; and that immortality was only at baptism conferred upon the soul, by the gift of God, through the hands of one set of regularly-ordained clergy. In support of this opinion, he wrote “An Epistolary Discourse, proving, from the scriptures and the first fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal; but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment, or to reward, by its union with the divine baptismal spirit. Wherein is proved, that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing spirit, since the apostles, but only the bishops,” Lond. 1706, 8vo. At the end of the preface to the reader is a- dissertation, to prove “that Sacerdotal Absolution is necessary for the Remission of Sins, even of those who are truly penitent.” This discourse being attacked by several persons, particularly Chishull, Clarke, Norris, and Mills afterwards bishop of Waterford, our author endeavoured to vindicate himself in the three following pieces: 1. “A Preliminary Defence of the Epistolary Discourse, concerning the distinction between Soul and Spirit: in two parts. I. Against the charge of favouring Impiety. II. Against the charge of favouring Heresy,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. 2. “The Scripture account of the Eternal Rewards or Punishments of all that hear of the Gospel, without an immortality necessarily resulting from the nature of the souls themselves that are concerned in those rewards or punishments. Shewing particularly, I. How much of this account was discovered by the best philosophers. II. How far the accounts of those philosophers were corrected, and improved, by the Hellenistical Jews, assisted by the Revelations of the Old Testament. III. How far the discoveries fore-mentioned were improved by the revelations of the Gospel. Wherein the testimonies also of S. Irenaens and Tertullian are occasionally considered,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. And, 3. “An Explication of a famous passage in the Dialogue of S. Justin Martyr with Tryphon, concerning the immortality of human souls. With an Appendix, consisting of a letter to the rev. Mr. John Norris, of Bemerton; and an expostulation relating to the late insults of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Chishull,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Upon the death of Dr. William Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, on the first of January 1710-11, Mr. Dodwell, with some other friends, wrote to Dr. Thomas Kenn, of Bath and Wells, the only surviving deprived bishop, to know, whether he challenged their subjection? He returned for answer, that he did not: and signified his desire that the breach might be closed by their joining with the bishops possessed of their sees; giving his reasons for it. Accordingly, Mr. Dodwell, and several of his friends, joined in communion with them. But others refusing this, Mr. Dodwell was exceedingly concerned, and wrote, “The case in view now in fact. Proving, that the continuance of a separate communion, without substitutes in any of the late invalidlydeprived sees, since the death of William late lord bishop of Norwich, is schismatical. With an Appendix, proving, that our late invalidly-deprived fathers had no right to substitute successors, who might legitimate the separation, after that the schism had been concluded by the decease of the last survivor of those same fathers,” Lond. 1711, 8vo. Our author wrote some few other things, besides what have been already mentioned *. At length, after a

, a most laborious Italian writer, was born at Venice in 1508. His family was one of the most ancient in the republic, but reduced in circumstances. Lewis remained the whole of his life in his native city, occupied in his numerous literary undertakings, which procured him some personal esteem, but little reputation or wealth. Perhaps his best employment was that of cor-, rector of the press to the celebrated printer Gabriel Giolito, whose editions are so much admired for the beauties of type and paper, and yet with the advantage of Dolce’s attention, are not so correct as could be wished. As an original author, Dolce embraced the whole circle of polite literature and science, being a grammarian, rhetorician, orator, historian, philosopher, editor, translator, and commentator; and as a poet, he wrote tragedies, comedies, epics, lyrics, and satires. All that can be called events in his life, were some literary squabbles, particularly with Ruscelli, who was likewise a corrector of Giolito’s press. He died of a dropsical complaint in 1569, according to Apostolo Zeno, and, according to Tiraboschi, in 1566. Baillet, unlike most critics, says he was one of the best writers of his age. His style is flowing, pure, and elegant; but he was forced by hunger to spin out his works, and to neglect that frequent revisal which is so necessary to the finishing of a piece. Of his numerous works, a list of which may be seen in Niceron, or Moreri, the following are in some reputation: 1. “Dialogo della pittura, intitolato I'Aretino,” Venice, 1557, 8vo. This work was reprinted, with the French on the opposite page, at Florence, 1735. 2. “Cinque priini canti del Sacripante,” Vinegia^ 1535, 8vo. 3. “Primaleone,” 1562, 4to. 4. “Achilles; 1 * and” Jineas,“1570, 4to. 5.” La prima imprese del conte Orlando," 1572, 4to. 6. Poems in different collections, among others in that of Berni. And the Lives of Charles V. and Ferdinand the First.

, better known by the name of Bernard of Bibiena, an eminent cardinal, was born of a reputable family at Bibiena in 1470, and was sent at nine years of age to pursue his studies at Florence. His family connexions introduced him into the house of the Medici, and such was the assiduity with which he availed himself of the opportunities of instruction there afforded him, that at the age of seventeen, he had attained a great facility of Latin composition, and was soon afterwards selected by Lorenzo de Medici, as one of his private secretaries. He was also the principal director of the studies of John de Medici, afterwards Leo X. and when the honours of the church were bestowed on his pupil, the principal care of his pecuniary concerns was intrusted to Dovizi; in the execution of which he rendered his patron such important services, and conducted himself with so much vigilance and integrity, that some have not hesitated to ascribe to him, in a considerable degree, the future eminence of his pupil, who, when made pope, gave his tutor a cardinal’s cap. He also employed himself in several negociations. He sent him as legate to the army raised against the duke of Urbino; and also to the emperor Maximilian. In 1518 he was sent as legate to France to persuade the king to join in the crusade against the Turks, in which he would have succeeded, had not the pope discouraged the enterprize by his unreasonable distrust and caballing against France. Bibiena remonstrated against this conduct with great freedom in his letters to Rome, which is supposed to have hastened his death in Nov. 1520. Some have asserted that he was poisoned by the order or contrivance of Leo X. which is positively denied by the historian of that pontiff, as utterly destitute of proof.

In 16S1 he published his Absalom and Achitophel. This celebrated poem, which was at first printed without the author’s name, is a severe satire on the contrivers and abettors of the rebellion against Charles II. under the duke of Monmouth; and, under the characters of Absalom, Achitophel, David and Zimri, are represented the duke of Monmouth, the earl of Shaftesbury, king Charles, and the duke of Buckingham. There are two translations of this poem into Latin; one by Dr. Coward, a physician of Merton college in Oxford; another by Mr. Atterbury, afterwards bishop of Rochester, both published in 1682, 4to. Dryden left the story unfinished; and the reason he gives for so doing was, because he could not prevail with himself to shew Absalom unfortunate. “Were I the inventor,” says he, “who am only the historian, I should certainly conclude the piece with the reconcilement of Absalom to David. And who knows, but this may come to pass? Things were not brought to extremity, where I left the story: there seems yet to be room left for a composure: hereafter, there may be only for pity. I have not so much as an uncharitable wish against Achitophel; but am content to be accused of a good-natured error, and to hope with Origen, that the devil himself may at last be saved. For which reason, in this poem, he is neither brought to set his house in order, nor to dispose of his person afterwards.” A second part of Absalom and Achitophel was undertaken and written by Tate, at the request and under the direction of Dryden, who wrote near 200 lines of it himself.

In 1699 he entered into a contract with Tonson, the bookseller, to supply him with 10,000 verses, which produced in 1700 his “Fables, ancient and modern;” translated into verse from Homer, Ovid, Boccace, and Chaucer. He tells us in the preface to this his last work, that “he thinks himself as vigorous as ever in the faculties of his soul, excepting only his memory, which,” he says, “is not impaired to any great degree;” and he was then sixtyeight years of age. For this labour he was to get only 30GJ. out of which 250 guineas were paid down, and he was to receive the remainder on the appearance of a second edition, which did not happen till thirteen years after his death. Besides the original pieces and translations hitherto mentioned, he wrote many other things, which have been several times published in the “Six volumes of Miscellanies” under his name, and in other collections. They consist of translations from the Greek and Latin poets epistles to several persons; prologues and epilogues to various plays elegies, epitaphs, and songs. In 1743 came out in two volumes 12mo, a new collection of our author’s poetical works, under the title of “Original Poems and Translations, by John Dry den, esq. now first collected and published together;” that is, collected from the “Six volumes of Miscellanies” just mentioned. The editor observes, in his preface, that “it was but justice to the productions of so excellent a poet, to set them free at last from so disadvantageous, if not unnatural, an union; an union, which, like the cruelty of Mezentius in Virgil, was no less than a junction of living and dead bodies together.” “It is now high time,” says he, “that the partnership should be dissolved, and Mr. Dryden left to stand upon his own bottom. His credit as a poet is out of all danger, though the withdrawing his stock may probably expose many of of his copartners to the hazard of a poetical bankruptcy.” There is a collection of our author’s original poems and translations, published in a thin folio, 1701; but, as it does not contain much above half the pieces, so it does not at all answer the design of this collection; which, with his plays, fables, and translations of Virgil, JuvenaJ, and Persius, was intended to complete his works in twelves. As to his performances in prose, besides essays and prefaces, some of which have been mentioned, he wrote the lives of Plutarch anci Lucian, prefixed to the translations of those authors by several hands; “The Life of Polybius,” before the translation of that historian by sir Henry Sheer; and the preface to the “Dialogue concerning Women,” by William Walsh, esq.

The share he took in the Rowleian discovery and controversy, of which he entertained what is now the general opinion, may be seen in the Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. LVI. pp. 361, 362, 461 464, 544—547, 530, 859 where is printed, his correspondence with Mr. Chapman, rector of Weston near Bath, bishop Percy, Mr. Barrett, the historian of Bristol, whose credulity in these matters was notorious, and Mr. Whitaker. In 1776 was printed, for private use, “A list of various editions of the Bible and parts thereof, in English, from 1526 to 1776,” in a single sheet, 8vo; and an improved edition, 1778, at the expence of archbishop Cornwallis. This little tract owed its rise to a list of English Bibles copied from one compiled Ly Mr. Ames, from 1526 to 1757, presented by Dr. Gifford to the Lambeth library. It was completed by Dr. Ducarel from his own observations, and the later discoveries of his learned friends, Dr. Percy, bishop of Droniore, and Mr. Tutet. Mr. Nichols also, and Mr. Herbert, editor of the new edition of Ames’s “Typographical Antiquities,” contributed not a few articles from their own collections. The account of Dr. Stukeley and his writings prefixed to the second volume of his Itinerary, published 1776, was drawn up by Dr. Ducarel, who also prepared an epitaph for him.

, was a Greek historian, concerning the life of whom it is only known that he was employed inseveral negotiations. He wrote a history, which is still extant, of the Grecian empire, from the reign of the elder Andronicus, to the fall of that empire. Ducas is preferred to Chalcondylas, though he writes in a barbarous style, because he relates facts not to be found elsewhere, and was an attentive witness of what passed. His work was printed at the Louvre, in 1649, folio, under the care of Ismael Bouillaud, who accompanied it with a Latin version and learned notes. The president Cousin translated it afterwards into French, and it concludes the 8th volume of his History of Constantinople, printed at Paris, in 1672 and 1674, 4to; and reprinted in Holland, 16S5, 12mo.

He was then about 24 years of age; was married, and at service: he had little time to spare: he had no books, and no money to get any; but used to work more than other day-labourers, by which means he got some little matter added to his pay. This overplus was at his own disposal; and with this he bought first a book of vulgar arithmetic, then one of decimal, and a third of measuring land; of all which, by degrees, he made himself a tolerable master, in those hours he could steal from sleep after the labours of the day. He had, it seems, one dear friend, who joined with him in this literary pursuit; and with whom he used to talk and read, when they could steal a little time for it. This friend had been in a service at London for two or three years, and had an inclination to books, as well as Stephen Duck. He had purchased some, and brought them down with him into the country; and Stephen had always the use of his little library, which in time was increased to two or three dozen of books. “Perhaps,” says his historian, Mr. Spence, “you would be willing to know, what books their little library consisted of. I need not mention those of arithmetic again, nor his Bible. Milton, the Spectators, and Seneca, were his first favourites; Telemachus, with another piece by the same hand, and Addisou’s Defence of Christianity, his next. They had an English dictionary, and a sort of English grammar, an Ovid of long standing with them, and a Bysshe’s Art of Poetry of later acquisition. Seneca’s Morals made the name of L'Estrange dear to them; and, as I imagine, might occasion their getting his Joseph us in folio, which was the largest purchase in their whole collection. They had one volume of Shaksneare, with seven of his plays in it. Besides these, Stephen had read three or four other plays; some of Epictetus. Waller, Dryden’s Virgil, Prior, Hudibras, Tom Browne, and the London Spy.”

In July 1575, as the queen was upon her progress, she made the earl a visit at his castle of Kenilworth in Warwickshire. This manor and castle had formerly belonged to the crown; but lord Leicester having obtained it from the queen, spared no expence in enlarging and adorning it: and Dugdale says, that he laid out no less than 60,000l. upon it. Here, due preparation being made, he entertained the queen and her court for seventeen days with a magnificence, of which, being characteristic of the times, the following account from Dugdale may be not unamusing. That historian tells us (Antiquities of Warwickshire, p. 249), that the queen at her entrance was surprised with the sight of a floating island on the large pool there, bright blazing with torches; on which were clad in silks the lady of the lake, and two nymphs waiting on her, who made a speech to the queen in metre, of the antiquity and owners of that castle, which was closed with cornets and other music. Within the base-court was erected a stately bridge, twenty feet wide, and seventy feet long, over which the queen was to pass: and on each side stood columns, with presents upon them to her majesty from the gods. Sylvanus offered a cage of wild fowl, and Pomona divers sorts of fruits Ceres gave corn, and Bacchus wine Neptune presented sea- fish Mars the hahiliments of war; and Phcebus all kinds of musical instruments. During her stay, variety of shows and sports were daily exhibited. In the chace, there was a savage man with satyrs; there were bear-baiting and fire-works, Italian tumblers, and a country bride-ale, running at the quintin, and morrice-dancing. And, that nothing might be wanting which those parts could afford, the Coventry men came and acted the ancient play, called Hock’s Thursday, representing the destruction of the Danes in the reign of king Ethelred; which pleased the queen so much, that she gave them a brace of bucks, and five marks in money, to bear the charges of a feast. There were, besides, on the pool, a triton riding on a mermaid eighteen feet long, as also Anon on a dolphin, with excellent music. The expences and costs of these entertainments may be guessed at by the quantity of beer then drunk, which amounted to 320 hogsheads of the ordinary sort: and, for the greater honour and grace thereof, sir Thomas Cecil, son to the treasurer Burleigh, and three more gentlemen, were then knighted; and, the next ensuing year, the earl obtained a grant of the queen fora weekly market at Kenihvorth, with a fair yearly on Midsummer-day. So far Dugdale. There is also in. Strype’s Annals, p. 341, a long and circumstantial narrative of all that passed at this royal visit, by one who was present; which strongly illustrates the temper of the queen, and the manners of those times.

, an eminent English antiquary and historian, was the only son of John Dngdale, of Shustoke, near Coleshill, in Warwickshire, gent, and born there Sept. 12, 1605. He was placed at the freeschool in Coventry, where he continued till he was fifteen; and then returning home to his father, who had been edueatrd in St. John’s college, Oxford, and had applied himself particularly to civil law and history, was instructed by him in those branches of literature. At the desire of his father, he married, March 1623, a daughter of Mr. Huntbach, of Seawall, in Staffordshire, and boarded with his wife’s father till the death of his own, which happened July 1624 but soon after went and kept house at Fillongley, in Warwickshire, where he had an estate formerly purchased by his father. In 1625 he bought the manor of Blythe, in Shvstoke, above-mentioned; and the year following, selling his estate at Fillongley, he came and resided at Blythehall. His natimil inclination leading him to the study of antiquities, he soon became acquainted with all the noted antiquaries with Burton particularly, whose “Description of Leicestershire” he had read, and who lived but eight miles from him, at Lindley, in that county. In 1638 he went to London, and was introduced to sir Christopher Hatton, and to sir Henry Spelman by whose interest he was created a pursuivant at arms extraordinary, by the name of Blanch Lyon, having obtained the king’s warrant for that purpose. Afterwards he was made RougeCroix-pursuivant in ordinary, by virtue of the king’s letters patent, dated March 18, 1640; by which means having a lodging in the Heralds’ office, and convenient opportunities, he spent that and part of the year following, in augmenting his collections out of the records in the Tower and other places. In 1641, through sir Christopher Hatton’s encouragement, he employed himself in raking exact draughts of all the monuments in Westminster-abbey, St. Paul’s cathedral, and in many other cathedral and parochial churches of England particularly those at Peterborough, Ely, Norwich, Lincoln, Newarkupon-Trent, Beverley, Southwell, York, Chester, Lichfield, Tamworth, Warwick, &c. The draughts were taken by Mr. Sedgwick, a skilful arms-painter, then servant to sir Christopher Hatton; but the inscriptions were probably copied by Dugdale. They were deposited in sir Christopher’s library, to the end that the memory of them might be preserved from the destruction that then appeared imminent, for future and better times. June 1642 he was ordered by the king to repair to York; and in July was commanded to attend the earl of Northampton, who was marching into Worcestershire, and the places adjacent, in order to oppose the forces raised by lord Brook for the service of the parliament He waited upon the king at the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards at Oxford, where he continued with his majesty till the surrender of that garrison to the parliament June 22, 1646. He was created M. A. October 25, 1642, and April 16, 1644, Chester-heraid. During his long residence at Oxford, he applied himself to the search of such antiquities, in the Bodleian and other libraries, as he thought might conduce towards the furtherance of the “Monp.sticon,” then designed by Roger Dodsworth and himself; as also whatever might relate to the history of the ancient nobility of this realm, of which he made much use in his Baronage.

Here he is said to have been admitted an attorney in the court of King’s-bench, but remained for some time in obscurity, until the consciousness of his own powers, as it may be presumed, prompted him to consider his sphere of action as too confined for his genius, and occasioned him to study with a view of being called to the bar. His application to this pursuit was singular and unremitting. He had chambers up two pair of stairs, in Pump-court, Middle-temple, where it was his custom, both then, and some years after he was called to the bar, to read from an early hour in the morning till late in the evening, without ever going out of his chambers, or permitting any visits from his fellow students. He then dined, (or rather made his dinner and supper together,) either at the Grecian or at George’s coffee-house. In this way he accumulated a vast stock of knowledge, which, however, for a considerable time he had no opportunity of displaying. When admitted to the bar, he travelled the western circuit, but had not a single brief; and the historian of Devonshire says, had Lavater been at Exeter in 1759, he must have sent counsellor Dunning to the hospital of idiots. Not a feature marked him for the son of wisdom. Practice came in so slowly, that he was three years at the bar before he received one hundred guineas; but at length he was enabled to emerge from this state of obscurity, and commence that career which led to fame, opulence, and honours.

, an eminent ecclesiastical historian of the last century, was the son of a father of the same names, descended of a noble family in Normandy, by Mary Vitart, of a family in Champagne. He was born at Paris, June 17, 1657, and after being instructed in the rudiments of grammar by his father, and private tutors, was entered, at the age of ten, of the college of Harcourt, where, under professor Lair, he imbibed that thirst for general knowledge which he indulged during the whole of his studious life. In 1672 he was admitted to the degree of master of arts. Having made choice of the church as a profession, he went through the usual course of studies at the Soi bonne, and employed much of his time in perusing the fathers and ecclesiastical historians, but had no other view in this than to gratify his curiosity, while preparing himself for his licentiateship in divinity, which he was then too young to obtain. In 1680, he took the degree of bachelor of divinity, and in July 16S4, that of doctor. He soon after undertook to publish the work which has made him most known, his Universal Library of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing their lives, and a catalogue, critical account, and analysis of their works: a design of vast extent, which might have done credit to the labours of a society, yet was successfully accomplished by an individual, who was not only interrupted by professional duties, but wrote and published a great many other works. The first volume of his “Bibliotheque” was printed at Paris, 1686, 8vo, and the others in succession as far as live volumes, which contained an account of the first eight centuries. The freedom, however, which he had used in criticising the style, character, and doctrines of some of the ecclesiastical writers, roused the prejudices of the celebrated Bossuet, who exhibited a complaint against Dupin to Harlay, archbishop of Paris. The archbishop accordingly, in 1693, published a decree against the work, yet with more deliberation than might have been expected. His grace first ordered the work to be read by four doctors of divinity of the faculty of Paris, who perused it separately, and then combining their remarks, drew up a report which they presented to the archbishop, who, in his decree, says that he also examined the work, and found that it would be very prejudicial to the church, if it were suffered to be dispersed. Dupin was then summoned before the archbishop andthe doctors, and after several meetings, gave in a paper, in which he delivered his opinion on the objections made to his hook in such a manner as to satisfy them that, however liberal his expressions, he was himself sound; but the work itself they nevertheless thought must be condemned, as “containing several propositions that are false, rash, scandalous, capable of offending pious ears, tending to weaken the arguments, xvhich are brought from tradition to prove the authority of the canonical books of holy scripture, and of several other articles of faith, injurious to general councils, to the holy apostolic see, and to the fathers of the church; erroneous, and leading to heresy.” This sentence upon the work, however, will prove its highest recommendation to the protestant reader, who will probably, as he may very justly infer, that it means no more than that Dupin was too impartial and candid for his judges. With the above decree was published Dupin’s retractation, both of which were translated and printed at London in 1703, folio, by William Wotton, B. D. who observes that in Dupin’s retractation, “dread of farther mischief seems to be far more visible, in almost every article, than real conviction arising from an inward sense of the author’s having been in an error; at least, that it is so written, as to have that appearance.” Dupin, however, went on with his work, and by some means obtained a permission to print, with some small alteration in the title, from “Bibliotheque universelle” to “Bibliotheque nouvelle,” and the addition of the ecclesiastical history to the ecclesiastical biography. He thus went on, concluding with the beginning of the eighteenth century, the whole making 47 vols. 8vo, which were reprinted at Amsterdam, in 19 vols. 4to; but as most of these volumes were printed from the first editions, this edition is imperfect. It was also begun to be translated into Lathy, and the first three volumes printed at Amsterdam; but no farther progress was made. Monsieur Dupin was engaged at his death in a Latin translation, to which he intended to make considerable additions. This Bibliotheque was likewise translated into English, and printed at London in several volumes in folio, usually bound in seven. A much finer edition was printed in 3 vols. folio, by Grierson of Dublin. The translation appears to have been executed partly by Digby Cotes, and revised by Wotton. Dupin’s Bibliotheque was attacked by M.Simon in a book printed at Paris in 1730, in four volumes 8vo, under the following title “Critique cle la Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques & de Prolegomenes de la Bible publiez par M. Elies Dupin. Avec des eclaircissemens & des supplemens aux endroits, ou on les a juge necessaires, par feu M. Richard Simon, avec des remarques.” Simon has pointed out a considerable number of errors in Dupin, but when all deductions of this kind are made, it must be allowed that we have no book more generally valuable as a repository of ecclesiastical history and biography, making allowance for the author’s attachment to the principles of his church.

, a French historian, was born at Condom in 1569, of a noble family originally from Languedoc. His father had served with distinction under marshal de Montluc. Scipio having attracted notice at the court of queen Margaret, then at Nerac, came to Paris in 1605 with that princess, who afterwards made him her master of requests. His next appointment was to the post of historiographer of France, and he employed himself for a long time on the history of that kingdom. In his old age he compiled a work on the liberties of the Gallican. church; but the chancellor Seguier having caused the manuscript, for which he came to apply for a privilege, to be burnt before his face, he died of vexation not long after, at Condom, in 1661, at the age of ninety-two, the greater part of which time he had passed without sicknesses or infirmities. The principal of his works are, 1. “Memoirs of the Gauls,” 1650, folio, forming the first part of his History of France, a work much valued for its information, but ill written. 2. “History of France,” in 5, afterwards in 6 vols. fol. The narration of Dupleix is unpleasant, as well from the language having become obsolete, as from his frequent antitheses and puerile attempts at wit. Cardinal Richelieu is much flattered by the author, because he was living at the time; and queen Margaret, though his benefactress, is described like a Messalina, because she was dead, and the author had nothing farther to expect from her. Matthew de Morgues, and marshal Bassompierre both convicted him of ignorance and insincerity. Dupleix endeavoured to answer them, and after the death of the cardinal he wished to recompose a part of his history, but was presented by declining age. 3. “Roman History,” 3 vols. fol. an enormous mass, without spirit or life. 4. “A course of Philosophy,” 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Natural Curiosity reduced to questions,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo, publications of which very little can be said in their praise. His “Liberte de la Langue Francaise,” against Vaugelas, does him still less credit; and upon the whole he appears to be one of those authors whose fame it would be impossible to revive, or perhaps to account for.

By his will he bequeathed to his nephew Richard Farwell, one of the editors of the “Reports,” all hU books of the law, “as well abridgments and reports of myne owne hand-writinge, as other of the lawe,” which expression seems to countenance the assertion of Cole (Harl. Mss. 760, p. 450,) that he made an “Abridgment of the Law,” but, as nothing of the kind has been discovered, it seems more reasonable to conclude that he wrote nothing except these “Reports,” and the “Reading,” above-mentioned. By these performances, and by the services he did his country upon the bench, he came fully up to the character which Camden has given him, of being ever distinguished by an equal and calm disposition, which rendered him in all cases a most upright judge, as his penetration and learning made him a fit interpreter of the laws of his country. “Jacobus Dierus,” says that historian, “in communi placitorum tribunali justiciarius primarius, qui animo semper placido & sereno omnes judicis asquissimi partes implevit, & juris nostri prudentiam commentariis illustravit.”

, or Edmer, the faithful friend and historian of archbishop Anselm, was an Englishman, who flourished in the twelfth century, but we have no information respecting his parents, or the particular time and place of his nativity. He received a learned education, and very early discovered a taste for history, by recording every remarkable event that came to his knowledge. Being a monk in the cathedral of Canterbury, he had the happiness to become the bosom friend and inseparable companion of the two archbishops of that see, St. Anselm, and his successor Ralph. To the former of these he was appointed spiritual director by the pope; and that prelate would do nothing without his permission. In 1120 he was elected bishop of St. Andrew’s, by the particular desire of Alexander I. king of Scotland; but on the very day after his election, an unhappy dispute arose between the king and him respecting his consecration. Eadmer would be consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury, whom he regarded as primate of all Britain, while Alexander contended that the see of Canterbury had no pre-eminence over that of St. Andrew’s. After many conferences, their dispute becoming more warm, Eadmer abandoned his bishopric, and returned to England, where he was kindly received by the archbishop and clergy of Canterbury, who yet thought him too precipitate in leaving his bishopric. Eadmer at last appears to have been of the same opinion, and wrote a long and submissive letter to the king of Scotland, but without producing the desired effect. Whartort fixes his death in 1124, which was not long after this affair, and the very year in which the bishopric of St. Andrew’s was tilled up. Eadmer is now best known for his history of the affairs of England in his own time, from 1066 to 1122, in which he has inserted many original papers, and preserved many important facts that are nowhere else to be found. This work has been highly commended, both by ancient and modern writers, for its authenticity, as well as for regularity of composition and purity of style. It is indeed more free from legendary tales than any other work of this period, and affords many proofs of the learning, good sense, sincerity and candour of its author. The best edition is that by Selden, under the title of “Eadmeri monachi Cantuarensis Historiac Novorum, give sui Saeculi, Libri Sex,” Lond. 1623, fol. His other works are, 1. A Life of St. Auselm, from 1093 to 1109, often printed with the works of that archbishop, and by Wharton in the “Anglia Sacra.” 2. The Lives of St. Wilfrid, St. Oswald, St. Dunstan, &c. &c. and others inserted in the “Anglia Sacra,” or enumerated by his biographers, as in print or manuscript.

, a German historian and antiquary, was born at Duingen in the duchy of Brunswick, Sept. 7, 1674. Alter studying for some time at Brunswick and Helmstadt, where he made very distinguished progress in the belles lettres and history, he became secretary to the count de Flemming in Poland; and there became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, by whose interest he was appointed professor of history at Helmstadt. After Leibnitz’s death, he was appointed professor at Hanover, where he published some of his works. Although this place was lucrative, he here contracted debts, and his creditors having laid hold of a part of his salary to liquidate some of these, he privately quitted Hanover in 1723, where he left his family, and the following year embraced the religion of popery at Cologne. He then passed some time in the monastery of Corvey in Westphalia; and the Jesuits being very proud of their convert, sent him advantageous offers to settle at Vienna, Passau, or Wurtzbourg. He chose the latter, and was appointed the bishop’s counsel, historiographer, and keeper of the archives and library, and the emperor afterwards granted him letters of nobility. Pope Innocent XIII. seems also to have been delighted with his conversion, although his embarrassed circumstances appear to have been the chief cause of it. He died in the month of February 1730; and whatever may be thought of his religious principles, no doubt can be entertained of his extensive learning and knowledge of history. He wrote, 1. “Historia studii etymologici linguae Germanicas,” Hanover, 1711, 8vo. 2. “De usu et pr&stantia studii etymologici linguae Gerjnanicse.” 3. “Corpus historicum medii aevi,” Leipsic, 1723, 2 vols. fol. a work on which the abbé Lenglet bestows high praise, as very curious and well -digested. 4. “Origines Habsburgo-Austriacae,” Leipsic, 1721, folio. 5. “Leges Francorum et Hipuariorum,” &c. ibid. 1730, fol. 6. “Historia genealogica principumSaxonite superioris, necnon origines Aulialtiiue et Sabaudicae,” ibid. 1722, fol. 7. “Caihechesis theotisca monachi Weissenburgensis, interpretatione illustrate.” 8. “Leibnitzii collectanea etymologica.” 9. “Brevis ad historian! Germanise introductio.” 10. “Programma de antiquissimo Helmstadiistatu,” Helmstadt, 1709. 11. “De diplomate Caroh magui pro scholis Osnaburgensibus Grsecis et Latinis.” 12. “Animadversiones historical et criticae in Joannis Frederic! Schannati dicecesim et hierarchiam Fuldeusem.” 13. “Annales Franciae orientalis et episcopatus Wurceburgensis,” 2 vols. 1731. 14. “De origine Germanorum,” Gottingen, 1750, 4to. He wrote also some numUtnatical tracts, &c.

Bishop Burnet adds to this high character the following pleasing anecdote. King Edward VI. gave very early indications of a good disposition to learning, and of a most wonderful probity of mind, and above all, of great respect to religion, and every thing relating to it; so that when he was once in one of his childish diversions, somewhat beingto be reached at, that he and his companions were too low for, one of them laid on the floor a great Bible that was in the room, to step on, which he beholding with great indignation, took up the Bible himself, and gave over his play for that time. The same historian has printed a new service, which was translated by the young monarch from English into Latin, with a view to abolish certain superstitious ceremonies used at the installation of the knights of the garter. Burnet has also published, what does Edward most credit of all, his “Diary or Journal.” In this we have a clear proof of his sense, knowledge, and goodness, far beyond what could have been expected at his years. It gives, says lord Orford, hopes of his proving a good king, as in so green an age he seemed resolved to be acquainted with his subjects and his kingdom. The original of this is in the Cottonian library, with the paper already mentioned, in the king’s hand-writing, which contains hints and directions delivered to the privy council, Jan. 19, 1551. Mr. Park has reprinted this curious paper in his edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors,” to which this article is considerably indebted.

, the very able and accurate historian of the West Indies, was born May 21, 1743, at Westbury in Wiltshire. His father inherited a small paternal estate in the neighbourhood, of about 100l. per annum, which proving insufficient for the maintenance of a large family, he undertook to deal in corn and malt, in which he had but little success. He died in 1756, leaving a widow and six children in distressed circumstances. Mrs. Edwards, however, had two opulent brothers in the West Indies, one of them a wise and worthy man, of a liberal mind, and princely fortune. This was Zachary Bayly, of the island of Jamaica, who took the family under his protection; and as the subject of this article was the eldest, directed that he should be well educated. He had been placed before by his father at the school of a dissenting minister in Bristol, waere he learned writing, arithmetic, and English grammar. His master, whose name was Foot, had an excellent method of making the boys write letters to him on different subjects, such as the beauty and dignity of truth, the obligation of a religious life, the benefits of good education, the mischiefs of idleness, &c. previously stating to them the chief arguments to be used; and insisting on correctness in orthography and grammar. In this employment Mr. Edwards sometimes excelled the other boys, and on Such occasions, his master never failed to praise him very liberally before them all 1; and would frequently transmit his letters to his father and mother. This excited in his mind a spirit of emulation, and gave him the first taste for correct and elegant composition, in which Mr. Edwards, it must be confessed, attained considerable facility. All this time, however, he informs us that he attained but very little learning, and when his uncle took him under his protection, his agent in Bristol considered him as neglected by Mr. Foot, and immediately removed him to a French boarding-school in the same city, where he soon obtained the French language, and having access to a circulating library, acquired a passion for books, which afterwards became the solace of his life.

But with this work it soon appeared that he did not mean to discontinue his labours; his mind was too active, and his love of knowledge too ardent, for him to rest satisfied with what he had already done. Accordingly, in 1758, he published his first volume of “Gleanings of Natural History,” exhibiting seventy different birds, fishes, insects, and plants, most of which were before non-descripts, coloured from nature, on fifty copper-plates. This work much increased his fame as a natural historian, and as an artist. In 1760, a second volume appeared, dedicated to the late earl of Bute, whose studious attachment to natural history, particularly to botany, was then well known. The third part of the “Gleanings,” which constituted the 7th and last volume of Mr. Edwards’s works, was published in 1763, and was dedicated to earl Ferrers, who, when captain Shirley, had taken in a French prize, a great number of birds, intended for madame Pompadour, mistress of Louis XV. These he communicated to our naturalist, who was hence enabled more completely to add to the value of his labours. Thus, after a long series of years, the most studious application, and a very extensive correspondence with every quarter of the world, Mr. Edwards concluded a work, which in 7 vo!s. 4to, contains engravings and descriptions of more than an hundred subjects in natural history, not before described or delineated, and all the productions of his own hand. We have already mentioned his scrupulous exactness, and may now confirm it in his own words. In the third volume of his “Gleanings” he says, “It often happens that my figures on the copper-plates differ from my original drawings for sometimes the originals have not altogetherpleased me as to their attitudes or actions. In such cases I have made three or four, sometimes six sketches, or outlines, and have deliberately considered them all, and then fixed upon that which I judged most free and natural, to be engraven on my plate.” He added to the whole a general index in English and French, which is now perfectly completed, with the Linna-an names, by Li mums himself, who frequently honoured him with his friendship and correspondence. Upon Mr. Edwards’ completing his great work, we find him making the following singular declaration, or rather petition, in which he seems afraid that his passion for his favourite subject of natural history, should get the better of a nobler pursuit, viz. the contemplation of his Maker.

, who flourished in the ninth century, was the celebrated secretary and supposed son-in-law of Charlemagne. He is said to have been carried through the snow on the shoulders of his affectionate and ingenious mistress Imma, to prevent his being tracked from her apartments by the emperor her father: a story which the elegant pen of Addison has copied and embellished from an old German chronicle, and inserted in the third volume of the Spectator, This happy lover (supposing the story to be true) seems to have possessed a heart not unworthy of so enchanting a mistress, and to have returned her affection with the most faithful attachment for there is a letter of Eginhard’s still extant, lamenting the death of his wife, which is written in the tenderest strain of connubial affliction; it does not, however, express that this lady was the affectionate princess, and indeed some late critics have proved that Imina was not the daughter of Charlemagne. Eginhard, however, appears to have been a native of Germany, and educated by the munificence of his imperial master, of which he has left the most grateful testimony in his preface to the life of that monarch. After the loss of his lamented wife, he is supposed to have passed the remainder of his days in religious retirement, and to have died soon after the year 840. His life of Charlemagne, written in a style superior to that of his age, his annals from 741 to 889, and his letters, are all inserted in the second volume of Duchesne’s “Scriptores Francorum.” But there is an improved edition of this valuable historian, with the annotations of Hermann Schmincke, in 4to, 1711, and another yet more improved by professor Bredow, in 1806.

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.

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.

Although modern wits have amused themselves with the flatteries too frequently offered to this great queen, on account of her literary productions, and although some of these productions enumerated by lord Orford, and hid able continuator Mr. Park, are rather valuable as curiosities, than as acquisitions to the literary history of her age, yet it cannot be refused that she was truly and substantially learned, having studied the best ancient as well as modern authors. The confinement and persecutions of her youth afforded scope for the acquisition of eminent intellectual attainments. That she was well skilled in the Greek, was manifest from her writing a comment on Plato, and translating into Latin a Dialogue of Xenophon, two orations of Isocrates, and a play of Euripides. Into English she translated Plutarch “de Curiositate.” Her versions from Latin authors were, Boethius’s- Consolation of Philosophy, Sallust’s Jugurthine War, and part of Horace’s Art of Poetry. With her general learning, Elizabeth united an uncommon readiness in speaking the Latin language, which she displayed in three orations; one delivered in the university of Cambridge, and two in Oxford. An extraqrdinary instance of her ability in this way, was exhibited in a rapid piece of eloquence with which she interrupted an insolent ambassador from Poland. “Having ended her oration, she, lion-like, rising,” says the historian, “daunted the malapert orator no less with her stately port and majestic departure, than with the tartness of her princely chekes (reproofs); and, turning to the train of her attendants, said, ‘God’s death! my Lords! I have been forced this day secure up my old Latin, that hath, long laid rusting’.” By her contemporaries, Elizabeth has been highly extolled for her poetry, butto this modern taste will demnrr, yet she had a capacity for Latin versification.

, 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.

, a gentleman of eminent learning in the reign of king Henry Vlil. and author of several works, was son of sir Richard Eiyot, of the county of Suffolk, and educated in academical learning at St. Mary’s hall in Oxford, where he made a considerable progress in logic and philosophy. After some time spent at the university, he travelled into foreign countries, and upon his return was introduced to the court of kiiag Henry, who, being a great patron of learned men, conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and employed him in several embassies, particularly to Rome in 1532, about the affair of the divorce of queen Catharine, and afterwards, about 1536, to the emperor Charles V. Sir Thomas was an excellent grammarian, rhetorician, philosopher, physician, cosmographer, and historian; and no less distinguished for his candour, and the innocence and integrity of his life. He was courted and celebrated by all the learned men of his time, particularly the famous antiquary Leland, who addressed a copy of Latin verses to him in his “Encomia illustrium virorum.” A similitude of manners, and sameness of studies, recommended him to the intimacy and friendship of sir Thomas More. He died in 1546, and was buried the 25th of March, in the church of Carleton, in Cambridgeshire, of which county he had been sheriff. His widow afterwards was married to sir James Dyer.

, 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 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.

, 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.

, 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:

, 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 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.

, D. D. an eminent divine of the church of Scotland, was born June 2, 1721. He was the eldest son of John Krskiue, esq. of Carnock, afterwards of Cardross, advocate, and professor of Scotch law in the university of Edinburgh, who is well known by his “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” a work of the highest authority and reputation. His grandfather, colonel John Erskine, third son of Heury lord Cardross, was a man of eminent piety, and distinguished by his services in support of the revolution in 1688. Mr. Erskine, the subject of this article, was originally intended by his relations for the profession of the law, and received a suitable education. He appears, however, from his earliest years, to have been of a serious turn of mind, and to have preferred the study of theology, and the employment of the ministry. He entered the university of Edinburgh in 1734, where he acquired much useful knowledge, and formed an intimate connection with some fellow-students, who afterwards rose to great eminence both in the political and literary world. At this time it was the practice to prescribe discourses to the students, on subjects connected with the lectures which they heard. A volume of essays of this description is preserved in the college library, and in it are two theses delivered April 30, 1737, one by the late eminent historian, Dr. Robertson, afterwards Dr. Erskine’s colleague in the ministry, and at that time his fellow-studeiU, under the title “De probabilitate historiea, sive de evidentia morali,” the other by Dr. Erskine, entitled “De rectae rationis usu Icgitimo, sive de libertate cogitandi.” They are both written in very pure Latin, and discover a considerable acquaintance with philosophical discussions.

, 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,”

, F. S. A. a man whose astonishing knowledge of gothic architecture could only be equalled by his modesty, was the son of a builder and carpenter at Cambridge, where he was born in 1723, and was educated under Mr. Heath, fellow of KingVcollege, and then master of the college school near the chapel, the perpetual contemplation of which probably inspired him with that taste for and love of our ancient architecture, which so eminently marked the whole of his progress. The repairs and improvements of that celebrated chapel, and of Ely and Lincoln minsters, planned and conducted by him, will be a lasting monument of his skill, even if the public should never be indulged with his drawings, admeasurements, and observations, on the first of these admirable specimens of that style of building; not to mention his improvements of several colleges in Cambridge, and of Madingley, the seat of sir John Hinde Cotton, bart. in that county, and his repair of the tower of Winchester college chapel, as well as innumerable instances of his friendly assistance. His proposals for publishing the plans and sections of King’s-college chapel, in fifteen plates, with remarks and comparisons, may be seen in Cough’s Brit. Top. vol. I. p. 237. All that were actually published of his writing were, “Remarks on the antiquity of different modes of brick and stone buildings in England,” Archseol. vol. IV. p. 73. “Observations on Lincoln Cathedral,” ib. 149, and “On the origin and antiquity of round churches, and of the round church at Cambridge in particular,” ib. vol. VI. p. 163, and “On Croyland abbey and bridge,” which forms the 22d number of the Bibliotheca Topog. Britann. He was preparing further remarks on the rise and progress of his favourite science in its various parts, which death intercepted. His designs for the new building of Bene't, King’s, and Emanuel colleges, Trinity-hall, and the Public Library at Cambridge, were engraved 1739, 1741, 1743, 1748, and 1752. The first of these drew him into a controversy with the historian of that house, who disputed his claim to the design, and obliged him to publish “A letter to his subscribers to the plan and elevation ofan intended addition to Corpus Christi college, in Cambridge,” Cambridge, 1749, 8vo, which effectually closed the dispute. Mr. Essex had particularly made himself master of the ancient site of Cambridge, his native town. He married the daughter of Mr. Thurlbourn, bookseller, by whom he left one daughter, who died in 1787, the wife of the rev. John Hammond. Mr. Essex died at Cambridge, Sept. 14, 1784, aged sixty-one, and his widow in 1790.

, 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.

, marshal of France, and viceroy of America, was born at A gen, in 1627, and served a long time in Holland, under prince Maurice, with whom he acted as agent of France, and proved at once a good general and an able negociator. Being appointed ambassador extraordinary to England, in 1661, he had an affront offered to him there, Oct. 10 of that year, by the baron de Vatteville, ambassador from Spain, which his sovereign not only disavowed, but issued orders to his ministers at foreign courts, not to contest with the ambassadors of France in any public ceremonies. Count d‘Estrades having negotiated in 1662 the sale of Dunkirk, was commissioned to receive that town from the hands of the English. Though Charles II. had signed the treaty, the parliament strongly opposed its execution, and the English garrison refused to evacuate the place. But the count d’Estrades (according to the French historian’s account) judiciously distributed considerable sums of money; and the governor and the garrison embarked for London. On their passage they met the packet conveying to them the order of parliament not to surrender Dunkirk to the French; but the affair was already settled, owing to the active and ingenious address of d'Estrades. Being returned to Paris, he was dispatched again to London, in 1666, in quality of ambassador extraordinary; and the year following went over to Holland, invested with similar powers, and there concluded the treaty of Breda. He distinguished himself not less in 1673, when sent ambassador extraordinary to the conferences of Nimegucn for the general peace. He died the 26th of February, 1686, at the age of seventy-nine. He had been appointed two years before, governor to the duke of Chartres, and superintendant of his finances. The negociations of the count d'Estrades were printed at the Hague, 1742, in 9 vols. 12mo, which is merely an extract from the originals, which form 22 vols. folio, the thinnest of which is of 900 pages. John Aymon published some of them at Amsterdam, in 1709, 12mo.

, 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.

, a native of Sardis in Lydia, flourished in the fourth century, under the emperors Valentinian, Valeas, and Gratian. He was a celebrated sophist, a physician and historian. He was brought up by Chrysanthius, a sophist of noble birth, who was related to him by marriage; at whose request he wrote his book “Of. the Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists,” in which he frequently shews himself an enemy to Christianity. Brucker calls it a mass of extravagant tales, discovering a feeble understanding, and an imagination prone to superstition. He wrote a history of the Caesars, which he deduced from the reign of Claudius, where Herodian left off, down to that of Arcadius and Honorius. Photius speaks with approbation of this history; but complains, that he all along treats the Christian emperors very injuriously, while he is so partial to the heathen, as even to prefer Julian to Constantine the Great. He inveighs also severely against the monks, whom he charged with pride and insolence, under the mask of austerity and ridicules with great profaneness the relics of the martyrs. This history is lost but the substance of it is in Zosimus, who is supposed to have done little more than copy it. We have no other remains of Eunapius, but his “Lives of the Sophists,” 1596, 8vo, except a small fragment of his history, which is printed at the end of some editions of the lives; though Fabricius is of opinion that this fragment belongs to another Eunapius, who lived somewhat earlier.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

, an ancient ecclesiastical historian, was born at Epiphania, a city of Syria, about the year 536. He was sent to a grammar school at four years, of age; and two years after, was seized with the plague, as he himself informs us. He says, that this pestilence raged two and fifty years, and in a manner desolated the earth; and that he afterwards lost, during the several stages of it, many of his children, his wife, and several of his relations and servants. Quitting the. grammar-school, he applied himself to rhetoric; and making a great progress in that art, was registered among the advocates, whence he obtained the name of Scholas­Ticus, a term signifying a lawyer. He practised Jaw at Antioch, where he gained the friendship of George the patriarch of that city, and was made his counsellor and assessor. His authority appears to have been great in that city for, in the year v>92, when deprived of his wife and children, he married again, an holiday was kept, and a public marriage festival celebrated in pompous shows. In jthe reign of Tiberias Constantinus, he had the dignity of qusestor conferred upon him; and not long after, when he had made an oration in praise of Mauricius Augustus, upon, the birth of Theodosius, he was appointed prefect by Mauricius. In the year 589 he attended Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, to Constantinople, in quality of counsellor, when he appealed to the emperor and synod upon an accusation of incest, brought against him by a silversmith. After this he published “Six Books of Ecclesiastical History,” beginning with the year 431, where Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen, conclude, and ending with the year 594. It is not certain when he died. Phocius tells us, that his style is not unpleasant, though sometimes too redundant; but that, of all the Greek historians, he has most strictly adhered to the orthodox faith. Valesius observes, that he has been less diligent in collecting the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity than those of profane history; and indeed almost his whole sixth book is spent in giving an account of the Persian war. Cave remarks of him, that he is too credulous in relating upon all occasions, fabulous stories of miracles said to be performed by the cross and relics of saints. His ecclesiastical history was published in Greek, by Robert Stephens, Paris, 1544; at Geneva, in Greek and Latin, in 1612 at Paris in 167.'}, with a new version and notes by Henry Valesius and afterwards re-published at Cambridge, 1720, by William Reading, with additional notes of various authors; all of them in folio. Besides this history, there were “Letters, relations, decrees, orations, and disputations,” written chiefly in the name of Gregory of Antioch; but these are now lost; as is likewise his “Panegyric to the emperor Mauricius, upon the birth of Theodosius.”

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

, a Dutch Latin poet and historian, was born at Delft in Holland, of a family of men of the sword. He embraced the same profession himself, and was a captain of cuirassiers in the Dutch service. With no less zeal he courted the muses, and acquired considerable reputation, both as a soldier and poet. In 1611 a quarto volume of his Latin poems was printed at Leyden, containing “Nugarum liber unus: Belli Flandrici libri duo; Senatus convivalis, Mars exul, &c.” He also wrote a treatise “De Saltationibusveterum,” which he dedicated to Joseph Scaliger. Eyndius died at his castle at Helmstede, in the isle of Schowen in Zeland, Sept. 11, 1614. After his death the states of Zeland ordered his “Chronicon Zelandiae” to be published at Middleburgh, 1634, 4to. This chronicle extends to 1296. The abbé Lenglet mentions another work not noticed in the. Bibi. Belg. “Jacobus Eyndius de pace a Batavis anno 1609 oblata,” Leyden, 1611, 4to.

, a Roman historian, the first prose writer on the subject of Roman history, was the son of C. Fabius Pictor, who was consul with Ogulnius Callus in the year 271 B. C. and grandson of the Fabius who painted the temple of health, from whom this branch of the family obtained the name of Pictor. He was nearly related to the preceding Fabius, and after the battle of Cannae was sent to the Delphic oracle to inquire by what supplications the gods might be appeased. He wrote the history of this war with Hannibal, and is cited by Livy as authority in it. The fragments of his annals that remain in the works of the ancients, whether in Greek or Latin, for he wrote in both, relate chiefly to the antiquities of Italy, the beginnings of Rome, or the acts of the Romans. He is censured by Polybius, as too partial to the Romans, and not even just to the Carthaginians. His style was doubtless that of his age, unformed, and imperfect. An history, circulated as his, consisting of two books, one on the golden age, the other on the origin of Rome, is now known to have been a forgery of Annius of Viterbo,

1. “Scriptorum recentiorum Decas,” Hamburgh, 1688, 4to, without his name. 2. “Defensio Decadis, &c.” 4to, without place or date. 3. tf Decas Decadum, sive plagiariorum et pseudonymorum centuria,“Leipsic, 1689, 4to. 4.” Grammatica Graeca Welleri,“ibid. 1689, 8vo, often reprinted, but Fabricius never put his name to it. 5.” Bibliotheca Latina, sive notitia auctorum veterum Latinorum, quorumcunque scripta ad nos pervenerunt,“Hamburgh, 1697, 8vo, afterwards enlarged in subsequent editions, the best of which is that of 1728, 2 vols. 4to. An edition of a part of this work has been more recently published by Ernesti, in 3 vols. 8vo, which is not free from errors. 6.” Vita Procli Philosophi Platonici scriptore Marino Neapolitano, quam alteraparte, de virtutibus Procli theoreticis ac theurgicis auctiorem et nunc demum integram primus edidit, &c.“Hamburgh, 1700, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Bentley. 7.” Codex Apocryphus N. T. collectus, castigatus, &c.“ibid. 1703, 8vo. 8.” Bibliotheca Graeca, sive Notitia Scriptorum Veterum Graecorum, quorumcunque Monumenta integra aut fragmenta edita extant: turn plerorumqtie ex Manuscripts ac Deperditis.“This consists of 14 vols. in 4to, and gives an exact account of the Greek authors, their different editions, and of all those who commented, or written notes upon them, and with the” Bibliotheca Latina,“exhibits a very complete history of Greek and Latin learning. Twelve volumes of a new edition of the” Bibliotheca Graeca“have been published by Hades, with great additions, and a new arrangement of the original matter. 9.” Centuria Fabriciorum scriptis clarorum, qui jam diem suum obierunt,“Hamburgh, 1700, 8vo, and” Fabriciorum centuria secunda,“ibid. 1727, 8vo. It was his intention to have added a third and fourth century, including the Fabri, Fabretti, Fabrotti, Le Fevre’s, &c. but a few names only were found after his death among his manuscripts. 10.” Memoriae Hamburgenses, sive Hamburgi et virorum de ecclesia, requepublica et scholastica Hamburgensi bene meritorum, elogia et vitae,“Hamburgh, 1710 1730, 7 vols. 11.” Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti,“as a companion to his preceding account of the apocryphal writers of the New Testament times; ibid. 1713, 8vo, reprinted with additions in 1722. 12.” Menologiunj, sive libellusde mensibus, centum circiter populornm menses recensens, atque inter se conferens, cum triplice indice, gentium, mensium et scriptorum,“ibid. 1712, 8vo. 13.” Bibliographia Antiquaria, sive introductio in notitiam scriptorum, qui antiquitates Hebraicas, Graccas, Romanas et Christianas scriptis illustrarunt. Accedit Mauricii Senonensis de S. Missae ritibus carmen, nunc primum editum,“1713, 4to, and an enlarged edition, in which Mauricius’s poem is omitted, 1710, 4to. 14.” Mathematische Remonstration, &c.“Hamburgh, 1714, 8vo, a work in German against Sturmius, on the institution of the Lord’s Supper. J 5.” S. Hippolyti Opera, non antea collecta, et pars nunc primum a Mss. in lucem edita, Gr. et Lat. &c.“ibid. 1716 and 1718, 2 vols. fol. 16.” Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1718, fol. a very valuable collection of notices of ecclesiastical writers and their works from various biographers, beginning with Jerome, who goes to near the end of the fourth century, and concluding with Miraeus, who ends in 1650. 17.” Sexti Empirici Opera,“Gr. and, Lat. Leipsic, 1718, fol. 18.” Anselmi Bandurii Bibliotheca Nummaria,“Hamburgh, 1719, 4to. 19. S. Philastri de Hicresibus Liber, cum emendationibus et notis, additisque indicibus, ibid. 1721, 8vo. 20.” Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum, qui veritatem religionis Christianas adversus Atheos, Epiciireos, Deistas seu Naturalistas, Idolatras, Judaeos, et Mohammedanos lucubrat;onibus suis asseruerunt,“Hamb. 1725, 4to. This performance, very valuable in itself, is yet more so, on account of the Proemium and first chapters of Eusebius’s” Demonstratio Evangelica,“which are wanting in all the editions of that work, and were supposed to be lost; but which are here recovered by Fabricius, and prefixed to the” Delectus,“with a Latin translation by himself. 21.” Imp. Caes. Augusti temporum notatio, genus, et scriptorum fragmenta,“ibid. 1727, 4to. 22.” Centifolium Lutheranum, sive notitia literaria scriptorum omnis generis de B. D. Luthero, ej usque vita, scriptis et reformatione ecclesiae, &c. digesta,“ibid. 1728 and 1730, 2 parts or volumes, 8vo. 23. A German translation of Derham’s” Astro-theology,“and” Physico-theology,“1728, 1730, 8vo, by Weiner, to which Fabricius contributed notes, references, an analysis, preface, &c. 24.” Votum Davidicum (cor novum crea in me Deus) a centum quinquaginta amplius metaphrasibus expressum, carmine Hebraico, Graeco, Latino, Germanico, &c.“ibid. 1729, 4to. 25.” Conspectus Thesauri Literariae Italiae, premissam habens, praeter alia, notitiam diariorum Italiae literariorum, &c.“ibid, 1730, 8vo. Every Italian scholar acknowledges the utility of this volume. 26.” Hydrotheologise Sciagraphia,“in German, ibid, 1730, 4to. 27.” Salutaris Lux Evangelii, toti orbi per divinam gratiam exoriens: sive notitia historico-chronologica, literaria, et geographica, propagatorum per orbern totum Christianorum. Sacrorum,“Hamb. 1731, 4to. This work is very curious and interesting to the. historian as well as divine. It contains some epistles of the emperor Julian, never before published. 28.” Bibliotheca Mediae et infitnse Latinitatis,“printed in 5 vols. 8vo, 1734, reprinted at Padua, in 6 vols. 4to, 1754, a work equal, if not superior, to any of Fabricius’s great undertakings, and one of those, which, like his” Bibliotheca Graeca,“seems to set modern industry at defiance. 29.” Opusculorum Historico-critico-litterariorum sylloge quse sparsim viderant lucem, nunc recensita denuo et partim aucta," Hamburgh, 1738, 4to.

, an eminent protestant divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Schafhousen, July 29, 1639. He began his studies under the inspection of his father, who was rector of thq college; but in 1647 went to Cologne, where his brother Sebaldus lived, and there for about a year studied Greek and Latin. In 1643 he returned to Schafhousen, but left it for Heidelberg in the following year, where his brother had been appointed professor of history and Greek. In 1650 he went to Utrecht, and for about two years was employed in teaching. At the end of that time he visited Paris as tutor of the son of M. de la Lane, governor of Reez, and remained in tnis station for three years. Having returned to Heidelberg in 1656, he took his degree of master of arts, and the following year was admitted into holy orders, and appointed professor extraordinary of Greek, but was, not long after, requested by the elector to go again to Paris as tutor to the baron Rothenschild, and in 1659 he accompanied his pupil to the Hague, and afterwards into England. On their return to France they parted, and Fabricius went to Leyden, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity. Soon after he was appointed professor of divinity at Heidelr berg, superintendant of the studies of the electoral prince, inspector of the college of wisdom, and philosophy professor. In 1664 he was appointed ecclesiastical counsellor to the elector, who, in 1666, sent him to Schafhousen to explain to that canton the reasons for the war of Lorraine, which office Dr. Boeckelman had discharged in the other cantons. In 1674, when the French army advanced towards Heidelberg, Fabricius retired to Fredericksburgh, and to Cologne, but returned the same year. In 168O, although a Calvinist, he was commissioned with a Roman catholic to open the temple of concord at Manheim. In 1688, the French, who had taken possession of Heidelberg, showed so much respect for his character as to give him a passport, which carried him safely to Schafhousen; but the continuance of the war occasioned him again to shift his place of residence, and when at Francfort, he was employed by the king of England (William III.) and the States General to join the English envoy in Swisserland, and watch the interests of the States General. In the execution of this commission he acquitted himself with great ability, and was particularly successful in adjusting tjbe differences between the Vaudois and the duke of Savoy, and afterwards in accomplishing an alliance between the duke and the States General. We find him afterwards at Heidelberg, and Francfort, at which last he died in 1697. From these various employments it appears that he was a man of great abilities and political weight, and he derived likewise considerable reputation from his writings as a divine. Such was his abhorence of Socinianism that he opposed the settlement of the Socinian Poles when driven out of their own country in the Palatinate; in which, however, at that time he was not singular, as, according to Mosheim, none of the European nations could be persuaded to grant a public settlement to a sect whose members denied the divinity of Christ. The same historian informs us that he “was so mild and indulgent” as to maintain, that the difference between the Lutherans and Roman catholics was of so little consequence, that a Lutheran might safely embrace popery; an opinion, which, mild and indulgent as Mosheim thinks it, appears to us more in favour of popery than of Lutheranism. His works, on controversial topics, were collected and published in a quarto volume, by Heidegger with a life of the author, printed at Zurich in 1698.

, an English historian, was an alderman of London, and presents us with the rare instance of a citizen and merchant, in the fifteenth century, devoting himself to the pleasures of learning: but we know little of his personal history. There was nothing remarkable in his descent, and he made no great figure in public life. From his will it appears that his father’s name was John Fabyan; and there is reason to believe that, although he was apprenticed to a trade, his family were people of substance in Essex. Bishop Tanner says he was born in London. At what period he became a member of the Drapers’ company cannot now be ascertained. Their registers would probably have furnished a clue to guess at the exact time of his birth, but the hall of that ancient company was twice destroyed by fire, and they have no muniments which reach beyond 1602. From records, however, in the city archives, it appears that he was alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without; in 1493 he served the office of sheriff; and in the registers which go by the name of the “Repertory,” a few scattered memoranda are preserved of the part which he occasionally took, at a period somewhat later, in public transactions.

From several passages in Fabyan’s history, it is evident that he was conversant in French, and no layman of the age he lived in is said to have been better skilled in the Latin language. With these accomplishments, with great opportunities, and with a taste for poetry, he endeavoured to reconcile the discordant testimonies of historians, and therefore named his work “The Concordance of Histories;” adding the fruits of personal observation in the latter and more interesting portion of his Chronicle. His poetry, indeed, is not of a superior cast. Mr. Warton considered “The Complaint of king Edward II.” to be the best of his metres but observes, that it is a translation from a Latin poem attributed to that monarch, but probably written by William of Wyrcestre. “Our author’s transitions,” he adds, “from prose to verse, in the course of a prolix narrative, seem to be made with much ease, and when he begins to versify, the historian disappears only by the addition of rhyme and stanza.”

, a French topographical writer, was born at Castelnaudari in Upper Languedoc, Oct. 30, 1616. after going through a course of studies at Toulouse, he was in 1638 appointed king’s advocate to the presidial of his native city, which office he resigned in 1655 on being chosen syndic to the city of Toulouse, and came to reside in the latter, where he was enabled to cultivate his taste for the belles lettres; and during the discharge of the duties of his office, which he executed with zeal and disinterestedness, the opportunity he had of inspecting the archives suggested to him the design of writing the annals of Toulouse. On making known his intentions, the parliament granted him permission to examine its registers, and the city undertook to defray the expense of printing his work. Having been advanced to the rank of capitoul, or alderman of the city, which office he served for the third time in 1673, he communicated to his brethren a plan of ornamenting their capitolium, or town -hall, with busts of the most distinguished personages who had filled the offices of magistracy, and they having allowed him to make choice of the proper objects, a gallery was completed in 1677 with the busts of thirty persons whom he had selected as meriting that honour. This, and other services which he rendered to the citizens of Toulouse, induced them to confer a handsome pension on him, and likewise to bestow the reversion of the place of syndic on his nephew, who dying before La Faille, they gave it to his grand-nephew. In 1694 the academy of the “Jeux Floraux” elected him their secretary, a situation which he filled for sixteen years with much reputation; for, besides the fame he had acquired as an historian and magistrate, he possessed considerable literary taste and talents, and even in his ninetieth year produced some poetical pieces in which there was more spirit and vivacity than could have been expected at that very advanced period. He died at Toulouse Nov. 12, 1711, in his ninety-sixth year. His “Annales de la ville de Toulouse” were published there in 2 vols. fol. 1687 and 1701. The style, although; somewhat incorrect, is lively and concise. The annals are brought down only to 1610, the author being afraid, if he proceeded nearer to his own times, that he might be tempted to violate the impartiality which he had hitherto endeavoured to preserve. He published also “Traité de la noblesse des Capitouls,” 1707, 4to, a very curious work,. which is said to have given offence to some of the upstart families. To the works of Goudelin of Toulouse, a poet, published in 1678, 12mo, he prefixed a life, and criticism on his poems. Some of his own poetical pieces are in the “Journal de Verdun,” for May 1709.

Such are the few particulars that are related concerning the private life of Fairfax. But it is as a poet that he is principally entitled to attention; and in this respect he is held in jqst reputation, and deserves to have his name transmitted with honour to posterity. His principal work was his translation of Tasso’s heroic poem of “Godfrey of Bologne” out of Italian into English verse; and what adds to the merit of the work is, that it was his first essay in poetry, and executed when he was very young. On its appearance, it was dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The book was highly commended by the best judges and wits of the age in which it was written, and their judgment has been sanctioned by the approbation of succeeding critics. King James valued it above all other English poetry; and king Charles used to divert himself with reading it in the time of his confinement. All who mention Fairfax, do him the justice to allow that he was an accomplished genius. Dryden introduces Spenser and Fairfax almost on the level, as the leading authors of their times, and Waller confessed that he owed the music of his numbers to Fairfax’s Godfrey of Bologne. “The truth is,” says the author of Cibber’s Lives, “this gentleman is, perhaps, the only writer down to sir William Davenant, who needs no apology to be made for him on account of the age in which he lived. His diction is so pure, elegant, and full of graces, and the turn of his lines so perfectly melodious, that one cannot read it without rapture; and we can scarcely imagine the original Italian has greatly the advantage in either: nor is it very probable, that while Fairfax can be read, any author will attempt a new translation of Tasso with success.” Without disputing the general truth of this eulogium (which, however, might somewhat have been softened), it cannot fail to be observed, how much the biographer has been mistaken in his concluding conjecture. A new translation of Tasso has not only been attempted, but executed, by Mr. Hoole, with remarkable success and with distinguished excellence; and indeed in such a manner, that in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, Fairfax’s work will perhaps not soon be reprinted. Of Fairfax, it has been justly said that he had the powers of genius and fancy, and broke through that servile custom of translation which prevailed in his time. His liberal elegance rendered his versions more agreeable than the dry ness of Jonson, and the dull fidelity of Sandys and May; and he would have translated Tasso with success, had he not unhappily chosen a species of versification which was ill adapted to the English language. Mr. Hoole, in assigning the reasons for his giving a new version of Tasso’s “Jerusalem Delivered,” remarks that Fairfax’s stanzas cannot be read with pleasure by the generality of those who have a taste for English poetry: of which no other proof is necessary than that it appears scarcely to have been read at all. It is not only unpleasant, but irksome, in such a degree as to surmount curiosity, and more than counterbalance all the beauty of expression and sentiment, which is to be found in that work. He does not, however, flatter himself that he has excelled Fairfax, except in measure and versification; and, even of these, the principal recommendation is, that they are more modern, and better adapted to the ear of all readers of English poetry, except of the very few vtho have acquired a taste for the phrases and cadencies of those times, when our verse, if not our language, was in its rudiments.“The author of iris life in the Biog. Britannica, however, is of opinion that it was not necessary to the justification of Mr. Hoole’s new version, that he should pass so severe a censure on Fairfax’s measure. To say that” it is not only unpleasant, but irksome, in such a degree as to surmount curiosity, and more than counterbalance all the beauty of expression which is to be found in the work,“appears to be very unjust The perspicuity and harmony of Fairfax’s ver>ification are indeed extraordinary, considering the time in which he wrote; and in this respect he ranks nearly with Spenser. Nothing but a fine fancy and an elegant mind could have enabled him, in that period, to have made such advances towards perfection. Hume seems to be nearly of the same opinion.” Fairfax,“says that historian,” has translated Tasso with an elegance and ease, and at the same time with an exactness, which for that age are surprising. Each line in the original-is faithfully rendered by a correspondent line in the translation. Harrington’s translation of Ariosto is not likewise without its merit. It is to be regretted, that these poets should have imitated the Italians in their stanza, which has a prolixity and uniformity in it that displeases in long performances. They had otherwise, as well as Spenser, contributed much to the polishing and refining of English versification.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

is ranked among the Sicilian historians of the twelfth century, but his personal history is involved in obscurity. Muratori makes him a Sicilian, but Mongitori says he was only educated in Sicily, and that he was more of a Norman than a Sicilian, although he lived many years in the latter kingdom. The editors of the “L'Art de verifier les Dates” are of opinion that the true name of Falcandus is Fulcandus, or Fducanlt. According to them, Hugues Foucault, a Frenchman by birth, and at length abbot of St. Denys, had followed into Sicily his patron Stephen de la Perche, uncle to the mother of William II. archbishop of Palermo, and great chancellor of the kingdom. Yet Falcandus has all the feelings of a Sicilian and the title of alumnus which he bestows on himself, appears to indicate that he was born, or at least, according to Mongitori, was educated in that island. Falcandus has been styled the Tacitus of Sicily, and Gibbon seems unwilling to strip him of his title: “his narrative,” says that historian, “is rapid and perspicuous, his style bold and elegant, his observation keen; he had studied mankind, and feels like a man.” There are four editions of his history, one separate, Paris, 1550; a second in the Wechels’ collection of Sicilian histories, 1579, folio; a third in Carusio’s Sicilian library and a fourth in the seventh volume of Muratori’s collection. Falcandus appears to have been living about 1190. His history embraces the period from 1130 to 1169, a time of great calamity to Sicily, and of which he was an eye-witness.

, a historian of Benevento, of the twelfth century, was notary and secretary to pope Innocent II. and was also a judge or magistrate of Benevento. He wrote a curious chronicle of events strikingly told, but in a bad style, which happened from 1102 to 1140. Mirseus says that Falco’s readers are as much impressed as if they had been present at what he relates. This chronicle was first printed by Ant. Caraccioli, a priest of the order of regular clerks, along with three other chroniclers, under the title “Antiqui chronologi quatuor,” Naples, 1626, 4to. It has since been reprinted in Muratori’s and other collections.

, an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, was a native of Savona, in the state of Genoa. He published in 1557 a poem, in ottava rima, on the wars of Charles V. in Flanders, and other miscellaneous poems; and in 1558, twelve of his orations were published at Venice by Aldus, in folio. He wrote on the causes of the German war under Charles V. and an Italian translation of Athenagoras on the resurrection, 1556, 4to. He was also one of the authors of the celebrated collection under the title of “Polyanthea.” He was distinguished as a statesman, an orator, and an historian, as well as a poet, and was deputed on an embassy to Venice by Hercules Antestini, duke of Ferrara.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

, knight, and knight-banneret, a valiant and renowned general, governor, and nobleman in France, during our conquests in that kingdom, under king Henry IV. V. and VI. of England, and knight-companion of the most noble order of the garter, has been supposed, from the title of his French barony, and from his name being so often corruptly mentioned in the French histories^ owing to his long residence, and many engagements in the wars there, to have been born in France, at least of French extraction. Others, allowing him to have been a native of England, have no less erroneously fixed hist birth-place in Bedfordshire; but it is well known that he was descended of an ancient and famous English family in the county of Norfolk, which had flourished there and in other parts of the kingdom, in very honourable distinction, before the conquest: and from a train of illustrious ancestors, many of them dignified with the honour of knighthood, invested with very eminent employments, and possessed of extensive patrimonies. But one of the principal branches being seated at Castre in Fleg near Great Yarmouth in that county, which estate descending to these ancestors, he afterwards adorned with a noble family seat, it is presumed he was born therej or in Yarmouth. His father was John Fastolff, esq. of that town, a man of considerable account, especially for his public benefactions, pious foundations, &c. His mother was Mary, daughter of Nicholas Park, esq. and married to sir Richard Mortimer, of Attleburgh; and this their son was born in the latter end of king Edward the Illd’s reign. As he died at the age of eighty, in 1459, his birth could not happen later than 1378. It may fairly be presumed he was grounded as well in that learning and other accomplishments which afterwards, improved by his experience and sagacity, rendered him so famous in war and peace, as in those virtuous and religious principles which governed his actions to the last. His father dying before he was of age, the care of his person and estate were committed to John duke of Bedford, who was afterwards the most wise and able regent of France we ever had there; and he was the last ward which that duke had: others, indeed, say that he was trained up in the Norfolk family, which will not appear improbable when we consider that it was not unusual in those times for young noblemen whilst under wardship to be trained under others, especially ministers of state, in their houses and families, as in academies of behaviour, and to qualify them for the service of their country at home pr abroad. But if he was under Thomas Mowbray duke pf Norfolk, while he enjoyed that title, it could be but one year, that duke being banished the kingdom by king Richard II. in 1398, though his younger son, who was restored to that title many years after, might be one of sir John FastoltFs feoffees. And it is pretty evident that he was, but a few years after the banishment of that duke, in some considerable post under Thomas of Lancaster, after^ wards duke of Clarence, and second son of the succeeding king Henry IV. This Thomas was sent by his father so early, according to some writers, as the second year of his reign, which was in 1401, lord lieutenant of Ireland. And it is not improbable that Fastolff was then with him; for we are informed by William of Wyrcestre, that in the sixth, and seventh years of the said king Henry, that is, in 1405 and 1406, this John Fastolff, esq. was continually with, him. And the same lord lieutenant of Ireland was again there in 1408, 10 Henry IV. and almost to the beginning of the next year, when it is no less probable that Fastolff was still with him; for, in the year last mentioned, we find that he was married in that kingdom to a rich young widow of quality, named Milicent, lady Castlecomb, daughter of Robert lord Tibetot, and relict of sir Stephen Scrope, knight; the same, perhaps, who is mentioned, though not with the title of knighthood, by sir P. Leycester, to have been the said lord lieutenant’s deputy of Ireland, during most of the intervals of his return to England; which deputy-lieutenant died in his office the same year. This marriage was solemnized in Ireland on the feast of St. Hilary, 1408, and Fastolff bound himself in the sum of 1000l. to pay her 100l. a year, for pin-money during life; and she received the same to the 24th year of king Henry VI. The lands in Wiltshire and Yorkshire which came to Fastolff by this marriage with the said lady, descended to Stephen Le Scrope, her son and heir. We may reasonably believe that this marriage in Ireland engaged his settlement in that kingdom, or upon his estate in Norfolk, till his appointment to the command of some forces, or to some post of trust under the English regency in France, soon after required his residence in that kingdom. For, according to the strictest calculation we can make from the accounts of his early engagements in France, the many years he was there, and the time of his final return, it must be not long after his marriage that he left either England or Ireland for that foreign service; being employed abroad by Henry IV. V. and VI. in the wars in France, Normandy, Anjou, Mayne, and Guyenne, upwards of forty years; which agrees very well with what Caxton has published, in his concise, yet comprehensive character of him, little more than twenty years after his death, where he speaks of his “exercisyng the warrys in the royame of Fraunce and other countrees, &c. by fourty yeres enduryng.” So that, we cannot see any room, either in the time or the temper, in the fortunes or employments of this knight, for him to have been a companion with, or follower and corrupter of prince Henry, in his juvenile and dissolute courses; nor, that Shakspeare had any view of drawing his sir John Falstaff from any part of this sir John Fastolff’s character; or so much as pointing at any indifferent circumstance in it that can reflect upon his memory, with readers conversant in the true history of him. The one is an old, humourous, vapouring, and cowardly, lewd, lying, and drunken debauchee, about the prince’s court when the other was a young and grave, discreet and valiant, chaste and sober, commander abroad continually advanced to honours and places of profit, for his brave and politic atchievements, military and civil; continually preferred to the trust of one government or other of countries, cities, towns, &c. or as a genera^ and commander of armies in martial expeditions while abroad; made knight-banneret in the field of battle; baron, in France, and knight of the garter in England and, particularly, when finally settled at home, constantly exercised in acts of hospitality, munificence, and chanty; a founder of religious buildings, and other stately edifices ornamental to his country, as their remains still testify; a generous patron of worthy and learned men, and a public benefactor to the pious and the poor. In short, the more we compare the circumstances in this historical character, with those in that poetical one, we can find nothing discreditable in the latter, that has any relation to the former, or that would mislead an ignorant reader to mistake or confound them, but a little quibble, which makes some conformity in their names, and a short degree in the time wherein the one did really, and the other is feigned to live. And, in regard to the prince of Wales, or our knight’s being engaged in any wild or riotous practices of his youth, the improbabilities may also appear from the comparison of their age, and a view of this prince’s commendable engagements till that space of time in which he indulged his interval of irregularities, when the distance of our knight will clear him from being a promoter of, or partaker in them. For it is apparent, that he had been intrusted with a command in France some time before the death of king Henry IV. because, in 1413, the rery first year of his son, who was now grown the reformed, and soon after proved the renowned, Henry V. it appears that Fastolff had the castle and dominion of Veires in Gascoigne committed to his custody and defence: whence it is very reasonably inferred, that he then resided in the said duchy, which at that time was possessed by the English. In June 1415, Fastolff, then only an esquire, was returned, by indenture, with ten men of arms, and thirty archers, to serve the king at his arrival in France. Soon after king Henry was arrived in Normandy, in August following, with above 30,000 men, the English army having made themselves masters of Harfleur, the most considerable port in that duchy, Fastolff was constituted lieutenant thereof, with 1500 men, by the earl of Derby, as Basset in his ms history informs us; but, as we find it in others, the king, upon this conquest, constituted his said uncle Thomas Beaufort, earl of Dorset and duke of Exeter, governor of Harfleur, in conjunction sir John Fastolff; and, having repaired the fortificaplaced therein a garrison of two thousand select men, as Titus Livius numbers them; or of fifteen hundred ien at arms, and thirty-five knights, according to Hall’s account; to which number Monstrelet also adds a thousand archers. Towards the latter end of October, in the year last mentioned, he was dangerously engaged in the evermemorable battle of Agincourt, where it is said that Fastolff, among others, signalized himself most gallantly by taking the duke of Alengon prisoner; though other historians say that duke was slain after a desperate encounter with king Henry himself, in which he cut off the crowned crest of the king’s helmet. The fact is, that, in a succeeding battle, Fastolff did take this duke’s son and successor prisoner. In the same year, 1415, he, with the duke and 3000 English, invaded Normandy, and penetrated almost to Rouen; but on their return, loaded with booty, they were surprised, and forced to retreat towards Harfleur, whither the enemy pursuing them, were totally defeated. The constable of France, to recover his credit, laid siege to Harfleur, which made a vigorous defence under sir John Fastolff and others till relieved by the fleet under the duke of Bedford. He was at the taking of the castle of Tonque, the city of Caen, the castle of Courcy, the city of Sees, and town of Falaise, and at the great siege at Rouen, 1417. For his services at the latter he was made governor of Conde Noreau; and for his eminent services in those victories, he received, before the 29th of January following, the honour of knighthood, and had the manor and demesne of Fritense near Harfleur bestowed upon him during life. In 1418 he was ordered to seize upon the castle and dominion of Bee Crispin, and other manors, which were held by James D'Auricher, and several other knights; and had the said castle, with those lands, granted him in special tail, to the yearly value of 2000 scutes. In 1420 he was at the siege of Monsterau, as Peter Basset has recorded; and, in the next year, at that of Meaulx-en-Brie. About five months after the decease of king Henry V. the town of Meulent having been surprized in January 1422, John duke of Bedford, regent of France, and sir John Fastolff, then grand master of his household, and seneschal of Normandy, laid siege to the same, and re-took it. In 1423, after the castle of Craven t was relieved, our knight was constituted lieutenant for the king and regent in Normandy, in the jurisdictions of Rouen, Evreux, Alengon, and the countries beyond the river Seine: also governor of the countries of Anjou and Maine, and before the battle of Verneuil was created banneret, About three months after, being then captain of Alengon, and governor of the marches thereof, he laid siege to the castle of Tenuye in Maine, as a French historian informs us, which was surrendered to him; and, in 1424, he was sent to oppose the delivery of Alenon to the French, upon a discovery made that a Gascoigner had secretly contracted to betray the same. In September 1425, he laid siege to Beaumont le Vicompt, which surrendered to him. Then also he took the castle of Sillie-Je-Guillem, from which he was dignified with the title of baron: but this, revolting afterwards again to the French, was assaulted by the earl of Arundel, and retaken about seven years after. In the year last mentioned, our active warrior took also St. Ouen D'Estrais, near Laval, as likewise the castle of Gravelle, with other places of strength, from the enemy; for which dangerous and indefatigable service in France he was about the same time elected in England, with extraordinary deference to his merits, knight companion of the order of the garter. In 1426 John lord Talbot was appointed governor of Anjou and Maine, and sir John Fastolff was removed to another place of command, which, in all probability, might be the foundation of that jealousy, emulation, or competition, between them, which never was cordially reconciled. In October 1428, he had a protection granted him, being then going into France; and there he performed an enterprise of such bravery and conduct as is scarcely thought to have been paralleled in ancient or modern history. The English army, at the siege of Orleans, being in great want of provisions, artillery, and other necessaries, sir John Fastolff, with some other approved commanders, was dispatched for supplies by William de la Pole duke of Suffolk, to the regent at Paris; who not only provided him plentifully therewith, but allowed him a strong guard at his return, that he might convey the same safely to the siege. The French, knowing the importance of this succour, united two armies of very superior numbers and force to meet him; but, either in different encounters, or in a pitched battle, as the French thetnselv es allow, he totally overthrew them; slew greater numbers than he had under his command, not to mention the wounded and the prisoners; and conducted his convoy safe to the English camp. And because it was in the time of Lent, and he had, among his other provision, several of his carriages laden with many barrels of herrings, which he applied to form a fortification, the French have ever since called this victory “The battle of herrings.” But as the fortune of war is precarious, the English army was soon after obliged to raise the siege of Orleans, and though they received recruits from the duke of Bedford, they were in no degree strong enough to encounter the French army at Patay. At the battle which happened there in June 1429, many of the English, who were of most experienced and approved valour, seeing themselves so unequal, and the onset of the French so unexpected, made the best retreat they could and, among them who saved themselves, as it is said, was sir John Fastolff vfho, with such as could escape, retired to Corbeil thus avoiding being killed, or, with the great lord Talbot, lord Hungerford, and sir Thomas Ramps ton, taken prisoner of war. Here the French tales, which some English historians have inconsiderately credited, contradict or invalidate themselves; for, after having made the regent most improbably, and without any examination, or defence, divest Fastolff of his honours, they no less suddenly restore him to them, for, as they phrase it, “apparent causes of good excuse; though against the mind of the lord Talbot;” between whom there had been, it seems, some emulous contests, and therefore it is no wonder that Fastolff found him upon this occasion an adversary. It is not likely that the regent ever conceived any displeasure at this conduct, because Fastolff was not only continued in military and civil employments of the greatest concern, but appears more in favour with the regent after the battle of Patay than before. So that, rather than any dishonour here can be allowed, the retreat itself, as it is told, must be doubted. It was but in 1430 that he preferred him to the lieutenancy of Caen in Normandy. In 1432 he accompanied him into France, and was soon after sent ambassador to the council of Basil, and chosen, in the like capacity, to negociate a final or temporary peace with France. And that year, Fastolff, with the lord Willoughby, commanded the army which assisted the duke of Bretagne against the duke of Alen^on. Soon after this he was for a short space in England; for, in 1433, going abroad again, he constituted John Fastolff, of Olton, probably a near relation, his general attorney. In 1434, or the beginning of the year after, sir John was again with the regent of France;'and, in 1435, he was again one of the ambassadors to conclude a peace with France. Towards the latter end of this year the regent died at Rouen, and, as the greatest proof he could give of his confidence in the honour and integrity of sir John Fastolff, he made him one of the executors of his. last will. Richard, duke of York, who succeeded in the regency of France, made Fastolff a grant of an annuity of twenty pounds a year of his own estate, “pro notabili et landdbili servicio, ac bono consilio;” which is sufficient to shew this duke’s sentiments also of his merits. In 1436, and for about four years longer, he seems to have been well settled at his government in Normandy; after which, in 1440, he made his final return home, and, loaclen with the laurels he had gathered in France, became as illustrious in his domestic as he had been in his foreign character. The late Mr. Gough, by whom this article was much enlarged, had an inventory of all the rich jewels, plate, furniture, &c. that he either had, or left in France, at his return to England. In 1450 he conveyed to John Kemp, cardinal archbishop of York, and others, his manor of Castre in Fleg, and several other lands specified in the deed of conveyance. The same year, Nov. 8, the king by writ directed Richard Waller, esq. David John William Needham, and John Ingoldsby, to cause Thomas Danyell, esq. to pay to sir John FastolfF, knight, the lOOl. that he was indebted to him for provisions, and for his ship called the George of Prussia, alias Danyell’s Hulk, which ship the said Danyell took on the sea as a prize, and never had it condemned; so that the king seized it, ordered it to be sold, and sir John to be paid out of it. At length being arrived, in 1459, beyond the age of fourscore years, he says of himself, that he was “in good remembrance, albeit I am gretly vexed with sickenesse, and thurgh age infebelyd.” He lingered under an hectic fever and asthma for an hundred and forty-eight days; but before he departed he made his will on the fifth of November in that year, and died at his seat at Castre the next day after, being the festival of St. Leonard, or the eve before, as appears in the escheats, in the 39th or last year of king Henry the Vlth’s reign, and no less than thirty-six years beyond the extravagant period assigned by Fuller. He was buried with great solemnity under an arch, in a chapel of our lady of his own building, on the south side of the choir at the abbey-church of St. Bennet in the Holm, in Norfolk, which was ruined at the dissolution; and so much was he respected after his decease, that John Beauchamp, lord of Powyke, in his last will dated the 15th of Edward IV. appointed a chantry, more especially for the soul of sir John Fastolff.

, an English monk of the fifth century, was created abbot of a monastery in the Lerin islands about the year 433, and afterwards bishop of Riez in Provence, about the year 466. The time of his death is uncertain. He wrote a homily on the life of his predecessor in the see, Maximus; which is extant among those attributed to Eusebius Emisenus. He governed his diocese unblamcably, led a holy life, and died regretted and esteemed by the church. In the grand controversy of the fifth century, he rather favoured the Semi-Pelagians, which a recent historian attributes to his fear of the abuses of predestination, and a misunderstanding of the consequences of Augustine’s doctrine. It is certain that in a treatise which he wrote on saving grace, he shewed that grace always allures, precedes, and resists the human will, and that all the reward of our lahour is the gift of God. In a disputation, likewise, with Lucidus, a priest, who was very tenacious of the sentiments of Augustine, Faustus endeavoured to correct his ideas by suggesting, that we must not separate grace and human industry; that we must abhor Pelagius, and yet detest those who believe, that a man may be of the number of the elect, without labouring for salvation.

, the historian of Sicily, was born at Sacca, a town of Palermo, in 1498. He was entered in the order of Dominican monks, and was their provincial, but from modesty declined the honour of being elected general of the order. He was ten times chosen prior of the monastery at Palermo, and died in possession of that office in 1570. He wrote many works, but the most considerable was a “History of Sicily,” written in Latin in two decades, which first appeared in Palermo in 1558, foL and which has passed through several editions, and was translated into the Italian language.

, of Brisgaw, a celebrated Lutheran divine and historian, author of several learned works in Latin and in German, who was settled first at Dourlach, and afterwards at Rostock, was born in 1636, and died in 1716. Among his works are a “History of Cain and Abel,” with notes critical, philological, historical, and theological, published at Rostock, in 8vo a “Treatise on the Religion of the modern Greeks” another against the “Superstitions of the Mass,” &c.

, a Roman historian, who died in the year 20, at the age of seventy, is mentioned by Pliny, Gellius, and many other ancient authors. He wrote annals in many books, the twenty-second book being cited by Nonius; also Archaics, and other works. A book on the magistrates of Rome, falsely attributed to him, is now known to be the production of Dominic Floccus, a Florentine, in the fifteenth century. It was published about 1480, 4to. FenestelJa’s “Fragmenta,” with notes, were published with Wasse’s Sallust, Cambridge, 1710.

, a learned lawyer, a good historian, a celebrated poet, and a most accomplished courtier, in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary, and Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Hertfordshire, and born in a village near St. Alban’s, about 1512. He was bred at Oxford, and removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn, where he applied himself with so much success to the study of the law, that he was soon taken notice of in Westminster-hall as an advocate, at the same time that he was much admired at court for his wit and good-breeding. His first rise in his profession, and at court, was owing to Cromwell earl of Essex, who was himself a man of great parts, and took a pleasure in countenancing and advancing others who had talents. Upon the fall of this patron, he quitted the public exercise of his profession as a lawyer; not, however, before he had given evident testimonies of his knowledge and learning, as appears from, 1. “The double translation of Magna Charta from French into Latin and English.” 2. “Other laws enacted in the time of Henry III. and Edw. I. translated into English.”

But although he made so great a figure in the diversions of a court, he preserved at the same time his credit with all the learned world, and was no idle spectator of political affairs. This appears from the history of the reign of Mary, which though inserted in the chronicle, and published under the name of Richard Grafton, was actually written by Ferrars as Stow expressly tells us. Our author was an historian, a lawyer, and a politician, even in his poetry as appears from pieces of his, inserted in the celebrated work entitled * The Mirror for Magistrates,“&c. The first edition of this work was published in 1559, by William Baldwin, who prefixed an epistle before the second part of it, wherein he signifies, that it had been intended to reprint” The Fall of Princes,“by Boccace, as translated into English by Lidgate the monk; but that, upon communicating his design to seven of his friends, all of them sons of the Muses, they dissuaded him from that, and proposed to look over the English Chronicles, and to pick out and dress up in a poetic habit such stories as might tend to edification. To this collection Ferrars contributed the following pieces: 1.” The Fall of Robert Tresilian, Chief Justice of England, and other his fellows, for misconstruing the Laws, and expounding them to serve the Prince’s affections.' 7 2. “The Tragedy, or unlawful murder of Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester.' 13.” Tragedy of king Richard II.“4.” The Story of dame Eleanor Cobham, dutchess of Gloucester,“much altered and augmented in the second edition of 1587, in which are added, to the four already mentioned, 5.” The Story of Humphrey Plantagenet, duke of Gloucester, protector of England.“6.” The Tragedy of Edmund duke of Somerset." A farther account will be given of this work when we come to the article Sackville.

, of Vicenza, a poet and historian in the fourteenth century, was one of those who Contributed to revive good taste in Europej and to banish barbarism. He wrote a history of his own times, from 1250 to 1318, in seven books, which was inserted by Muratori., in the ninth volume of the writers on the history of Italy. A Latin poem by him, on the actions of Can de la Scala, or Scaliger, is also extant. He is said to have produced many other works in prose and verse; but there is no account of his life extant.

, duke of Berwick, natural son of James II. when duke of York, and of Arabella Churchill, sister to the great duke of Marl borough, was born at Moulins in 1670, when his mother was on her return from the medicinal waters of Bourbon. He was bred to arms in the French service, and in 1686, at the age of fifteen, was wounded at the siege of Buda; he signalized himself also in 1687, at the battle of Mohatz, where the duke of Lorraine defeated the Turks. In 1688, after'his father’s abdication, he was sent to command for him in Ireland, and was distinguished, both at the siege of Londonderry, in 1690, and at the battle of the Boyne, where he had a horse killed under him. In 1703 he commanded the troops that Louis XIV. sent to Spain to support the claim of Philip V. In a single campaign he made himself master of several fortified places. On his return to France he was employed to reduce the rebels in the Cevennes. He then besieged Nice, and took it in 170. For his services in this campaign he was raised the next year to the dignity of mareschal of France; after which he greatly signalized himself in Spain against the Portuguese and others. In 1707 he gained the celebrated battle of Almanza, against the English under lord Galloway, and the Portuguese under Das-Minas, who had above 5000 men killed on the field. This victory fixed the crown on the head of Philip V. who was studious to prove his gratitude to the general to whom he was indebted for it. In 1714 he took Barcelona, being then generalissimo of the armies of Spain. When the war between France and Germany broke out in 1733, he again went out at the head of the French army; but in 1734 he was killed by a cannon-bail before Philipsburg, which he was besieging. It was the fortune of the house of Churchill, says Montesquieu, speaking of the dukes of Marlborough and Berwick, to produce two heroes, one of whom was destined lo shake, and the other to support, the two greatest monarchies^ jf Europe. The character of Fitzjames was in some degree dry and severe, but full of integrity, sincerity, and true greatness. He was unaffectedly religious; and, though frugal in his personal expences, generally in debt, from the expences brought upon him by his situation, and the patronage he gave to fugitives from England, who had supported the cause of his father. The French are lavish in his Braise, and certainly not without reason. His character has been well and advantageously drawn by the great Montesquieu; and there are memoirs of him written by himself, with a continuation to his death by the English editor, Mr. Hooke, a doctor of the Sorbonne, and son of the Roman historian. They were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1779.

, an English historian of the twelfth century, and author of the earliest description of London extant, was of Norman extractio/i, but born of creditable parents in London. He was a monk of Canterbury, was dispatched to his holiness the pope, who was then probably at Rome or Benevento, once at least, and was much connected with archbishop Becket. He tells us h msel f that he was one of his clerks, and an inmate in h s family. He was also a remembrancer in his exchequer; a subdeacon in his chapel whenever he officiated a reader of Lil’s and petitions, when the archbishop sat to hear and determine causes, and sometimes, when his grace was pleased to order it, Fitzstephen performed the office of an advocate. He was also present with him at Northampton, and was an eye-witness of his murder at Canterbury, continuing with him after his other servants had had deserted him. He has reported a speech which he made on occasion of the archbishop’s sitting alone, with the cross in his hand, at Northampton, when he was forsaken by his suffragans, and expected, as he relates it, to be assaulted and murdered. This speech is memorable, and breathes more of a Christian spirit than we should have expected in those days. One of the archbishdp’s friends had recommended, that if any violent attempt was made upon his person, immediately to excommunicate the parties, which then was the most dreadful vengeance an ecclesiastic could inflict. Fitzstephen, on the contrary, said, “Far be that from my lord. The holy apostles and martyrs, when they suffered, did not behave in that manner,” and endeavoured to dissuade the archbishop from taking a step that would appear to proceed from anger and impatience, &c. This worthy monk is supposed to have died in 1191; but authors vary much as to the particular time when he composed his work, although it seems certain that he wrote it in the reign of Henry II. and that it was part of another work, “The Life and Passion of archbishop Becket.” Dr. Pegge fixes the period between the years I 170 and 1182. This “Description of the City of London,” affords, after Domesday Book, by far the most early account we have of that metropolis, and, to use his editor’s words, we may challenge any nation in Europe to produce an account of its capital, or any other of its great cities, at so remote a period as the twelfth century. It was accordingly soon noticed by Leland and Stowe, who inserted a translation of it in his “Survey of London.” But this edition was grown not only obsolete, but incorrect, when Dr. Pegge published in 1772, 4to, a more accurate translation, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation on the author. Fitzstephen was a person of excellent learning for his age. He was well versed in Horace, Virgil, Sallust, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, and with perhaps many other of the Latin classics, and had even peeped into Plato and some of the Greeks. If he was in some respects a little too credulous, it must be imputed to the times he lived in. His account of London, however, is in all views, curious and interesting, and the composition easy, natural, and methodical.

, or Flavius Blondus, an Italian anticjuaryand historian, was born at Forli, in 1388. We have only a very slight account of his early years, but he appears to have been young when he was sent to Milan by his fellow-citizens to negociate some affairs for them. In 1434 he was secretary to pope Eugene IV. in which office he served three of the successors of that pontiff, but was not always with them. He travelled much through various parts of Italy, studying carefully the remains of antiquity. He died at Rome, in 1463, leaving three sons well educated, but without any provision, his marriage having prevented him from rising in the church. His long residence at Rome inspired him with the design of publishing an exact description of all the edifices, gates, temples, and other remains of ancient Rome, which then existed as ruins, or had been repaired. This he executed in a work entitled “Romae instauratae lib. III.” in which he displays great learning, as he did in his “Romce triumphantis, lib. X.” in which he details the laws, government, religion, ceremonies, sacrifices, military state, and wars of the ancient republic. Another elaborate work from his pen, was his “Italia illustrata,” or ancient state of Italy; and he published also a history of Venice, “De origine et gestis Venetorum.” At his death he had made some progress in a general history of Rome from its decline to his own time, the manuscript of which is in the library of Modena. His style is far from elegant, nor are his facts always correct; but he has the merit of paving the wav for future antiquaries, who have been highly indebted to his researches. A collection of his works was published at Basil, in 153 1.

Phineas was educated at Eton, and admitted a scholar of King’s-college, Cambridge, in 1600, where, in 1604, he frook his bachelor’s degree, and his master’s in 1608. After going into the church, he was presented, in 1621, to the living of Hilgay, in Norfolk, by sir Henry Willoughby, bart. and according to Elomefield, the historian of Norfolk, he held this living twenty-nine years. Mr. Ellis conjectures that he was born in 1584, and died about 1650. Besides the poems which are added to the last edition of the “English Poets,” he was the author of a dramatic piece, entitled “Sicelides,” which was performed at King’s college, Cambridge, and printed in 1631. A manuscript copy is in the British Museum. The editor of the Biographm Dramatica informs us, that “it was intended originally to be performed before king James the First, on the thirteenth of March, 1614; but his majesty leaving the university sooner, it was net then represented. The serious parts of it are mostly written in rhyme, with choruses between the acts. Some of the incidents are borrowed from Ovid, and some from the Orlando Furioso.” He published also, at Cambridge, in 1632, some account of the lives of the founders and other learned men of that university, under the title of “De Literatis antique Britanniae, praesertim qui doctrina claruerunt, quique collegia Cantabrigise fundarunt.”

, a celebrated French ecclesiastical historian, was the son of an advocate, and born at Paris. Dec. 6, 1640. He discovered early a strong inclination, for letters, but applied himself particularly to the law, in. consequence of which he was made advocate for the parliament of Paris in 1658, and attended the bar nine years. He then took orders, for which he was more eagerly disposed, and more highly qualified by virtues as well as learning; and in 1672 was made preceptor to the princes of Conti. In 1680 he had the care of the education of the count de Vermandois, admiral of France. After the death of this prince, which happened in about four years, the king preferred him to the abbey of Loc-Dieu, belonging; to the Cistercians, and in the diocese of Rhodez. In 1689 the king made him sub-preceptor to the dukes of Burgundy, Anjou, and Berri, in which important employment he acted under the celebrated Fenelon. In 1696 he was admitted a member of the French academy. In 1706, when the education of the three princes was finished, the king gave him the rich priory of Argenteuil, belonging to the Benedictines, in the diocese of Paris, upon which promotion he resigned the abbey of Loc-Dieu. If he had possessed ambition to solicit the greatest situations, he would have obtained them, but his disinterestedness was equal to his other virtues. He was a hermit in the midst of the court. In 1716 he was chosen confessor to Louis XV. in which situation it was said of him that his only fault wati that of being seventy-five years old; and on July 14, 1725, he died, in his eighty-third year.

, or Frodoard, a French historian, was born in the year 894, at Epernai, and afterwards had preferment in the church of Rheims, where he wrote a chronicle, which extends from the year 919 to 966, and a history of the church of Rheims, regularly continued from its foundation to the year 949. The best edition is tij.it of 1617. Flodoard was also a poet. He composed in verse the history of the popes, as far as Leo VII. and the triumphs of Jesus Christ and the saints, in nineteen bonks. He was once near being promoted to be bishop of Noyon, but was disappointed. He died in the year 966, at the age of seventy-three.

, an ancient Latin historian of the same family with Seneca and Lucan, flourished in the reigns of Trajan and Adrian, in the beginning of the second century, and wrote an abridgement of the Roman history in four books. It is believed, that the poet E'lorus, whose verses Spartian quotes in the life of the emperor Adrian, with whom the poet carried on a rhyming contest, is the same with the historian. Florus says,

Culices pati rotundos." What makes it more reasonable to suppose them the samfe is, that the phrase of the historian savours strongly of the poet, is full of flowers and exuberance, and not altogether free from the fabulous. Thus in the seventeenth chapter of the second book, where he relates the expedition of Decimus Brutus along the Celtic and Gallic coasts, he affirms, that Brutus never stopped his victorious course, till he beheld the sun fall into the ocean, and with horror beard its fire extinguish in the waters. He is also notoriously incorrect in his chronology.

Floras, however, has given a very concise and elegant history of Rome, from its foundation to its settlement under Augustus; has described it in a very agreeable and picturesque manner; and has scattered throughout his narrative reflections, which shew a force of parts and judgment, and raise him above the common level of writers. Some have doubted, whether Florus in this history did not mean to give an epitome of Livy: but there seems no just ground for such an opinion, the method followed by the historian being very different from that of an epitomizer. Others have accused Florus of contriving the loss of Livy’s history, for the sake of enhancing the value of his own abridgment: as if it could have been in the power of any single man, or indeed any body of men whatever, to produce an effect of so extensive a nature.

, an eminent physician, was born at Hinters, in Staffordshire, about 1649, and received his education at the university of Oxford, where the degree of doctor of physic was conferred upon him, on the 8th of July, 1680. He settled himself in the practice of his profession at Litchfield, in his native county; where his indefatigable attention to the sick, and the consequent practical skill which he attained, not only procured for him the confidence of the inhabitants, but gained him a reputation so extensive, that his sovereign honoured him with knighthood, as a reward for his talents. He was a great friend to the use of cold bathing, and left no means untried, by which he might disseminate the knowledge of its utility and safety, and bring the practice into general vogue: he particularly recommended it in chronic rheumatisms, and in nervous disorders, and he maintained that consumptions had prevailed extensively in England only since the practice of baptizing children by immersion had been relinquished. This recommended his work in a very particular manner to the attention of the Baptists, whose historian, Crosby, has made some extracts from it in corroboration of the propriety of baptism by immersion. It appears to have been by sir John’s advice, that Dr. Johnson, when an infant, was sent up to London to be touched by queen Anne for the evil; a proof that he had not surmounted the prejudices of his age. Sir John died Feb. 1, 1734. The following are the titles of his different publications: 1. “The Touchstone of Medicines,” London, 1687, 8vo. 2. “The Preternatural state of the Animal Humours described by their sensible qualities,” London, 1696, 8vo, in which he maintained the doctrine of fermentation. 3; “An Enquiry into the right use of Baths,” London, 1697, 8vo. This work afterwards appeared under different titles, such as “Ancient Psychrolusy revived,” London, 1702 and the subject was more amply treated in another edition “History of hot and cold Bathing, ancient and modern, with an Appendix by Dr. Baynard,” London, 1709, and again in 1715, and 1722. It was also in some measure renewed in his “Essay to restore the dipping of infants in their baptism,” 1721. 4. His next work was “A Treatise on the Asthma,” first published in 1698, and re-published in 1717 and 1726. He was himself the subject of asthma from the age of puberty, yet lived to be an old man. 5. “The Physicians’ Pulsewatch,” 1707 and 1710, in 2 vols. 8vo. Sir John Floyer was one of the first to count the pulsations of the arteries; for although the pulse had been the subject of observation from ancient times, the number of beats in a given time had not been attended to. 6. “Medici na Geronomica; of preserving old men’s health; with an appendix concerning the use of oil and unction, and a letter on the regimen of younger years,” Lond. 1724. Several of these treatises were translated into the continental languages.

, of Florence, son of John Peter Fontius, born in 1445, was a historian, an orator, and a grammarian, and in high esteem with Picus Mirandula, Marsilius Ficinus, Jerome Donatus, and all the literati of his age and country. He had the care of collecting books for the library of Matthew Corvinus, king of Hungary at Buda. He wrote a commentary on Persius, printed at Venice in 1491, and some orations, which were republishecl together at Frankfort, in 1621, 8vo; and died in 1513.

, an eminent historian and biographer, was professor of divinity at Louvaine, and canon and archdeacon of Mechlin, where he died July 16 1761, highly respected as a man of learning and virtue, but of his private history we have no further particulars. His first publication appears to have been “Batavia Sacra, sive res gestae Apostolicorum virorum,” fol. 1714. He then published, 2. “Historia Episcopatus Antverpiensis,” Brussels, 1717, 4to. 3. “Historia Episcopatus Sylvicducensis,” ibid. 1721. 4. A new edition of “Auberti Minci Opera Diplomatics et Historica,” with large additions, ibid, 1723, 2 vols. fol. 5. “Diplomatum Belgicorum novu collectio,” being a supplement to the former, 1734 and 1748, 2 vols. foi. 6. “Chronologia sacra Episcoporum Belgii, ab anno 1561 ad annum 1761,” 12mo, a work in verse, with prose notes. He also published a new edition of the “Basilica Bruxellensis” of J. B. Christian, at Mechlin in 1743, 2 vols. 8vo, but is best known by his “Bibliotheca Belgica,” or lives of the Belgic authors, 1739, 2 vols. 4to, being a continuation of Miraeus, Sweert, and Valerius Andreas, ornamented with near 150 portraits, not half of which are to be found in the most complete copies. We lie under too many obligations to this work to examine it with the rigour which Marchand has employed, and for which we refer to his “Dictionnaire Historique.” The inaccuracies, as far as we have examined the work, are few, and for an occasional want of liberality, we must seek an apology in his religion. He has, however, taken some credit to himself, for not omitting those epitaphs on protestant writers in which their principles are commended and of this merit he ought not to be deprived.

, was a Scottish historian, whose time and place of birth are uncertain. It is most generally agreed that he was a priest in the church of Fordun in 1377, because he dedicated his history of Scotland to cardinal Wardlaw, who at that time was bishop of Glasgow. The time of his death is equally obscure, but may with probability be conjectured to have been soon after he finished his “Scoti-chronicon.” In this history there are some traditions that seem not sufficiently authenticated, and many legendary tales, too gross for belief, yet some curious and valuable particulars are also contained in it; among which may be reckoned the oration of a highland bard, delivered at the coronation of Alexander III. in 1249, a piece peculiar in its kind. Every convent in Scotland, and some in England, transcribed copies of this history; and two editions of it have been printed; one by Hearne at Oxford, 1722, in 5 vols. 8vo; the other by Mr. Goodall at Edinburgh, in a single volume, folio. ms copies are to be found in great plenty in the Bodleian library, in the British Museum, and at Edinburgh.

, perhaps better known by the name of Philip of Bergamo, was born at Soldio, an estate belonging to his family near Bergamo, in 1434. He was of the order of Augustines, and was famous in his time as an historian, which he did not much deserve. He published a chronicle from Adam to 1503, which, except in those events that fell under his own knowledge, is a tasteless compilation from the most credulous authors. It was first published by him in 1482, and a fourth edition in 1505. He died June 15, 1520. There is also extant by him a “Confessional, or Interrogatorium,” printed at Venice, in 1487, folio, and “A Treatise of illustrious Women,” in Latin, published at Ferrara, in 1497, folio.

, a Venetian historian, was born in 1628. He is principally known as the continnator of the History of Venice written by Naui. His history was published in 1692, in 4to, and makes the tenth volume of the collection of Venetian historians, published in 1718, 4to, a collection badly printed, but containing only good authors. Foscarini was a senator, and filled several important posts in the republic. He died in 1692. He was employed by the state to write his history, and is supposed to have been furnished with the most authentic documents. Two novels by him are extant in an Italian collection, called “Novelle degli Academici incogniti,” 1651, 4to.

, a German divine and historian, was born at Liege, of an ancient and distinguished family, in 1609; and in 1625 he entered the order of the Jesuits. His tutors, observing that his qualifications were peculiarly adapted to the duties of a preacher, took care to instruct him in the requisites for undertaking the office, and be became celebrated for his public services for more than thirty years, as well as for his extensive knowledge, which embraced every branch of science. He was successively appointed rector of the colleges at Huy and Tournay, and died of a pestilential disorder in the latter city, in 1668. He is known as an author by many theological pieces, particularly “Commentarii Historici et Morales ad libros I. et II. Machabxorum, ndditis liberioribus Excursibus,” in 2 vols. folio; and by his “Historia Leodiensis, per Episcoporum et Principum Seriem digesta ab origine populiusque ad Ferdinandi Bavari tenipora,” &c. in 3 vols. fol. This work, though not very ably executed, is said to throw much light on the history of the Low Countries.

, knt. whose ancestors were seated at Narford, in Norfolk, so early as the reign of Henry III. was educated as a commoner of Christchurch, Oxford, under the care of that eminent encourager of literature, Dr. Aldrich. He at the same time studied under Dr. Hickes the Anglo-Saxon language, and its antiquities; of which he published a specimen in Hickes’s “Thesaurus,” under the title of “Numismata Anglo-Saxonica et Anglo-Danica, hreviter illustrataab Andrea Fountaine, eq. aur. & aedis Christi Oxon. alumno. Oxon. 1705,” in which year Mr. Hearne dedicated to him his edition of Justin the historian. He received the honour of knighthood from king William; and travelled over most parts of Europe, where he made a large and valuable collection of pictures, ancient statues, medals, and inscriptions; and, while in Italy, acquired such a knowledge of virtu, that the dealers in antiquities were not able to impose on him. In 1709 his judgment and fancy were exerted in embellishing the “Tale of a Tub” with designs almost equal to the excellent satire they illustrate. At this period he enjoyed the friendship of the most distinguished wits, and of Swift in particular, who repeatedly mentions him in the Journal to Stella in terms of high regard. In December, 1710, when sir Andrew was given, over by his physicians, Swift visited him, foretold his recovery, and rejoiced at it though he humourously says, “I have lost a legacy by his living for he told me he had left me a picture and some books,” &c. Sir Andrew was vice-chamberlain to queen Caroline while princess of Wales, and after she was queen. He was also tutor to prince William, for whom he was installed (as proxy) knight of the Bath, and had on that occasion a patent granted him, dated Jan. 14, 1725, for adding supporters to his arms. Elizabeth his sister, married colone.1 Clent of Knightwick, in Worcestershire. Of his skill and judgment in medals ancient and modern, he made no trifling profit, by furnishing the most considerable cabinets of this kingdom; but if, as Dr. Warton tells us, Annius in the “Dunciad” was meant for him, his traffic was not always of the most honourable kind. In 1727 he was appointed warden of the mint, an office which he held till his death, which happened Sept. 4, 1753. He was buried at Narford, in Norfolk, where he had erected an elegant seat, and formed a fine collection of old china ware, a valuable library, an excellent collection of pictures, coins, and many curious pieces of antiquity. Sir Andrew lost many miniatures by a fire at White’s original chocolate-house, in St. James’s-street, where he had hired two rooms for his collections. A portrait of him, by Mr. Hoare of Bath, is in the collection at Wilton house; and two medals of him are engraved in Snelling’s “English Medals,” 1776. Montfaucon, in the preface to “L'Antiquit6 Explique,” calls sir Andrew Fountaine an able antiquary, and says that, during his stay at Paris, that gentleman furnished him with every piece of antiquity that he had collected, which could be of use to his work; several were accordingly engraved and described, as appears by sir Andrew’s name on the plates.

In 1788, Mr. Fox repaired to the continent, in company with the lady who was afterwards acknowledged as his wife, and after spending a few days with Gibbon, the historian, at Lausanne, departed for Italy, but was suddenly recalled home, in consequence of the king’s illness, and the necessity of providing for a regency. On this memorable occasion, Mr. Fox, and his great rival, Mr. Pitt, appeared to have exchanged systems; Mr. Pitt contending for the constitutional measure of a bill of limitations, while Mr. Fox was equally strenuous for placing the regency in the hands of the heir apparent, without any restrictions; and powerful as he and his party were at this time, and perhaps they never shone more in debate, Mr. Pitt was triumphant in every stage of the bill, and was supported by the almost unanimous voice of the nation. Yet the ministers must have retired, as it was well known that Mr. Fox and his party stood high in favour with the future Regent, and Mr. Pitt had actually meditated on the ceconomy of a private station, when the intemperance of Mr. Burke, who was never less Joyal than at this crisis, delayed the passing of the bill, on one pretence or another, until by his majesty’s recovery, it became happily useless. On this great question Mr,' Fox had again the misfortune to forfeit the regard of those who have been considered as the depositories of constitutional principles, and consequently appeared to have traversed the system of which he had been considered,as the most consistent and intrepid advocate. In 1790 and 1791 he recovered some of the ground he had lost, by opposing with effect a war with Spain, and another with Russia, for objects which he thought too dearly purchased by such an experiment; and in 1790 he appeared again the friend of constitutional liberty, by his libel bill respecting the rights of juries in criminal cases. This, although strongly opposed, terminated at last in a decision that juries are judges of both the law and the fact. But the time was now arrived when he was, by a peculiarity in [his way of thinking, to be for ever separated from the political friends who had longest adhered to him, and many of whom he loved with all the ardour of affection.

To lord Holland, however, the world is indebted for an important posthumous publication of this great statesman, entitled “A History of the early part of the Reign of James the Second, with an introductory chapter,” &c. It is not known when Mr. Fox first formed the design of writing a history; but in 1797 he publicly announced in parliament his intention of devoting a greater portion of his time to his private pursuits, and when he had determined to oonscv crate a part in writing history, he was naturally led, from his intimate knowledge of the English constitution, to prefer the history of his own country, and to select a period favourable to the general illustration of the great principles of freedom on which it is founded. With this view he fixed on the revolution pf 1688, but had made a small progress in this work when he was called to take a principal part in the government of the country. The volume comprehends only the history of the transactions of the first year of the reign of James II. with an introductory chapter on the character and leading events of the times immediately preceding. Whatever opinion may be entertained of the views Mr. Fox takes of those times, or of some novel opinions advanced, there is enough in this work to prove that he might have proved an elegant and sound historian, and to make it a subject of regret that he did not employ his talents on literary composition when they were in their full vigour.

, an English physician and historian of singular character, was born in Lancashire in 1633, and was entered a student in Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1649. He took a degree in arts, and obtained a fellowship in 1654. Afterwards studying divinity, he became a preacher according to the form of ordination during the usurpation. In 1662 he served the office of proctor, and the year after, having taken orders regularly, he was, but with much difficulty, admitted to the reading of the sentences. He afterwards studied physic, and settled in London, where he imposed upon the public for some time, by pretending to have taken his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and at length offering himself as a candidate for fellow of the college of physicians, he produced a forged diploma, was admitted fellow, and afterwards was censor. His ungracious manners, however, procuring him enemies, an inquiry was made at Oxford in 1677, which discovered the fraud, and although by the connivance of some of the college of physicians, he remained among them, yet his credit and practice fell off, and being reduced in circumstances, he was imprisoned in the Fleet, where he died in 1690, and was interred in St. Vedast’s church, Foster-lane. He wrote, “The Annals of King James and King Charles I. containing a faithful history and impartial account of the great affairs of state, and transactions of parliament in England, from the tenth of king James, 1612, to the eighteenth of king Charles, 1642. Wherein several passages relating to the late civil wars (omitted in former histories) are made known,” Lond. 1681, fol. He was supposed also to be the author of a folio pamphlet, Lond. 1679, entitled “The honours of the Lords Spiritual asserted, and their privileges to vote in capital cases in parliament maintained by reason and precedents;” but Wood does not give this as certain. Dr. Frankland was esteemed a good scholar while at Oxford, but in the subsequent part of his character appears deserving of little esteem.

, called the scholastic, the earliest French historian except Gregory of Tours, flourished in the seventh century, and was living in 658. By order of Childebrand, brother of Charles Martel, he wrote a chronicle, which extends as far as the year 64-1. His style is barbarous, his arrangement defective, and his whole narrative too concise and rapid, but he is the only original historian of a part of that period. His chronicle is to be found in the collection of French historians, published by Duchesne and Bouquet.

But the works by which he has been most distinguished, are his famous supplements to Quintus Curtius and Livy. There was a supplement, indeed, to Quintus Curtius before; but as that was nothing more than a miserable compilation from Justin and Arrian, without either judgment or order, Freinshemius thought it expedient to draw up a new one. For this purpose he consulted every author, Greek and Latin, ancient and modern, which could be of the least use, and executed his task so much to the approbation and satisfaction of the public, that they almost ceased to deplore the loss of the two first books of this entertaining historian. His edition appeared at Strasburgh, 1640, 2 vols. Some, however, have still more admired his supplement to Livy, which is composed with equal judgment and learning, and must have been a Herculean labour. Le Clerc has printed this supplement with his inaccurate edition of Livy at Amsterdam, 1710. He declares the whole to be very ingenious and learned, but thinks that there is most purity and elegance in the first ten books of it; some speeches in which are incomparable. The fact is, that these ten books were published in the author’s life time; the others after his death. Besides what has been mentioned above, Freinshemius wrote noies upon Phadrus, inserted in Holstius’s edit. Amst. 1664, and other philological performances.

, a French journalist, generally known for having been the constant object of the satire of Voltaire, was born at Quimper, in 1719. His talents were considerable, and he cultivated them in the society of the Jesuits, under fathers Brumoy and Bougeant. In 1739, on some disgust, he quitted the Jesuits, and for a time assisted the abbé des Fontaines in his periodical publications. He then published several critical works on his own account, which were generally admired, but sometimes suppressed by authority. His “Letters on certain writings of the time” began to be published in 1749, and were extended, with some interruptions, to 13 volumes. In 1754 he began his “Anne Litie>aire,” and published in that year 7 volumes of it; and afterwards 8 volumes every year as long as he lived, which was till 1776. In this work, FreVon, who was a zealous enemy of the modern philosophy, attacked Voltaire with spirit. He represented him as a skilful plagiary; as a poet, brilliant indeed, but inferior to Corneille, Racine, and Boileau; as an elegant, but inaccurate historian; and rather the tyrant than the king of literature. A great part of this Voltaire could bear with fortitude; but a very skilful and victorious attack upon a bad comedy, “La Femme qui a raison,” drove him beyond all bounds of patience; and henceforward his pen was constantly in motion against Fre>on, whose very name at any time would put him in a rage, nor was Freron more a favourite with the encyclopedists, whose principles he exposed.

, an eminent literary historian, was the son of a learned schoolmaster, who is very highly celebrated by Ernesti, and was born at Schulpforten, in 1723. All we know of his personal history is, that he studied law, and became a burgomaster of Nuremberg, where he died in 1776. His principal writings are, 1. “Rhinoceros veterum scriptorum monumentis descriptus,” Leipsic, 1747, 8vo. 2. “Analecta literaria de Libris rarioribus,” ibid. 1750, 8vo. 3. “Oratorum ac Rhetorum Graecorum, quibus statuse honoris causa positse fuerunt, decas,” ibid. 1752. 4. “Adparatus litterarius, ubi libri partim antiqui partim rari recensentur,” ibid. 1752 1755, 8 vols. 8vo. This is a continuation of the “Analecta literaria,” and both are of the highest value to bibliographers. They afford a striking proof of assiduity, close application, and a discriminating judgment in appreciating the value of what are termed rare and curious books. 5. “Specimen historic literatae, quo virorum, feminarumque /ttrflpc3i3a*tov memoria recolitur,” ibid. 1765, 8vo.

, an eminent and ancient French historian and poet, was born in Valenciennes, about 1337. Of his parents we know only that his father, Thomas Froissart, was a painter of arms, and although our historian is titled knight, at the beginning of a manuscript in the abbey of St. Germain des Prez, it is thought that the copyist had given it to him of his own authority. His infancy announced what he would one day be: he early manifested that eager and inquisitive mind, which during the course of his life never allowed him to remain long attached to the same occupations, and in the same place; and the different games suitable to that age, of which he gives us a picture equally curious and amusing, kept up in his mind a fund of natural dissipation, which during his early studies tried the patience and exercised the severity of his masters. He loved hunting, music, assemblies, feasts, dancing, dress, good living, wine and women; these tastes, which almost all shewed themselves from twelve years of age, being confirmed by habit, were continued even to his old age, and perhaps never left him. The mind and heart of Froissart being not yet sufficiently occupied, his love for history filled up that void, which his passion for pleasure left; and became to him an inexhaustible source of amusement.

It was about this time that Froissart experienced a loss which nothing could recompense, the death of Philippa, which took place in 1369. He composed a lay on this melancholy event, of which, however, he was not a witness; for he says, in another place, that in 1395 it was twenty-seven years since he had seen England. According to Vossius and Bullart he wrote the life of queen Philippa; but this assertion is not founded on any proofs. Independently of the employment of clerk of the chamber to the queen of England, which Froissart had held, he had been also of the household of Edward III. and even of that of John, king of France. Having, however, lost his patroness, he did not return to England, but went into his own country, where he obtained the living of Lestines. Of all that he performed during the time he exercised this ministry, he tells us nothing moiv than that the tavernkeepers of Lestines had live hundred francs of his money in ike short space of liuwj he was their rector. It is mentioned in a ms journal of the bishop of Chartres, chunceHor to the duke of Anjou, that according to letters sealed Dec. 12, 138 >, this prince caused to be seized fifty-six quires of the Chronicle of Froissart, rector of the parish church of Lestines, which the historian had sent to be illuminated, and then to be forwarded to the king of England., the enemy of France. Froissart attached himself afterwards to Winceslaus of Luxembourg, duke of Brabant, perhaps in quality of secretary. This prince had a taste for poetry; he had made by Froissart a collection of his songs, rondeaus, and virrlays, and Froissart adding s-nne of his own pieces to those of the prince, formed a soft of romance, under the title of “Meliador, or the Kujght of the Sun;” hut the duke did not live to see the completion of the work, for he died in 1334.

The time of the death of Froissart has not been decided by his biographers. He relates some events of the year 1400, and by some is thought to have lived considerably beyond that period, but nothing certain can be affirmed. He probably ended his days ii> his own chapter, and was interred in tlje chapel of St. Anne in the coHegiate church. Although he was the author of 30,000 verses, his poetical character is forgotten, and he is now celebrated, and most justly, as a historian. His Chronicle, which is divided into four books, comprehends the period between 1326 and 1400, and relates the events which took place not only hi France, btrt in Flanders, Scotland, and Ireland, with numerous details respecting the papal courts of Rome and Avignon, and collateral particulars of the transactions in the rest of Europe, in Turkey, and even in Africa. His reputation stands high as a faithful and diligent narrator of what he saw and heard. By the French he has been charged with gross partiality towards the English; they bring against him the crime of making Edward, and his son, the Black Prince, the heroes of his history. But it tfannot be denied that they were the heroes of the age in which they flourished, and therefore an impartial historian was obliged to represent them in their true colours, and to make them the teading characters of the day. Mr. Johnes-, to whom the public is indebted for an admirable edition of Froissart’s Chronicles, has successfully vindicated the character of the historian from the charge of partiaFrty: throughout the whole work, he says, there is an evident disposition to give praise to valour on whatever side it was employed. The historian mourns over the death of each valiant knight, exults in the success of every hardy enterprize, and seems carried away almost by his chivalrous feelings, independently of party considerations. Till the publication of Mr. Johnes’s translation, the best edition of the “Chronicles” was that of Lyons in four volumes folio, 1559; and Mr. Johnes has since gratified the public wish by an equally accurate and well illustrated edition of Froissart’s continuator, Monstrelet.

, an English historian and divine, was the son of the rev. Thomas Fuller, minister of St. Peter’s, in Aldwincle, in Northamptonshire, and born there in 1608. The chief assistance he had in the rudiments of learning was from his father, under whom he made so extraordinary a progress, that he was sent at twelve years of age to Queen’s-college, in Cambridge; Dr. Davenant, who was his mother’s brother, being then master of it, and soon after bishop of Salisbury. He took his degrees in arts, that of A. B. in 1624-5, and that of A. M. in 1628, and would have been fellow of the college; but there being already a Northamptonshire man a fellow, he was prohibited by the statutes from being chosen, and although he might have obtained a dispensation, he preferred removing to Sidney-college, in the same university. He had not been long there, before he was chosen minister of St. Bennet’s, in the town of Cambridge, and soon became a very popular preacher. In 1631, he obtained a fellowship in Sidney-college, and at the same time a prebend in the church of Salisbury. This year also he issued his first publication, a work of the poetical kind, now but little known, entitled “David’s Hainous Sin, Heartie Repentances, and Heavie Punishment,” in a thin 8vx>.

, surnamed Cceriolanus, was a native of Valentia in Spain, and flourished in the sixteenth century. He studied at Paris under Talaeus, Tiirnebus, and Ramus, and afterwards came to lx>uvain, where he published a treatise “On Rhetoric,” and another in which he asserted that the scriptures ought to be translated into the vulgar tongue. It was entitled “Bononia,” sive de libris sacris in vernaculam linguam convertendis, &c.“Basil, 1556, 8vo. It was written, however, upon too liberal principles for the council of Trent, and was accordingly inserted in their” Index Expurgatorius.“It otherwise would have brought him into trouble if he had not found a protector in the emperor Charles V. who was informed of his learning, piety, and candour. This monarch sent him. into the Netherlands, and placed him with his son Philip, who made him his historian. Furius remained with this prince during his life, and having accompanied him to the states of Arragon, died at Valladolid in 1592. He appears to have employed his utmost endeavours in order to pacify the troubles in the Netherlands. He wrote another work” Del Conseio y Gonseiero," which was much esteemed, and twice translated into Latin, 1618 and 1663, 8vo.

In 1717 he was appointed to read the Arabic lecture at' Oxford, in the absence of the professor Wallis. In 1718 appeared his “Vindiciae Kircherianae, seu defensio concordantiarum Graecarum Conradi Kircheri, adversus Abr. Trommii animadversiones;” and in 1723, he published Abulfeda’s “Life of Mohammed,” in Arabic, with a Latin translation and notes, at Oxford, in folio. He also prepared for the press the same Arabic author’s Geography, and printed proposals for a subscription, but the attempt proved abortive, for want of encouragement. Eighteen sheets were printed, and the remainder, which was imperfect, was purchased of his widow by Dr. Hunt. It is said that he wrote a life of Mahommed, in French, published at Amsterdam, in 1730, in vols. 12mo. But this wa.s probably a translation of the former life, Gagnier had before this inserted Graves’s Latin translation of AbulfedaY description of Arabia, together with the original, in the third volume of Hudson’s “Geographiae veteris scriptores Grseci minores,” in 1712, 8vo, and had translated from the Arabic, Rhases on the Small-pox, at the request of Dr. Mead. He died March 2, 1740. By his wife he left a son, Thomas, or as in the Oxford graduates, John Gagnier, who was educated at Wadham-college, Oxford, and commenced M. A. July 2, 1743. Entering into holy orders, he was preferred by bishop Clavering to the rectory of Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire, and afterwards obtained that of Stranton, near Hartlepool, in the. bishopric of Durham, where he was living in 1766, but the historian of Durham having concluded his list of vicars with Mr. Gagnier at the year of his induction, in 1745, we are not able to ascertain the time of his death. Preceding accounts of his father mention his being chosen Arabic professor in room of Dr. Wallis, which never was the case. Dr. Hunt was successor to Wallis.

, a French historian, wa born at Colines, near Amiens; and Guicciardini, as Vossius observes, is mistaken in fixing his birth elsewhere. He had his education at Paris, where he took a doctor of laws degree; and the reputation of his abilities and learning became so great, that it advanced him to the favour of Charles VIII. and Louis XII. by whom he was employed in several embassies to England, Germany, and Italy. He was keeper of the royal library, and general of the order of the Trinitarians. He died in 1501, certainly not young; but we are not able to ascertain his age. He was the author of several works; the principal of which is, a History in eleven books, “De gestis Francorutn,” in folio, from 1200 to 1500. He has been accused of great partiality to his country; and Paul Jovius says, that he has not been very exact in relating the affairs of Italy. Erasmus, however, had a great value for him, as may be seen from one of his letters. Gaguin also translated the Chronicle of abp. Turpin, wrote a bad Roman History, and Epistles and Poems, some of which last are very indelicate.

, an elegant French historian, member of the old French academy, of that of inscriptions and belles-lettres, and of the third class of the institute, was born at Ostel, near Soissons, March 20, 1728. On his education or early pursuits, the only work in which we find any notice of him is totally silent, and we are obliged for the present to content ourselves with a list of his works, all of which, however, have been eminently successful in France, and procured to the author an extensive reputation and many literary honours, he wrote, 1. “Rhetorique Franchise, a l'usage des jeunes demoiselles,” Paris, 1746, 12mo, which has gone through six editions. 2. “Poetique Françoise,” ibid. 1749, 2 vols. 3. “Parallele des quatre Electre, de Sophocle, d'Euripide, de Crebillon, et de Voltaire,” ibid. 1750, vo. 4. * Melanges litteraires en prose et en vers,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 5.” Histoire de Marie de Bourgogne,“ibid. 1757, 12mo. 6.” Histoire de Francois I.“1769, 7 vols. 12mo; of this there have been several editions, and it is not without reason thought to be Gaillard’s principal work; but Voltaire is of opinion that he softens certain obnoxious parts of Francis’s conduct rather too much, but in general his sentiments are highly liberal, and more free from the prejudices of his country and his religion than could have been expected. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he was much attached to the latter. 7.” Histoire des rivalités de la France et de l'Angleterre,“1771—1802, 11 vols. 12mo, a work in which the author, not altogether unsuccessfully, struggles to be impartial. 8.” Histoire de Charlemagne,“4 vols. 12mo. Gibbon, our historian, who availed himself much of this history, says that” it is laboured with industry and elegance.“9.” Observations sur l'Histoire de France de Messieurs Velly, Villaret, et Gamier,“1807, 4 vols. 12mo, a posthumous work. Besides these he was the author of various eloges, discourses, poems, odes, epistles, &c. which were honoured with academical prizes; and several learned papers in the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions. He wrote also in the” Journal des Savans“from 1752 to 1792, and in the” Mercure“from 1780 to 1789, and in the new Encyclopedic he wrote three fourths of the historical articles. His last performance, which bore no mark of age, or decay of faculties, was an” Eloge historique" on M. de Malesherbes, with whom he had been so long intimate, that perhaps no man. was more fit to appreciate his character. This writer, the last of the old school of French literati, died at St. Firmin, near Chantilly, in 1806.

About the beginning of 1735, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Johnson, undertook to instruct some young gentlemen of Lichfield in the belles lettres; and David Garrick, then turned eighteen, became one of his scholars, or (to speak more properly) his friend and companion. But the master, however qualified, was not more disposed to teach, than Garrick was to learn; and, therefore, both growing weary, after a trial of six months, agreed to try the,ir fortunes in the metropolis. Mr. Walmsley, register of the ecclesiastical court at Lichfield, a gentleman much respected, and of considerable fortune, was Garrick’s friend upon this occasion, recommended him to Mr. Colson, an eminent mathematician, to be boarded and instructed by him in mathematics, philosophy, and polite learning; with a view of being sent within two or tlireft years to the Temple, and bred to the law. But when Garrick arrived in London, he found that his finances would not suffice to put him under Mr. Colson, till the death of his uncle; who, about 1737, left Portugal, and died in London soon after. He bequeathed his nephew 1000l. with the interest of which, he prudently embraced the means of acquiring useful knowledge under Mr. Colson. His proficiency, however, in mathematics and philosophy was not extensive; his mind was still theatrically disposed; and, both father and mother living but a short time after, he gave himself up to his darling passion for acting from which, says his historian, “nothing but his tenderness for so dear a relation as a mother had hitherto restrained him.” During the short interval, however, between his mother’s death and his commencing comedian, he engaged in the wine trade, with his brother Peter Garrick; and they hired vaults in Durham-yard.

In 1763, he undertook a journey into Italy, and set out for Dover, in his way to Calais, Sept. 17. His historian assigns several causes of this excursion, and among the chief, the prevalence of Covent-garden theatre under the management of Mr. Beard, the singer; but the real cause probably was, the indifferent health of himself and Mrs. Garrick, to the latter of whom the baths of Padua were afterwards of service, During his trayels, he gave frequent proofs of his theatrical talents; and he readily complied with requests of that kind, because indeed nothing was more easy to him. He could, without the least preparation, transform himself into any character, tragic or comic, and seize instantaneously upon any passion of the human mind. He exhibited before the duke of Parma, by reciting a soliloquy of Macbeth; and had friendly contests with the celebrated mademoiselle Clairon at Paris. He saw this actress when he paid his first visit to Paris in 1752; and though mademoiselle Dumesnil was then the, favourite actress of the French theatre, he ventured to pronounce that Clairon would excel all competitors; which prediction was fulfilled.

After he had been abroad about a year and a half, he turned his thoughts homewards; and arrived in London in April 1765. But, before he set out from Calais, he put in practice his usual method of preventing censure, and blunting the edge of ridicule, by anticipation, in a poem called “The Sick Monkey,” which he got a friend to print in London, to prepare his reception there. The plan of it was, the talk and censure of other animals and reptiles on him and his travels. Wretched, surely, must be the life of a man exposed continually to public inspection, if thus afraid of censure and ridicule, and afraid with so little reason. In the mean time the piece died stillborn; and his historian says, “is among the few things he wrote, which one would wish not to remember.” After his return, he was not so constantly employed as formerly in the fatigues of acting; he had now more leisure to apply himself in writing; and in a few months he produced two dramatic pieces.

Although he enjoyed the esteem of many of his poetical contemporaries, and the patronage of lord Grey of Wilton, the earl of Bedford, sir Walter Rawleigh, and other persons of distinction; yet during this period, he complains bitterly of the envy of rivals, and the malevolence of critics, and seems to intimate that, although he apparently bore this treatment with patience, yet it insensibly wore him out, and brought on a bodily distemper which his physicians could not cure. In all his publications, he takes every opportunity to introduce and bewail the errors of his youth, and to atone for any injury, real or supposed, which might have accrued to the public from a perusal of his early poems, in which, however, the proportion of indelicate thoughts is surely not very great. His biographers, following the Oxford historian, have hitherto placed his demise at Walthamstow in 1578; but Whetstone, on whom we can more certainly rely, informs us that he died at Stamford in Lincolnshire, Oct. 7, 1577. He had perhaps taken a journey to this place for change of air, accompanied by his friend Whetstone, who was with him when he died, so calmly, that the moment of his departure was not perceived. He left a wife and son behind him, whom he recommended to the liberality of the queen, whether successfully, or what became of them, cannot now be known. The registers of Stamford and of Walthamstow have been examined without success.

He arrived in London in the beginning of 1780, and was soon invited to officiate as priest in the Imperial ambassador’s chapel, and preached occasionally at the chapel in Duke-street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, until the Easter holidays, 1782, after which he voluntarily withdrew from every stated ministerial function, and seldom officiated in any chapel whatever. The principal reason was, that on his arrival in London he was introduced to men of literature of every class, obtained easy access to public libraries, and in his design of translating the Bible, obtained the patronage of lord Petre. This nobleman engaged to allow him a salary of 200l. and took upon himself the entire expence of whatever private library Dr. Geddes might judge requisite to collect in the prosecution of his favourite object. With such munificent encouragement, he published in 1780 his “Idea of a New Version of the Holy Bible, for the use of the English Catholics.” This was an imperfect sketch, as he had not settled what versions to follow. Among his encouragers, who then thought favourably of him, were Dr. Kennicott, and bishop Lowth. To the latter he presented, in 1785, his “Prospectus,” who returned it with a polite note, in which he recommended him to publish it, not only as an introduction to his work, bifC > as a useful and edifying treatise for young students in divinity. He accordingly published it at Glasgow, and it was very favourably received by biblical scholars in general. Being thus encouraged, he first published “A Letter to the right rev. the bishop of London, containing queries, doubts, and difficulties, relative to a vernacular version of the Holy Scriptures.” This was designed as an appendix to his Prospectus, and was accompanied with a success equal to that of his former publication. After this he published several pamphlets on temporary topics, of wliich it will be sufficient to give the titles in our list of his works. In 1788 appeared his “Proposals for printing by subscription, a New Translation of the Bible, from corrected texts of the original; with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical observations.” In this he solicited the opinion, hints, &c. of literary characters, and received so many that, in July 1790, he thought proper to publish “Dr. Geddes’ general Answer to the queries, counsels, and criticisms that have been communicated to him since the publication of his Proposals for printing a New Translation of the Bible.” In this pamphlet, while he resists the generality of counsels and criticisms communicated to him, from motives which he very candidly assigns, he yields to several, and liberally expresses his obligations to the correspondents who proposed them. It appears, however, that his brethren of the catholic persuasion were already suspicious, and that he lost whatever share of popularity he formerly had 'within the pale of his own church. He acknowledges that he received more encouragement from, the established church and the protestant dissenters. His subscribers amounted to 343, among which were very few Roman catholics. In 1792 the first volume of the translation appeared, under the title of “The Holy Bible, or the books accounted sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants, faithfully translated from corrected texts of the originals, with various readings, explanatory notes, and critical remarks: Tr and a second volume appeared in 1797. The manner in which Dr. Geddes executed his translation, brought upon him attacks from various quarters, but especially fromhis catholic brethren. The opposition and difficulties he had, on this account, to encounter, were stated by him m a An Address to the Public.” Indeed, his orthodoxy having been questioned before his volume appeared, he wassummoned by those whom he admitted to be the organs of legitimate authority. His three judges, however, were either satisfied or silenced, much to the doctor’s satisfaction. Shortly after the first volume of his translation was published, an ecclesiastical interdict, under the title of “A Pastoral Letter,” signed by Walmsley, Gibson, and Douglas, as apostolic vicars of the western, northern, and London districts, was published, in which Geddes’s work was prohibited to the faithful. Against this prohibition (whjch bishop Thomas Talbot refused to subscribe) the doctor, first giving bishop Douglas notice, published a remonstrance in a letter addressed to him; but notwithstanding this, he was suspended from all ecclesiastical functions. In 1800 he published the first, and only volume he lived to finish, of “Critical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures; corresponding with a New Translation of the Bible,” 4to. How far Dr. Geddes merited the cen>­sures bestowed upon him both by Roman catholics and protestants, in his translation and Critical Remarks, the reader may judge, when he is told that in this volume he attacks the credit of Moses in every part of his character, as an historian, a legislator, and a moralist. He even doubts whether he was the author of the Pentateuch; but the writer, whoever he might be, is one, he tells us, who upon all occasions gives into the marvellous, adorns hisnarration with fictions of the interference of the Deity, when every thing happened in a natural way; and, at other times, dresses up fable in the garb of true history. The history of the creation is, according to him, a fabulous cosmogony. The story of the fall a mythos, in which nothing but the mere imagination of the commentators, possessing more piety than judgment, could have discovered either a seducing devil, or the promise of a Saviour. It is a fable, he asserts, intended for the purpose of persuading the vulgar, that knowledge is the root of all evil, and the desire of it a crime. Moses was, it seems, a man of great talents, as Numa and Lycurgus were. But like them, he was a false pretender to personal intercourse with the Deity, with whom he had no immediate communication. He had the art to take the advantage of rare, but natural occurrences, to persuade the Israelites that the immediate power of God was exerted to accomplish his projects. When a violent wind happened to lay dry the head of the Guiph of Suez, he persuaded them that God had made a passage for them through the sea; and the narrative of their march is embellished with circumstances of mere fiction. In the delivery of the ten commandments, he took advantage of a thunder-storm to persuade the people that Jehovah had descended upon mount Sinai; and he counterfeited the voice of God, by a person^ in the height of the storm, speaking through a trumpet, &c. &c. Without proceeding farther in accumulating the proofs of arrogance, ignorance, and impiety, with which this “Translation 11 and” Critical Remarks“abound, we shall only add, that even Dr. Priestley seemed to doubt” if such a man as Geddes, who believed so little, and who conceded so much, could be a Christian."

, a learned German divine and historian, was born at Nimeguen, in 1482. He studied classical learning at Deventer, and went through his course of philosophy at Louvain with such success, that he was chosen to teach that science; and in that university he contracted a strict friendship with several learned men, particularly Erasmus. He made some stay at Antwerp, whence he was invited to the court of Charles of Austria, to be reader and historian to that prince; but, not liking to attend him into Spain, he entered into the service of Philip of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht. He was his reader and secretary twelve years, that is, to 1524; after which, he executed the same functions at the court of Maximilian of Burgundy. Being sent to Wittemburg in 1526, in order to inquire into the state of the schools and of the church at that place, he faithfully reported what he had observed, and confessed he could not disapprove of a doctrine so conformable to the Scriptures, as that which he heard there; and upon this he forsook the popish religion, and retired towards the Upper Rhine. He married at Worms, and taught youth there for some time. Afterwards he was invited to Augsburg, to undertake the same employment; and at length, in 1534, he went thence to Marpurg, where he taught history for two years, and then divinity to his death. He died of the plague, Jan. 10, 1542. The story of his being assassinated by robbers is amply dispfoved by Bayle. He was a man well skilled in poetry, rhetoric, and history.

, a French historian, was born of an obscure family at Rouen, in 1659, and educated and patronized by Harlay, archbishop of Rouen, and afterwards of Paris. This patron gave him first a canonry of Notre-Dame, and afterwards he was made abbé of ClaireFontaine, in the diocese of Chartres. He died at Paris, Feb. 1, 1733. Le Gendre was author of several works, of which the most important were the following: 1. “A History of France, from the commencement of the Monarchy, to the Death of Louis XIII.” in 3 vols. folio, or 8, 12mo, published in 1718. This history, which is considered as an abridgement, is much esteemed by his countrymen. The style is simple, and rather low, but it contains many curious particulars not recorded in other histories. It is reckoned more interesting than Daniel’s, though less elegant. His first volumes, from the nature of the subject, were less admired than the last. 2. “Manners and Customs of the French, in the different periods of the monarchy,” 1755, a single volume, in 12mo, which may serve as an introduction to the history. 3. “The Life of Francis Harlay,” 1695, 8vo, a work dictated by gratitude, but more esteemed for its style than its matter. 4. “An Essay on the Reign of Louis the Great;” a panegyric, which ran through four editions in eighteen months, but owed its popularity to the circumstance of being presented to the king in person. 5. “A Life of cardinal d'Amboise, with a parallel of other cardinals who have been ruling statesmen,” Paris, 1724, 4to; an instructive, but not very laboured work. 6. “Life of Peter du Bosc,” 1716, 8vo, At his death he left five histories of his own life, each composed in a different style and manner, which he directed to be published. He left also bequests for various singular foundations, some of which, being disputed as to the testator’s meaning, it was decided that they should be applied to the institution of prizes in the university of Paris.

, an historian of the thirteenth century, was a native of Tilhury, in Essex, and nephew to king Henry II. Through the interest of Otho IV. he was made marshal of the kingdom of Aries. He wrote a commentary on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s British History, and also a tripartite History of England. His other works are, “A History of the Holy Land” “Origines Burgundionuru” “Mirabilia Orbis” and a chronicle, entitled “De Otiis imperialibus,” lib. III. of which there is a ms. in Bene't-college, Cambridge. The -compilation of the exchequer book, entitled “Liber Niger Scaccarii,” was ascribed to him; but Mr. Madox, who published a correct edition of it, gives it to Richard Nelson, bishop of London. There are two ms copies of it, the one in the Exchequer, which, according to Strype, archbishop Parker presented to that collection; the other is in Caius college, Cambridge, which the same author thinks might have been the original whence the archbishop’s copy was transcribed. Bale and Pitts differ much in their accounts of his works.

, another historian of the thirteenth century, was a monk of the monastery of Christ’s church in that city, and wrote a chronicle of the kings of England from the year 1122 to 1200, and a history of the archbishops of Canterbury from St. Augustine to archbishop Hubert, who died in 1205. These are his principal works, and are published in Twisden’s “Hist. Anglican. Script. X.” A strict attention to chronology in the disposition of his materials, is one of the chief excellencies of this historian. Nicolson seems to think that there was a more complete copy of his chronicle in Leland’s time, beginning with the coming in of the Trojans.

, a learned historian and lawyer of the sixteenth century, was born in Franconia, but the dates of his birth and death are unknown, and even his works, although of great merit, have been for many years so scarce as to have escaped the knowledge of the foreign librarians and collectors. Maximilian, duke and afterwards elector of Bavaria, enrolled him in the number of his aulic counsellors, and made him at the same time keeper of the archives, a situation which enabled Gewold to bring to light many important historical documents, and to publish the following volumes: 1. “Genealogia serenissimorum Bojariae ducum, etquorundam genuinas effigies a Wolfgango Kiliano seri eleganter incisae,” Antwerp, 1605, fol. reprinted at Augsburgh, 1620, and again in German, in 1623. 2. “Chronicon monasterii Reicherspergensis in Bojoaria, ante annos CD congestum,” &c. Munich, 1611, 4to. This is uncommonly rare, but has been reprinted in Ludewig’s “Scriptores rerum Germanicarum.” 3. “Antithesis ad clariss. viri Marquardi Freheri assertionem de Palatino electoratu,” Munich, 1612, 4to. There were other pamphlets between Freher and Gewold on the same subject. 4. “Orationes Alberti Hungeri,” Ingolstadt, 1616, 8vo. 5. “Henrici monachi in Rebdorf annales,” ibid. 1618, 4to. 6. “Delineatio Norici veteris ejusque confinium,” ibid. 1619, 4to. 7. “Wigulaei Hunds metropolis Salisburgensis,” a reprint at Munich, 1620, 3 vols. fol. by Gewold, with a continuation and notes. 8. “Defensio Ludovici IV. imperatoris ratione electionis contra Abr. Bzovium,” Ingolstadt, 1618, 4to. 9. “Commentarius de septemviratu Romani imperii,” ibid. 1621, 4to.

, or in Latin Jannonius (Peter), was born at Ischitella, a small town in Apulia, in the month of May 1676, and practised the law, but was much more distinguished as an historian. In 1723 he wrote a “History of Naples,” in 4 vols. 4to. The style is pure, but the freedom with which he discussed several topics relating to the origin of the papal power gave so much offence to the court of Rome, that he was obliged to exile himself from his native country. He found an asylum with the king of Sardinia, who did not, however, dare to avow himself his protector, but chose rather to represent his situation as that of a prisoner. Giannone died in Piedmont in April 1748. Extracts from his history were afterwards printed in Holland, under the title of “Anecdotes Ecclesiastiques.” His posthumous works were given to the world in a 4to volume, 1768, containing, among other miscellaneous matter, his profession of faith, and a justification of his history; and a life of him, by Leonard Panzini. There is a correct, but not very elegant French translation by Desmonceaux, Hague, 4 vols. 4to, and an English one, by capt. Ogilvie, in 1729 1731, in 2 vols. fol.

, an eminent English historian, was descended from an ancient family of that name in Kent. His grandfather, Edward Gibbon, a citizen of London, was appointed one of the commissioners of customs under the Tory administration of the last four years of queen Anne, and was praised by lord Bolingbroke for his knowledge of commerce and finance. He was elected one of the directors of the unfortunate South-sea company, in 1716, at which time he had acquired an independent fortune of 60,000l. the whole of which he lost when the company failed in 1720. The sum of 10,000l. however, was allowed for his maintenance, and on this foundation he reared another fortune, not much inferior to the first, an<,i secured a part of it in the purchase of landed property. He died in December 1736, at his house at Putney, and by his last will enriched two daughters, at the expence of his son Edward, who had married against his consent. This son was sent to Cambridge, where at Emanuel college, he “passed through a regular course of academical discipline,” but left it without a degree, and afterwards travelled. On his return to England he was chosen, in 1734, member of parliament for the borough of Petersfield, and in 1741 for Southampton. In parliament he joined the party which after a long contest, finally drove sir Robert Walpole and his friends from their places. Our author has not concealed that “in the pursuit of an unpopular minister, he gratified a private revenge against the oppressor of his family in the South-sea persecution.” "Walpole, however, was not that oppressor, for Mr. CoxC has clearly proved that he frequently endeavoured to stem the torrent of parliamentary vengeance, and to incline the sentiments* of the house to terms of moderation.

To his classical acquirements, while at Lausanne, he added the study of Grotius, and Puffendorff, Locke, and Montesquieu; and he mentions Pascal’s “Provincial Letters,” La Bleterie’s “Life of Julian,” and Giannone’s civil “History of Naples,” as having remotely contributed to form the historian of the Roman empire. From Pascal, he tells us that he learned to manage the weapon of grave and temperate irony, even on subjects of ecclesiastical solemnity, forgetting that irony in every shape is beneath the dignity of the historical style, and subjects the historian to the suspicion that his courage and his argument are exhausted. Jt is more to his credit that at this time he established a correspondence with several literary characters, to whom he looked for instruction and direction, with Crevier and Breitinger, Gesner and Allamand; and that by the acuteness of his remarks, and his zeal for knowledge, he proved himself not unworthy of their confidence. He had an opportunity also of seeing Voltaire, who received him as an English youth, but without any peculiar notice or distinction. Voltaire diffused gaiety around him by erecting a temporary theatre, on which he performed his own favourite characters, and Mr. Gibbon became so enamoured of the French stage, as to lose much of his veneration for Shakspeare. He was now familiar in some, and acquainted in many families, and his evenings were generally devoted to cards and conversation, either in private parties, or more numerous assemblies.

About the time when this essay appeared, Mr. Gibbon was induced to embrace the military profession. He was appointed captain of the south battalion of the Hampshire militia, and for two years and a half endured “a wandering life of military servitude.” It is seldom that the memoirs of a literary character are enlivened by an incident like this. Mr. Gibbon, as may be expected, could not divest his mind of its old habits, and therefore endeavoured to unite the soldier and the scholar. He studied the art of war in the Memoires Militaires of Quintus Icilius (M. Guichardt), while from the discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion, he was acquiring a clearer notion of the phalanx and the legion, and what he seems to have valued at its full worth, a more intimate knowledge of the world, and such an increase of acquaintance as made him better known than he could have been in a much longer time, had he regularly passed his summers at Buriton, and his winters in London. He snatched also some hours from his military duties for study, and upon the whole, although he does not look back with much pleasure on this period of his life, he permits the reader to smile at the advantages which the historian of the Roman empire derived from the captain of the Hampshire grenadiers. At the peace in 1762-3, his regiment was disbanded, and he resumed his studies, the regularity of which had been so much interrupted, that he speaks of now entering on a new plan. After hesitating, probably not long, between the mathematics and the Greek language, he gave the preference to the latter, and pursued his reading with vigour. But whatever he read or studied, he appears to have read and studied with a view to historical composition, and he aspired to the character of a historian long before he could fix upon a subject. The time was favourable to Mr. Gibbon’s ambition. He was daily witnessing the triumphs of Hume and Robertson, and he probably thought that a subject only was wanting to form his claim to equal honours.

After the death of his father in 1770, an event which left him the sole disposer of his time and inclinations, he sat down seriously to the composition of his celebrated history. For some years he had revolved the subject in his mind, and had read every thing with a view to this great undertaking, which his election for the borough of Leskeard in 1775 did not much interrupt. The first volume was published Feb. 17, 1776, and received by the public with such avidity, that a second edition,in June, and a third soon after, were scarcely adequate to the demand. To use his own language, his book was on every table, and almost on every toilette: the historian was crowned by the taste or fashion of the day. From the ample praises of Dr. Robertson, and of Mr. Hume, he appears to have derived more substantial satisfaction. Hume anticipates the objections that would be made to the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, with his usual arrogance and contempt of religion. *' When I heard of your undertaking (which was some time ago) I own I was a little curious to see how you would extricate yourself from the subject of your two last chapters. I think you have observed a very prudent temperament; but it was impossible to treat the subject so as not to give grounds of suspicion against you, and you may expect that a clamour will arise. This, if any thing, will retard your success with the public; for in every other respect your work is calculated to be popular. But among many other marks of decline, the prevalence of superstition in England prognosticates the fall of philosophy and decay of taste; and though nobody be more capable than you to revive them, you will probably find a struggle in your first advances."

Mr. Gibbon’s reflections on this subject, in his Memoirs, are not very intelligible, unless we consider him as employing irony. He affects not to have believed that the majority of English readers were so fondly attached even to the name and shadow of Christianity; and not to have foreseen that the pious, the timid, and the prudent would feel, or affect to feel, with such exquisite sensibility. If he had foreseen all this, he condescends to inform us that “he might have softened the two invidious chapters.” He seems to rejoice that “if the voice of our priests was clamorous and bitter, their hands were disarmed from the power of persecution;” and adhered to the resolution of trusting himself and his writings to the candour of the public, until Mr. Davis, of Oxford, presumed to attack, ' not the faith, but the fidelity of the historian.“He then published his” Vindication,“which, he says,” expressive of less anger than contempt, amused for a while the busy and idle metropolis.“Of his other antagonists he speaks with equal contempt,” A victory over such antagonists was a sufficient humiliation.“It is not, however, quite certain that he obtained this victory; the silence of an author is nearly on a par with the flight of a warrior, and it is evident that the contempt which Mr. Gibbon has so lavishly poured on his antagonists, in his” Memoirs,“has more of passionate resentment than of conscious superiority.' Of his first resentment and his last feelings, he thus speaks” Let me frankly own, that I was startled at the first discharge of ecclesiastical ordnance but, as soon as I found that this empty noise was mischievous only in the intention, my fear was converted into indignation; and every feeling of indignation or curiosity has long since subsided into pure and placid indifference."

He remained at Lausanne about a year, before he resumed his history, which he concluded in 1787. This event is recorded by him in language which it would be absurd to change, because it is personally characteristic, and of which no change could be an improvement. “I have presumed to mark the moment of conception: I shall now commemorate the hour of iny final deliverance. It was on the day, or rather night, of the 27th of June, 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page, in a summer-house in my garden. After laying down my pen, I took several turns in a bcrceau, or covered walk of acacias, which commands a prospect of the country, the lake, and the mountains. The air was temperate, the sky was serene, the silver orb of the moon was reflected from the waters, and all nature was silent. I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and, perhaps, the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind, by the idea that I had taken an everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that whatsoever might be the future date of my History, the life of the historian might be short and precarious. I will add two facts, which have seldom occurred in the composition of six, or at least of five quartos. 1. My rough manuscript, without any intermediate copy, has been sent to press. 2. Not a sheet has been seen by any human eyes, excepting those of the author and the printer; the faults and merits are exclusively my own.”

As a historian, the universal acknowledgment of the literary world has placed him in the very highest rank; and in that rank, had his taste been equal to his knowledge, if his vast powers of intellect could have descended to simplicity of narrative, he would have stood without a rival. But in all the varied charms of an interesting an-d pathetic detail, and perhaps in the more important article of fidelity, he is certainly inferior to Robertson as much as he excels that writer in extent of knowledge, and in the comprehensive grasp of a penetrating mind. If he is likewise superior to Hume in these respect^ he falls short of what he has himself so admirably characterised as “the careless, inimitable beauties” of that writer. Hume told him very candidly and justly, that his study of the French writers led him into a style more poetical and figurative, and more highly coloured than our language seems to admit of in historical composition. We find, in his correspondence, that during his first residence abroad, he had ajmost entirely lost his native language, and although he recovered it afterwards, during die twenty years he passed in England, yet his reading was so much confined to French authors, that when he attempted English composition, he every where discovered the turns of thought and expression by which his mind was imbued. It has been asserted that his style has the appearance of labour, yet we know not how to reconcile much effort with his declaration, that the copy sent to the press was the only one he ever wrote. His labour might be bestowed in revolving the subject hi his mind; and as his memory was great, he might commit it to paper, without the necessity of addition or correction. By whatever means, he soon formed a style peculiar to himself, a mixture of dignity and levity, which, although difficult at first, probably became easy by practice, and even habitual, for his Memoirs are written in the exact manner of his History, and the most trivial events of his life are related in the same stately periods with which he embellishes the lives of heroes, and the fate of empires. His epistolary correspondence is in general more free from stiffness, and occasionally assumes the gaiety and familiarity suited to this species of composition.

, the oldest British historian, surnamed The Wise, was, according to Leland, born in Wales, in the year 511, but according to others, in 493. Where he was educated is uncertain; but from his writings he appears to have been a monk. Some writers say that he went over to Ireland others, that he visited France and Italy; but they agree that after his return to England, he became a celebrated and assiduous preacher ofChristianity. Leland says that he retired to one of the small islands in the Bristol Channel called the Hulms; but that, being disturbed by pirates, he removed thence to the monastery of Glastonbury, where he died. But all this is supposed to belong to another of the name, called Gildas Albanius. Du Pin says he founded a monastery at Venetia in Britain. The place and time of his death are as uncertain as ther particulars of his history which may be found in our airthorities. He is the only British author of the sixth century whose works are printed; and they are therefore valuable on account of their antiquity, and as containing the only information of the times in which he wrote. The only book, however, attributed to him with certainty, i$ his “Epistola de excidio Britanniæ, et castigatio ordinis ecclesiastici,” Lond. 1525, 8vo, Basil, 1541, 8vo, Lond. 1567, 12mo, Paris, 1576, Basil, 1568, 12mo, and by Gale, in his “Rerum Anglic. Scriptores veteres,” fol. 1684—7. There is also an English translation, Lond. 1652, 12mo. In this he laments over the miseries and almost total ruia of his countrymen, and severely reproves th corruption and profligacy of the age. The first part contains a vague accwnnt of events from the Roman invasion to his own umes. There were two other Gildas’s of the sixth century, whom some make distinct persons, and others consider as one and the same.

His works consist of seventeen productions, which were first printed separately; but afterwards collected and published in 2 vols. folio, at Basil 15SO, and at Leyden 1696. The most valued pieces among them are, “Historia de Deis Gentium,” <( Historian Poetarum tarn Grajcorum, quam Latinorum Dialogi decem,“and,” Dialogi duo de Poetis nostrorum.“The first of these books is one of the last he composed, and full of profound erudition. The other two, which make up 'the history of the ancient and modern poets, are written with great exactness and judgment. Vossius speaks highly of this work, as the production of great judgment and learning, as well as industry, and observes, that though his professed design is to collect memoirs concerning their persons, characters, and writings in general, yet he has occasionally interspersed many things, regarding the art of poetry, which may be useful to those who intend to cultivate it. Joseph Scaliger, indeed, would persuade us, though not very consistently, that nothing can be more contemptible than the judgment be passes on the poets he treats of: for in another place he allows all the works of Giraldus to be very good, and that no man knew better how to temper learning with judgment. There is a work also by Giraldus,” De annis & mensibus, ciEterisque temporis partibus, una cum Kalendario Romano & Grocco,“written with a view to the reformation of the kalerular, which was afterwards effected by pope Gregory XIII. about 1582. There are likewise among his works a few poems, the principal of which is entitled,” Epistola in qua agitur de incommodis, quse in direptione Urbana passus est ubi item est quasi catalogus suorum, umicorurn Poetarum, & deileaiur interitus Herculis Carclinalis Rangonis.“This poem is annexed to the Florentine edition of th6 two dialogues concerning his contemporary poets; and contains a curious literary history of that time. To other praises bestowed upon Giraldus by authors of the first name, we may add that of Casaubon, who calls him,” vir solide doctus, & in scribendo accuratus,“a man solidly learned and an accurate writer. Thuanus says, that” he was excellently skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues, in polite literature, and in antiquity, which he has illustrated in several works; and that, though highly deserving a better fate, he struggled all his life with illhealth and ill-fortune." His books he bequeathed to his relatives John Baptist Giraldi and Pasetius.

Bishop Burnet says, “that he was the silentest and mojdestest man, who was perhaps ever bred in a court. He had a clear apprehension, and dispatched business with great method, and with so much temper, that he had no personal enemies. But his silence begot a jealousy, which hung long upon him. His notions were for the court; but his incorrupt and sincere way of managing the concerns of the treasury created in all people a very high esteem for him. He had true principles of religion and virtue, and never heaped up wealth. So that, all things being laid together, he was one of the worthiest and wisest men, who was employed in that age.” In another place the same historian observes, “that he was a man of the clearest head, the calmest temper, and the most incorrupt of all the ministers he had ever known; and that after having been thirty years in the treasury, and during nine of those lord treasurer, as he was never once suspected of corruption, ur of suffering his servants to grow rich under Jiim, so in all that time his estate was not increased by him to the value of four thousand pounds.” It is also said, that he had a penetrating contemplative genius, a slow, but unerring apprehension, and an exquisite judgment, with few words, though always to the purpose. He was temperate in his diet. His superior wisdom and spirit made han despise the low arts of vain-glorious courtiers; for he never kept suitors unprofitably in suspense, nor promised any thing, that he was not resolved to perform; but as he accounted dissimulation the worst of lying, so on the other hand his denials were softened by frankness and condescension to those whom he could not gratify. His great abilities and consummate experience qualified him for a prime minister; and his exact knowledge of all the branches of the revenue particularly fitted him for the management of the treasury. He was thrifty without the least tincture of avarice, being. as good an ceconomist of the public wealth, as he was of his private fortune. He had a clear conception of the whole government, both in church and state; and perfectly knew the temper, genius, and disposition of the English nation. And though his stern gravity appeared a little ungracious, yet his steady and impartial justice recommended him to the esteem of almost every person; so that no man, in so many different public stations, and so great a variety of business, ever had more friends, or fewer enemies. Dean Swift’s character of him is not so favourable, and in our references may be found many other opposite opinions of his merit and abilities. He had a brother of some poetical talent, noticed by Mr. Ellis.

“He was,” adds his biographer, “generous in the extreme, and so strongly affected by compassion, that he has been known at midnight to abandon his rest in order to procure relief and an asylum for a poor dying object who was left destitute in the streets. Nor was there ever a mind whose general feelings were more benevolent and friendly. He is, however, supposed to have been often soured by jealousy or envy, and many little instances are mentioned of this tendency in his character; but whatever appeared of this kind was a mere momentary sensation, which he knew not how like other men to conceal. It was never the result of principle, or the suggestion of reflection; it never embittered his heart, nor influenced his conduct. Nothingcould be more amiable than the general features of his mind; those of his person were not perhaps so engaging. His stature was under the middle size, his body strongly built, and his limbs more sturdy than elegant; his complexion was pale, his forehead low, his face almost round, and pitted with the small-pox; but marked with strong lines of thinking. His first appearance was not captivating; but when he grew easy and cheerful in company, he relaxed into.such a display of good-humour, as soon removed every unfavourable impression. Yet it must be acknowledged that in company he did not appear to so much advantage as might have been expected from his genius and talents. He was too apt to speak without reflection, and without a sufficient knowledge of the subject; which made Johnson observe of him, * No man was more foolish when he had not a pen in his hand, or more wise when he had.' Indeed, with all his defects (to conclude nearly in the words of that great critic), as a writer he was of the most distinguished abilities. Whatever he composed he did it better than any other man could. And whether we consider him as a poet, as a comic writer, or as an historian (so far as regards his powers of composition) he was one of the first writers of his time, and will ever stand in the foremost class.”

, a German antiquary, was born at Venloo, in the duchy of Gueldres, in 1526. His father was a painter, and he was himself bred up in this art, learning the principles of it from Lambert Lombard; but he seems to have quitted the pencil early in life, having a particular turn to antiquity, and especially to the study of medals, to which he entirely devoted himself. He considered medals as the very foundation of true history; and travelled through France, Germany, and Italy, in order to make collections, and to“draw from them what lights he could. His reputation was so high in this respect, that the cabinets of the curious were every where open to him; and on the same account he was honoured with the freedom of the city of Rome in Io67. He was the author of several excellent works, in all which he applies medals to the illustration of ancient history, and for the greater accuracy, had them printed in his own house, and corrected them himself. He also engraved the plates for the medals with his own hands. Accordingly, his books were admired all over Europe, and thought an ornament to any library; and succeeding antiquaries have bestowed the highest praises upon them. Lipsius, speaking of the” Fasti Consulares,“says, that” he knows not which to admire most, his diligence in seeking so many coins, his happiness in finding, or his skill in engraving them." Some, however, have said that although his works abound with erudition, they must be read with some caution. The fact seems to be, that all his works have many coins not yet found in cabinets, because his own collection was unfortunately lost, yet the medals which he describes, and which were once looked upon as fictitious, are yearly found really existent, and of undoubted antiquity. A French writer compares him to Pliny the natural historian, who was thought to deal much in falsehood, till time drew the truth out of the well; so that as knowledge advances, most of his wonders acquire gradual confirmation. Yet it is certain that he was often imposed upon, and the caution above given is not unnecessary. His coins of the Roman tyrants, for instance, are clearly false; for they bear Pren. and Cog. on the exergue, which marks never occur on the real coins. It has been also said that many errors of this nature must be committed by a man, whose love and veneration for Roman antiquities was such, that he gave to all his children Roman names, such as Julius, Marcellus, &c. so that he might easily receive for antiques what were not so, out of pure fondness for any thing of that kind. Upon this principle, it is probable, that he took, for his second wife, the widow of the antiquary Martini us Smetius; whom he married more for the sake of Smetius 1 s medals and inscriptions than for any thing belonging to herself. She was his second wife, and a shrew, who made his latter days unhappy. He died at Bruges March 14, 1583.

, a native of Scotland, and onc distinguished by his party writings on political and religious subjects, was born at Kircudbright in Galloway, about th fend of the seventeenth century. He had an university education, and went through the common course of aca* demical studies; but whether at Aberdeen or St. Andrew’s is uncertain. When a young man he came to London, and at first supported himself by teaching the languages, but afterwards commenced party writer, and was employed by the earl of Oxford in queen Anne’s time; but we know not in what capacity. He first distinguished himself in the Bangorian controversy by two pamphlets in defence of Hoadly, which recommended him to Mr. Tjrenchard, an author of the same stamp, who took him into his house, at first as his amanuensis, and afterwards into partnership, as an author. In 1720, they began to publish, in conjunction, a series of letters, under the name of “Cato,” upon various and important subjects relating to the public. About the same time they published another periodical paper, under the title of “The Independent Whig,” which was continued some years after Trenchard’s death by Gordon alone. The same spirit which appears, with more decent language, in Cato’s letters against the administration in the state, shews itself in this work in much more glaring colours against the hierarchy in the church. It is, in truth, a gross and indecent libel on the established religion, which, however, Gordon was admirably qualified to write, as he had no religion of his own to check his intemperate sallies. After Trenchard’s death, the minister, sir Robert Walpole, knowing his popular talents, took him into pay to defend his measures, for which end he wrote several pamphlets. At the time of his death, July 28, 1750, he was first commissioner of the wine-licences, an office which he had enjoyed many years, and which diminished his patriotism surprisingly. He was twice married. His second wife was the widow of his friend Trenchard by whom he had children, and who survived him. Two collections of his tracts have been preserved the first entitled, “A Cordial for Low-spirits,” in three volumes; and the second, “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken,” in two volumes. But these, like many other posthumous pieces, had better have been suppressed. His translations of Sallust and Tacitus, now, perhaps, contribute more to preserve his name, although without conferring much reputation on it. His Tacitus appeared in 2 vols. fol. in 1728, with discourses taken from foreign commentators and translators of that historian. Sir Robert Walpole patronised a subscription for the work, which was very successful; but no classic was perhaps ever so miserably mangled. His style is extremely vulgar, yet affected, and abounds with abrupt and inharmonious periods, totally destitute of any resemblance to the original, while the translator fancied he was giving a correct imitation.

, an Anglo-American divine and historian, and minister at Roxburg in Massachusetts, was born at Hitchin, in Hertfordshire, in 1729, and educated at a dissenting academy in or near London. He was afterwards pastor of an independent congregation at Ipswich, where he officiated for several years. In 1772 he went to America, and settled at Roxburg. When the revolution commenced in America, he took a very active part against his native country, and was appointed chaplain to the provincial congress of Massachusetts. In 1776 he appears first to have conceived the design of writing the history of the revolution and war, and began to collect materials on the spot, in which he was assisted by the communication of state papers, and the correspondence of Washington and the other generals who had made a distinguished figure in the field. In 1786 became to England, and in 1788 published, in 4 vols. 8vo, “The History of the rise, progress, and establishment of the Independence of the United States of America.” This, however, is rajther a collection of facts, than a regular history, for the writing of which, indeed, the author had no talent; his style is vulgar and confused, and his reflections common-place. The best parts of it occur where he made most use of Dodsley’s Annual Register. The colouring he attempts to give, as may be expected, is entirely unfavourable to the English, nor does he endeavour to disguise his partialities. He is said to have published also some sermons; a pamphlet recommending a society for the benefit of widows, another against the doctrine of universal redemption, and an abridgment of Edwards, “on religious affections.” He appears not to have returned to America after the publication of his history, but to have resided partly at St. Neots, and partly at Ipswich, at which last he died in 1807.

, an English printer and historian, was descended of a good family, and appears to have been brought up a merchant, and his works, as an author, evince him to have had a tolerable education. He tells us himself that he wrote the greatest part of Hall’s chronicle (who died in 1547), and next year printed that work, entitled “The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and Yorke,” &c. continued to the end of the reign of Henry VIII. from Hall’s Mss. according to Ant. Wood. It had been printed by Berthelet in 1542, but brought down only to 1532. In 1562 Grafton’s “Abridgment of the Chronicles of England,” was printed by R. Tottyl, and reprinted the two succeeding years, and in 1572. And as Stowe had published his “Summarie of the Englyshe Chronicles” in 1565, Grafton sent out, as a rival, an abridgement of his abridgement, which he entitled “A Manuell of the Chronicles of England;” and Stowe, not to be behind with him, published in the same year his “Summarie of Chronicles abridged.” This rivalship was accompanied by harsh reflections on each other in their respective prefaces. In 1569 Grafton published his “Chronicle at large, and meere History of the affaires of England,” &c. some part of which seems to have been unjustly censured by Buchanan. In the time of Henry VIII. soon after the death of lord Cromwell, Grafton was imprisoned six weeks in the Fleet, for printing Matthews’s Bible, and what was called “The Great Bible” without notes, and, before his release, was bound in a penalty of lOOl. that he should neither sell nor print, or cause to be printed, anymore bibles, until the king and the clergy should agree upon a translation. As Whitchurch was concerned with him in printing those Bibles, he very probably shared the same fate. Grafton was also called before the council, on a charge of printing a ballad in favour of lord Cromwell; and his quondam friend bishop Bonner being present, aggravated the cause, by reciting a little chat between them, in which Grafton had intimated his “being sorry to hear of Cromwell’s apprehension;” but the lord chancellor Audley, disgusted probably at this meanness of spirit in Bonner, turned the discourse, and the matter seems to have ended. In a few years after, Grafton was appointed printer to prince Edward, and he with his associate Whitchurch had special patents for printing the church-service books, and also the Primers both in Latin and English.

, a French historian, was born in 1565, and, after a liberal education, became counsellor and master of the requests to Mary de Medicis, queen of France. He frequented the court in his youth, and devoted himself to the service of Henry IV. by whom he was much esteemed and trusted. Being a man of probity, and void of ambition, he did not employ his interest with Henry to obtain dignities, but spent the greatest part of his life -in literary retirement. Among other works which he composed, are “The History of Henry IV.” and “The History of Lewis XIII. to the death of the Marshal d'Ancre,” in 1617; both which were published in /olio, under the title of “Decades.” The former he presented to Lewis XIII. who read it over, and was infinitely charmed with the frankness of the author: but the Jesuits, who never were friendly to liberality of sentiment, found means to have this work castrated in several places. They served “The History of Lewis XIII.” worse; for, Le Grain having in that performance spoken advantageously of the prince of Conde, his protector, they had the cunning and malice to suppress those passages, and to insert others, where they made him speak of the prince in very indecorous terms. Conde was a dupe to this piece of knavery, till Le Grain had time to vindicate himself, by restoring this as well as his former works to their original purity. He died at Paris in 1643, and ordered in his will, that none of his descendants should ever trust the education of their children to the Jesuits; which clause, it is said, has been punctually observed by his family.

, a learned philologist, antiquary, and historian of Copenhagen, was born at Aalburg in Jutland, Oct. 28, 1685. His father, who was a clergyman, carefully superintended his education until he was fit to go to the university. He went accordingly in 1703 to Copenhagen, where he very soon distinguished himself as a classical scholar and critic. In 1705 he took his bachelor’s degree with great credit, and in 1707 published the first specimen of his learned researches, entitled “Archytce Tarentini fragmentum ntp vw pafapalucw, cum disquisitione chronologica de aetate Archytse.” This was followed by other dissertations, which raised his fame so highly that he was made professor of Greek at Copenhagen, and was also appointed counsellor of justice, archivist, historiographer, and librarian, to the king, whom he had taught when a youth. In 1745, he was made counsellor of state, and died March 19, 1748, leaving an elaborate work, “Corpus diplomatum ad res Danicas facientium.” This work, which he undertook by order of Christian VI. is still in ms. and probably consists of several folio volumes. Gramm laid the first foundation of the academy at Copenhagen, and contributed very frequently to the literary journals of his time. He was a man of very extensive learning, but particularly skilled in Greek and Latin, and in history, and of such ready memory that he was never consulted on books or matters of literature without giving immediate information. He corresponded with many of the literati of Germany, England, Italy, and France, but was most admired by those who were witnesses of his amiable private character, his love of literature, and his generous patronage of young students.

The dispute about the title of Universal Bishop and the equality of the two sons of Rome and Constantinople still subsisting, and the emperor Maurice having declared for the latter, our pope saw the murder of him and his family without any concern by Phocas. This usurper having sent his picture to Rome in the year C03, Gregory received it with great respect, and placed it with that of the empress his consort (Leontia) in the oratory of St. Csesarius in the palace; and soon after congratulated Phocas’s accession to the throne. There are still extant, written upon this occasion, by the holy pontiff, three letters^ wherein he expresses his joy, and returns thanks to Godj for that execrable parricide’s accession to the crown, as the greatest blessing that could befall the empire; and he praises God, that, after suffering under a heavy galling yoke, his subjects begin once more to enjoy the sweets of liberty under his empire flatteries unworthy a man of honour, and especially a pope and for which his historian, Maimbourg, condemns them. But Gregory thought himself in conscience obliged to assert the superiority of his see above that of Constantinople, and he exerted himself much to secure it. In general he had the pre-eminence of the holy see much at heart; accordingly this same year, one Stephen, a Spanish bishop, having complained to him of an unjust deprivation of his bishopric, the pope sent a delegate to judge the matter upon the spot, giving him a memorial of his instructions, in which among other particulars he orders thus: “If it be said, that bishop Stephen, had neither metropolitan nor patriarch, you must answer, that he ought to be tried, as he requested, by the holy see, which is the chief of all churches.” It was in the same spirit of preserving the dignity of his pontificate, that he resolved to repair the celebrated churches of St. Peter and St. Paul; with which view, he gave orders this year to the subdeacon Sabinian (afterwards his successor in the popedom), to fell all the timber necessary for that purpose in the country of the Brutii, and send it to Rome: he wrote several other letters on this occasion, which are striking proofs of his zeal for carrying on the repairs of old churches, although he built no new ones.

, LL. D. an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was of a Yorkshire family, originally from France. He was born in 1687, and was admitted a pensioner in Jesus college, Cambridge, April 18, 1704, but afterwards removed to Trinity-ball, where he was admitted scholar of the house, Jan. 6, 1706-7; LL. B. 1709 LL. D. 1720; and though he was never fellow of that college, he was elected one of the trustees for Mr. Ayloffe’s benefaction to it. He was rector of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire: and vicar of St. Peter’s and St. Giles’s parishes in Cambridge, where he usually passed the winter, and the rest of his time at Ampthill, the neighbouring market-town to his living. He died Nov. 25, 1766, at Ampthill, and was buried at Houghton Conquest. Very little of his history has descended to us. How he spent his life will appear by a list of his works. He is said to have been of a most amiable, sweet, and communicative disposition; most friendly to his acquaintance, and never better pleased than when performing acts of friendship and benevolence. Being in the commission of the peace, and a man of reputable character, he was much courted for his interest in elections. He was not, however, very active on those occasions, preferring literary retirement. His works were, 1. “A Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to Mr. Pearce’s Vindication of the Dis^ senters; by a Presbyter of the Church of England.” 1720, 8vo. 2. “Presbyterian Prejudice displayed,” 1722, 8vo. 3. “A pair of clean Shoes and Boots for a Dirty Baronet; or an answer to Sir Richard Cox,” 1722. 4. “The Knight of Dumbleton foiled at his own weapons, &c. In a Letter to Sir Richard Cocks, knt. By a Gentleman and no Knight,” 1723. 5. “A Century of eminent Presbyterians: or a Collection of Choice Sayings, from the public sermons before the two houses, from Nov. 1641 to Jan. 31, 1648, the day after the king was beheaded. By a Lover of Episcopacy,” 1723, 6. “A Letter of Thanks to Mr. Benjamin Bennet,” 1723. This Bennet published “A memorial of the Reformation,” full of gross prejudices against the established church, and “A defence of it.” 7. “A Caveat against Mr. Benj. Bennet, a mere pretender to history and criticism. By a lover of history,” 1724, 8vo. 8. “A Defence of our ancient and modern Historians against the frivolous cavils of a late pretender to. Critical History, in which the false quotations smd unjust inferences of the anonymous author are confuted and exposed in the manner they deserve, la two parts,” 1725, 4vo. In reply, Oldmixon, the critical historian alluded to, published “A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern historians. Wherein, instead of dwelling upon his frivolous cavils, false quotations, unjust inferences, &c it is proved (to his glory be it spoken) that there is not a book in the English tongue, which contains so many falsehoods in so many pages. Nori vitiosus homo es, Zachary, sed vitium. By the author,” &c. y. “An Appendix by way of Answer to the Critical Historian’s Review,” 1725. 10. * f A Looking-glass for Fanatics, or the true picture of Fanaticism; by a gentleman of the university of Cambridge,“1725. 11.” The Ministry of the Dissenters proved to be null and void from Scripture and antiquity,“1725. 12. In 1732 he wrote a preface to his relation dean Moss’s sermons,” by a learned hand.“Mr. Masters in his history of C. C. C. C. ascribes this to Dr. Snape, who might perhaps have been editor of the sermons, but it was written by Dr. Grey. 13.” The spirit of Infidelity detected, in answer to Barbeyrac, with a defence of Dr. Waterland,“1735, 8vo. 14.” English Presbyterian eloquence. By an admirer of monarchy and episcopacy,“1736, 8vo. 15.” Examination of Dr. Chandler’s History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 16.” The true picture of Quakerism,“1736. 17.” Caveat against the Dissenters,“1736, 8vo. 18.” An impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans,“1736, 8vo. The first volume of Neal had been examined by Dr. Madox, assisted in some degree by Dr. Grey, who published his examination of the third volume in 1737, and that of the fourth in 1739. J 9.” An examination of the fourteenth chapter of Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel,“1736, 8vo. This is in answer to sir Isaac’s notion of the rise of Saintworship. 20.” An attempt towards the character of the Royal Martyr, king Charles I.; from authentic vouchers,“1738. 21.” Schismatics delineated from authentic vouchers, in reply to Neal, with Dowsing' s Journal, &c. By Philalethes Cantabrigiensis,“1739, 8vo. 22.” The Quakers and Methodists compared,“&c. 1740. 23.” A Review of Mr. Daniel Neil’s History of the Puritans, with a Postscript. In a letter to Mr. David Jennings;“a pamphlet, Cambridge, 174-4. 24.” Hudibras with large annotations, and a prelate,“&c. 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. 2b.” A serious address to Lay Methodists: by a sincere Protestant,“1745, 8vo. 27.” Popery in its proper colours, with a list of Saints invocated in England before the Reformation,“17, 8vo. 28,” Remarks upon a late edition of Shakspeare, with a long string of emendations borrowed by the celebrated editor from the Oxford edition without acknowledgement. To which is prefixed, a Defence of the late sir Thomas Hanmer, bart. addressed to the rev. Mr. Warburton, preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn,“8vo, no date, but about 1745. 29.” A word or two of Advice to William Warburton, a dealer in many words; by a friend. With an Appendix, containing a taste of William’s Spirit of Railing,“1746, 8vo. 30.” A free and familiar Letter to that great refiner of Pope and Shakspeare, the rev. William Warburton, preacher at Lincoln’s-Inn. With Remarks upon the epistle of friend W. E. (query if not T. E. i. e. Thomas Edwards). In which his unhandsome treatment of this celebrated writer is exposed in the manner it deserves. By a Country Curate,“1750, 8vo, 31.” A Supplement to Hudibras,“1752, 8vo. 32.” Critical, historical, and explanatory notes on Shakspeare, with emendations on the text and metre,“1755, 2 vols. 8vo. 33.” Chronological account of Earthquakes,“1757, 8vo. In 1756 he assisted iVIr. Whalley in his edition of Shakspeare; he had also contributed to Mr. Peck’s” Desiderata,“and” Life of Cromwell," and collected some materials for a Life of Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, which were afterwards enlarged and published by the rev. Robert Masters. Dr. Grey left some other Mss. and a collection of letters, now in Mr. Nichols’s possession.

, a poet of considerable rank in his time, was a native of Huntingdonshire, and received the first part of his academical education at Christ’s college in Cambridge, where he became B. A. in 1539 or 1540. Removing to Oxford in 1542, he was elected fellow of Merton college; but, about 1547, having opened a rhetorical lecture in the refectory of Christ church, then newly founded, he was transplanted to that society, which gave the greatest encouragement to such students as were distinguished for their proficiency in criticism and philology. The same year he wrote a Latin tragedy, which probably was acted in the college, entitled “Archipropheta, sive Joannes Baptista,” dedicated to the dean, Richard Cox, and printed Colon. 1548, 8vo. In 1548, he explained all the four books of Virgil’s Georgics in a regular prose Latin paraphrase, in the public hall of his college, which was printed at London in 1591, 8vo. He wrote also explanatory commentaries, or lectures, on the <c Andria“of Terence, the Epistles of Horace, and many pieces of Cicero, perhaps for the same auditory. He translated Tully’s Offices into English, which he dedicated to the learned Thirlby, bishop of Ely, printed at London, 1553, 8vo, and reprinted in 1574 and 1596. He also made translations from some of the Greek classics; but these, Mr. Warton thinks, were never published; among others was the” Cyropaedia.“Bale mentions some plays and poems, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to know whether they were in Latin or English. It is allowed, however, that he was the second English poet after lord Surrey who wrote in blank verse, and added to Surrey’s style new strength, elegance, and modulation. In the disposition and conduct of his cadences, says our poetical historian, he often approaches to the legitimate structure of the improved blank verse, although he is not quite free from those dissonancies and asperities, which in his time adhered to the general character and state of English diction. Both Mr. Warton and Mr. Ellis have given specimens of his poetry from” The Songes written by N. G.“annexed to the” Songes and Soanettes of uncertain Auctours“in TottelPs edition of lord Surrey’s Poems (reprinted in the late edition of the English poets). As a writer of verses in rhyme, Mr. Warton thinks that Grimbold yields to none of his contemporaries, for a masterly choice of chaste expression, and the concise elegancies of didactic versification; and adds that some of the couplets in his” Praise of Measure-keeping,“or moderation, have all the smartness which mark the modern style of sententious poetry, and would have done honour to Pope’s ethic epistles. It is supposed that he died about 1563. Wood and Tanner, and after them, Warton, are decidedly of opinion that he is the same person, called by Strype” one Grimbold," who was chaplain to bishop Ridley, and who was employed by that prelate while in prison, to translate into English Laurentius Valla’s book against the fiction of Constantine’s Donation, with some other popular Latin pieces against the papists. In Mary’s reign, it is said that he was imprisoned for heresy, and saved his life by recantation. This may be true of the Grimbold mentioned by Strype, but we doubt whether he be the same with our poet, who is mentioned in high terms by Bale, on account of his zeal for the reformed doctrines, without a syllable of his apostacy, which Bale must have known, and would not have concealed.

, an eminent civilian, historian, and critic, was born at Hamburgh in 1613. He had a strong inclination to learning, which induced him to apply to books with indefatigable diligence from his infancy; and, having made great progress in his studies in his own country, he travelled into Germany, Italy, and France, where he searched all the treasures of literature that could be found in those countries, and was returning fcome by the way of the United Provinces, when he was stopt at Deventer in the province of Over-Issel, and there made professor of polite learning. After acquiring great reputation in this chair, he was promoted to that of Leyden in 1658, vacant by the death of Daniel Heinsius. He died at Leyden in 1672, much regretted. By his wife, whom he married at Deventer, he had two sons that survived him and were both eminent in the republic of letters: James, who is the subject of the ensuing article; and Theodore Laurent, who died young, having published “Emendationes Pandectarum, &c. Leyden, 1605,” 8vo, and “A Vindication of the Marble Base of the Colossus erected in honour of Tiberius Caesar, ibid. 1697,” folio.

In 1603, the glory which the United Provinces had obtained by their illustrious defence against the whole power of Spain, after the peace of Vervins, determined them to transmit to posterity the signal exploits of that memorable war; and for this purpose they sought out a proper historian. Several made great interest for the place, and among others Baudius, the professor of eloquence at Leyden. But the States thought young Grotius, who had taken ao steps to obtain it, deserved the preference; and, what is singular, Baudius himself did not blame their choice, because he looked upon Grotius to be already a very great man. In the execution of this office, he undertook his “Annals,” which were begun in 1614, though not finished long before his death, and not published until twelve years after. All this while his principal employment was that of an advocate, in which he acquired great honour; but, upon the whole, the profession did not please him, though the brilliant figure he made at the bar procured him the place of advocate-general of the fisc for Holland and Zealand, which, becoming vacant, was immediately conferred on him by those provinces. He took possession of this important office in 1607, and filled it with so much reputation, that the States augmented his salary, and promised him a seat in the court of Holland. Upon this promotion, his father began to think of a wife for him, and fixed upon Mary Reigesberg, a lady of great family in Zealand, whose father had been burgomaster of Veer. The marriage was solemnized in July 1608, and celebrated by him in some Latin and French verses, the former of which he translated into Dutch. On this occasion his father likewise wrote an epithalamium, and another was composed by Heinsius. At the time of his marriage he was employed in writing his “Mare liberum,” i. e. “the Freedom of the Ocean, or the Right of the Dutch to trade to the Indies.” The work was printed in 1609, without his knowledge or consent. Indeed he appears not to have been quite satisfied with it: and though there came out seveial answers, particularly that of Selden, entitled “Mare clausum, seti de dominio maris,” yet, being soon after disgusted with his country, he took no farther concern in the controversy. The ensuing year, he published his piece “De antiquitate ReipublieiE Batavae,” designed to shew the original independence of Holland and Friesland against the Spanish claim; and he accordingly dedicated it to those States^ March 16, 1610, who were es-tremely pleased with it, returned thanks to the author, and made him a present. While it was in the press, Grotius and his father, who usually assisted him in his writings, translated it into Dutch.

, son of the preceding, and one of the greatest geniuses that Germany has produced, was born September 29, 1649, at Fraustadt. Having acquired great skill in the languages and belles lettres, he was appointed professor of rhetoric at Breslau, afterwards principal of Magdalen college in that city, and, at length, librarian. Gryphins was a good orator and historian, a man of extensive learning, and an excellent German poet, which language he considerably improved. He was also a contributor to the Leipsic Journal. He died March 6, 1706, having just before his death heard a beautiful poem of his own writing, which had been set to music, performed in his chamber. The piece is said to have been admirably expressive of the consolations derived from our Saviour’s death to a dying man. His works arc, “A History of. the Orders of Knighthood,” in German, 1709, 8vo; “Poems,” in German among them, “Pastorals,” 8vo; “The German Language formed by degrees, or, a treatise on the origin and progress of it,” 8vo, in German, and a valuable posthumous work, entitled “Apparatus, s?ive Dissertatio Isagogica de Scriptoribus Historiam Seculi XVII illustrantibus,” Leipsic, 1710, 8vo.

, an Italian historian, was born 1606, of a noble family at Vincenza. He was historiographer to the emperor, and distinguished himself in the seventeenth century by his historical works, written, in a very pleasing style, in Italian; the principal are, “History of the Wars of Ferdinand II. and Ferdinand III.” from 1630 to 1640, fol. “History of Leopold,” from 1656 to 1670, 3 vols. fol.; History of Troubles in France,“from 1648 to 1654. The authors of the” Journal des Savans,“March 16, 1665, said they had found as many errors as words in this work. But Gualdo, not discouraged by that censure, continued his History to the peace of the Pyrenees, and reprinted it with that addition at Cologn, 1670. His” History of cardinal Mazarine’s Administration“is much esteemed, and has been translated into French, 1671, 3 vols. 12mo;” The Life and Qualities“of the same cardinal, a valuable work, which appeared in French, 1662, 4to” An account of the Peace of the Pyrenees" the most ample edition is, Cologn, 1667, 12mo. This work is likewise much esteemed, and has been translated into Latin, and inserted in the fourth volume of the Public Law of the Empire, published at Francfort, 1710. It has been also translated into French. Gualdo died at Vincenza in 1678.

, abbot, a French historian, was born of a rich and powerful family in a village of the diocese of Beauvais, in 1053. He took the religious habit at the abbey of St. Germer, and was elected abbot of Nogent-sousCoucy, in 1104. Dom. Luke d'Achery published his works, 1651, fol. which consist of an excellent “Traite de la Predication;” a history of the first Crusades, entitled “Gesta Dei per Francos;” a singular treatise " on the Relics of the Saints, 1 * occasioned by the monks of St. Medard, at Soissons, pretending they had a tooth of our Lord’s in their possession, which Guibert, though very credulous, rejected as contrary to the faith of Christ’s resurrection, which teaches us that he re-assumed his body entire. He died in the abbey of Nogent-sous-Coucy, in J 124. In his history of the Crusades, he is to be considered as a collector of facts from others, as he does not pretend to have been an eye-witness of any part which he relates.

, the celebrated historian of Italy, was descended of an ancient and noble family at Florence, where he was born March 6, 1482. His father, Peter Guicciardini, an eminent lawyer, bred up his son in his own profession; in which design he sent him, in 1498, to attend the lectures of M. Jacobo Modesti, of Carmignano, who read upon Justinian’s Institutes at Florence, but his son submitted to this resolution with some reluctance. He had an uncle who was archdeacon of the metropolitan church of Florence, and bishop of Cortona; and the prospect of succeeding to these benefices, which yielded near 1500 ducats a year, had Bred the ambition of the nephew. He had hopes of rising from such a foundation through richer preferments by degrees to the highest, that of a cardinal; and the reversion of the uncle’s places might have been easily obtained. But, though his father had five sons, he could not think of placing any of them in the church, where he thought there was great neglect in the discipline. Francis proceeded therefore with vigour in the study of the law, and took his degrees at Pisa, in 1505; but, looking upon the canon law as of little importance, he chose to be doctor of the civil law only. The same year he was appointed a professor of the institutes at Florence, with a competent salary for those times. He was now no more than twenty-three years of age, yet soon established a reputation superior to all the lawyers his contemporaries, and had more business than any of them. In 1506 he married Maria, daughter of Everardo Salviati, by far the greatest man in Florence; and, in 1507, was chosen standing counsellor to several cities of the republic. Two years after he was appointed advocate of the Florentine chapter, a post of great honour and dignity, which had been always filled with the most learned counsellors in the city; and, in 1509, he was elected advocate of the order of Calmaldoli.

In 1531 the pope made him governor of Bologna, contrary to all former precedents, that city having never before been committed to the hands of a layman. He was in this post when his holiness met Charles V. there, in December 1532; and he assisted at the pompous coronation of the said emperor, on St. Matthias’s day following. This solemnity was graced with the presence of several princes, who all shewed our governor particular marks of respect, every one courting his company, for the sake of his instructive conversation. He had at this time laid the plan of his history, and made some progress in it; which coining to the ears of the emperor before he left Bologna, his imperial majesty gave orders, when Guicciardini should attend his levee, to admit him into his dressing-room, where he conversed with him on the subject of his history. So particular a distinction gave umbrage to some persons of quality and officers of the army, who had waited many days for an audience. The emperor, being informed of the pique, took Guicciardini by the hand, and, entering into the drawing-room, addressed the company in these terms: “Gentlemen, I am told you think it strange that Guicciardini should have admission to me before yourselves; but I desire you would consider, that in one hour I can create a hundred nobles, and a like number of officers in the army; but I shall not be able to produce such an historian in twenty years. To what purpose serve the pains you take to discharge your respective functions honourably, either in the camp or cabinet, if an account of your conduct is not to be transmitted to posterity for the instruction of your descendants Who are they that have informed mankind of the heroic actions of your great ancestors, but historians? It is necessary then to honour them, that they may be encouraged to convey the knowledge of your illustrious deeds to futurity. Thus, gentlemen, you ought neither to be offended nor surprised at my regard for Guicciardini, since you have as much interest in his province as myself.”

Guicciardini did not remain continually at Bologna, but divided his time between that city and Florence. In February this year, he sent a letter of instructions to Florence; and in April received orders from the Pope to reform the state there, and to put Alessandro in the possession of the government. Wise and prudent, however, as he was, discontents and faction at length arose. As long as Clement sat in the papal chair, the discontented murmured only in private; but upon that Pope’s death, in 1534, the disgust shewed itself openly: two noblemen in particular, Castelli and Pepoli, who till then had been fugitives, entered the city at noon-day, with a retinue of several of their friends, and some outlawed persons, well armed. The governor, looking upon this as done in contempt of his person, meditated how to revenge the affront. One evening two proscribed felons, under Pepoli’s protection, were taken up by the officers as they were walking the streets, and carried to prison: and Guicciardini, without any farther process, ordered them to be immediately executed. Pepoli, highly incensed, assembled a number of hrs friends, and was going in quest of the governor to seek his revenge, when the senate sent some their members to desire him to return home, and not to occasion a tumult, which> for fear of disobliging that body, he complied with. It was this good disposition of the senate towards him, which prevailed with Guicciardini to remain in the government after the death of Clement. He foresaw that the people would no longer submit to his commands, and therefore had resolved to quit the government; but the senate, considering that many disorders might happen, if they were left without a governor in the time of the vacant see, begged him to continue, promising that he should have all the assistance requisite. To this he at last consented; and, with true magnanimity and firmness of mind, despising the danger that threatened him, remained in the city, till he understood that a new governor was appointed, when he resolved to quit the place. Some time after his arrival in Florence, upon the death of the duke, he had influence enough in the senate to procure the election of Cosmo, son of John de Medici, to succeed in the sovereignty. But, though he had interested himself so much in the election, yet he soon quitted the court, and meddled in public affairs no farther than by giving his advice occasionally, when required. He was now past fifty, an age when business becomes disgusting to persons of a reflecting turn. His chief wish was, that he might live long enough, in a quiet recess, to finish his history. In this resolution he retired to his delightful country-seat at Emma, where he gave himself up entirely to the work; nor could he be drawn from it by all the intreaties and advantageous offers that were made him by pope Paul III. who, in the midst of his retirement, passing from Nice to Florence, earnestly solicited our historian, first in person, then by letters, and at last by the mediation of cardinal Ducci, to come to Rome. But he was proof against all solicitations, and, excusing himself in a handsome manner to his holiness, adhered closely to his great design; so that, though he enjoyed this happy tranquillity a few years only, yet in that time he brought his history to a conclusion; and had revised the whole, except the four last books , when he was seized with a fever, May 27, 1540, of which he died.

As to the productions of his pen, his history claims the first place. It would be tedious to produce all the encomiums bestowed upon it by persons of the first character Bolingbroke calls him “The admirable historian” and says, he “should not scruple to prefer him to Thucydides in every respect.” In him are found all the transaction^ of that aera, in which the study of history ought to begin; as he wrote in that point of time when those events and re volutions began, that have produced so vast a change in, the manners, customs, and interests, of particular nations; and in the policy, ecclesiastical and civil, of those parts of the world. And, as Guicciardini lived in those days, and was employed both in the field and cabinet, he had all opportunities of furnishing himself with materials for his history: in particular, he relates at length the various causes, which brought about the great change in religion by the reformation; shews by what accidents the French kings were enabled to become masters at home, and to extend themselves abroad; discovers the origin of the splendor of Spain in the fifteenth century, by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella; the total expulsion of the Moors, and the discovery of the West-Indies. Lastly, in respect to the empire, he gives an account of that change which produced the rivalship between the two great powers of France and Austria; whence arose the notion of a balance of power, the preservation whereof has been the principal care of all the wise councils of Europe, and is so to this day. Of this history sir William Jones says, “It is the most authentic I believe (may I add, I fear) that ever was composed. I believe it, because the historian was an actor in his terrible drama, and personally knew the principal performers in it; and I fear it, because it exhibits the woeful picture of society in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.”

, an ingenious and judicious French historian in the seventeenth century, was a native of Macon, and advocate at Bourg-en-Brasse. He distinguished himself by his works, and was loaded with favours from the duke of Savoy for his excellent “Hist. Genealogique de la Maison Royale de Savoie,” 1660, 2 vols. fol. He died September 8, 1664, aged 57, after having embraced the Catholic religion; and left, besides the work above-mentioned, “Une Suite Chronologique des Eveques de Belley,” 4to. “Hist.de Brasse et de Bugey,” 1650, fol. much esteemed, and “Hist, de la Principaute* de Dombes,” never printed; also a collection of the most remarkable acts and titles of the Province of Brasse and Bugey, entitled “Bibliotheca Sebnsiana,” 1666, 4to.

, a French historian, was born about 1625, at Thiers in Auvergne, and became the first historiographer of the academy of painting and sculpture to which office he was elected in 1682. H& died at Paris, April 6, 1705. He was author of many works of considerable reputation, as “Athene Ancienne et Nouvelle;” “Lacedemone Ancienne et Nouvelle,” both printed in 1675, 12mo, and known to be his own productions, though he pretended to have taken them from the papers of his younger brother, who had travelled in that country. He published also “A History of the grand viziers’ Caprogji,” c. “The Life of Mahomet II.;” “The History of Castrucio Castracani,” translated from the Italian of Machiavel; “Les Arts de l‘homme d’Epee, ou Dietionnaire du Genlilhomme,” 1670, in two volumes. His “Ancient and modern Athens” involved him in a serious dispute with Spon, in which he was said to have gained the victory, as far as style and mannerly writing were concerned.

, a German lawyer and historian, was born February 25, 1671, near Nuremberg, and was the son of a clergyman, who died 1689. He was successively professor of philosophy, rhetoric, and the law of nature and nations, at Halle; and frequently consulted on public affairs at Berlin, where his talents were so well known, that he obtained the title of privy-counsellor for his services on various occasions. Gundling was indefatigable, had an excellent memory, great wit, vivacity, and eloquence; but his warmest admirers wished that his numerous writings had contained less satire, and more moderation and politeness. He died rector of the university of Halle, December 16, 1729, leaving several valuable works on literature, history, law, and politics: the principal are, 1.“Historia Philosophic moralis,” 8vo. 2. “Otia,” or a collection of dissertations on various physical, moral, political, and historical subjects, 3 vols. 8vo. 3. “De jure oppignorati Territorii,” 4to. 4. “Status naturalis Hobbesii in corpore juris civilis defensus et defendendus,” 4to. 5. “De statu Reipublicae Germanicse sub Conrado I.” 4to. Ludwig has refuted this work in his “Germania Princeps.” 6. “Gundlingiana,” in German. 7. “Commentaria de Henrico Aucupe,” 4to. 8. “Via ad veritatem,” or a course of philosophy, 3 vols. 8vo. Gundling had a great share in the “Observationes Hallenses,” an excellent collection in 11 vols. 8vo.

, a French historian, was born in 1701 at Lous-le-Saunier in Fi'unche-comte, and entered the congregation of the oratory, which he afterwards quitted, and came to Paris, and passed his days in literary labours. He died here in 1771. His principal works are, 1. A continuation of “Echard’s Roman History,” from Constantine to the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet II. 10 vols. 12mo, which Voltaire has thought proper to undervalue; but others say that in point or style and accuracy, it may rank among the best productions of the kind from the French press. 2. “Histoire des empires et des republiques,” 1733, &c. 12 vols. 12mo, of which it is said, that, if compared with Rollin’s, it is less agreeable and elegant: but it proves that Guy on drew his materials from the original sources of the ancients; whilst, on the contrary, RolJin has often copied the moderns. 3. “Histoire des Amazones ancienneset modernes,” Paris, 1740, 2 vols. 12mo, a curious, and in many respects an original work. 4. “Histoire des Indes,” 3 vols. 12mo, inferior in every respect. 5. “Oracle des nouveaux philosophes,” not so remarkable for style, as for an able confutation of the new philosophy of his time, and the uneasiness it gave Voltaire. 6. “Bibliotheque ecclesiastique,” 1772, 8 vols. 12mo, &C.

, a French historian, of an ancient family, was born at Bourdeaux about 1535. He went to court at twenty years of age, and in 1556 and 1557 was secretary to Francis de Noailles, bishop of Acqs, in his embassies to England and Venice. After that, his first appearance in the republic of letters was in the quality of a poet and translator. In 1559, he published a poem, entitled “The Union of the Princes, by the Marriages of Philip King of Spain and the Lady Elizabeth of France, and of Philibert Emanuel Duke of Savoy, and the Lady Margaret of France;” and another entitled “The Tomb of the most Christian King Henry II.” In 1560 he published an abridged translation of “Tully’s Offices, 7 ' and of” Eutropius’s Roman History;“and, in 1568, of” The Life of JEmilius Probus.“He applied himself afterwards to the writing of history, and succeeded so well, that by his first performances of this nature, he obtained of Charles IX. the title of Historiographer of France 1571. He had published the year before at Paris a book entitled” Of the State and Success of the Affairs of France;“which was reckoned very curious, and was often reprinted. He augmented it in several successive editions, and dedicated it to Henry IV. in 1594: the best editions of it are those of Paris 1609 and 1613, in 8vo. He had published also the same year a work entitled” Of the Fortune and Power of France, with a Summary Discourse on the Design of a History of France:“though Niceron suspects that this may be the same with” The Promise and Design of the History of France," which he published in 1571, in order to let Charles IX. see what he might expect from him in support of the great honour he had conferred of historiographer of France. In 1576, he published a history, which reaches from Phararnond to the death of Charles VII. and was the first who composed a body of the French history in French. Henry III. shewed his satisfaction with this by the advantageous and honourable gratifications he made the author. The reasons which induced de Haillan to conclude his work with Charles Vllth’s death were, that the event beingrecent, he must eitlier conceal the truth, or provoke the resentment of men in power, but he afterwards promised Henry IV. to continue this history to his time, as may be seen in his dedication to him of this work in 1594; nothing however of this kind was found among his papers after his death: the booksellers, who added a continuation to his work as far as to 1615, and afterwards as far as to 1627, took it from Paulus Æmilius, de Comines, Arnoul Ferron, du Bellay, &c.

, an eminent naval historian, was descended from an ancient family at Eyton or Yetton, in Herefordshire, and born about 1553. He was trained up at Westminster school; and, in 1570, removed to Christ church college in Oxford. While he was at school, he used to visit his cousin Richard Hakluyt, of Eyton, esq. at his chambers in the Middle Temple, a gentleman well known and esteemed, not only by some principal ministers of state, but also by the most noted persons among the mercantile and maritime part of the kingdom, as a great encourager of navigation, and the improvement of trade, arts, and manufactures. At this gentleman’s chambers young Hakluyt met with books or' cosmography, voyages, travels, and maps; and was so pleased with them, that he resolved to direct his studies that way, to which he was not a little encouraged by his cousin. For this purpose, as soon as he got to Oxford, he made himself master of the modern as well as ancient languages; and then read over whatever printed or written discourses of voyages and discoveries, naval enterprizes, and adventures of all kinds, he found either extant in Greek^ Latin, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, or English. By such means he became so conspicuous in this new branch of science, that he was chosen to read public lectures on naval matters at Oxford, and was the first who introduced maps, globes, spheres, and other instruments of the art, into the common schools. The: zeal and knowledge he displayed made him acquainted with and respected by the principal sea-commanders, merchants, and manners of our nation; and^ though it was but a few years after that he went beyond sea, yet his fame travelled thither long before him. He held a correspondence with the learned in these matters abroad, as with Ortelius, the king of Spain’s cosmographer, Mercator, &c.

In 1611 we find Edmund Hakluyt, the son of our author, entered a student of Trinity college, Cambridge. In the same year, the northern discoverers, in a voyage to Peckora in Russia, called a full and active current they arrived at, by the name of Hakluyt’s River; and, in 1614, it appears that the banner and arms of the king of England were erected at Hakluyt’s Headland above-mentioned. Our historian died November 23, 1616, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. His ms remains, which might have made another volume, falling into the hands of Mr. Purchas, were dispersed by him throughout his “Pilgrimage,” printed 1613 1625, in 5 vols. fol. His own work, having become uncommonly scarce, was lately reprinted in five handsome quarto volumes, with some valuable additions.

the historian of China, was born at Paris, Feb. 1, 1674, and entered into the society of the Jesuits. In 1708 he was removed to one of their houses in Paris, where he was employed in collecting and publishing the letters received from their missionaries abroad. He was also secretary to father Tellier, the king’s confessor, and director of the corporation of artisans. In the latter part of his life he was much afflicted with the ague, but bore it with great resignation. He was a man of an amiable temper, and of great zeal in his profession. He died at Paris, Aug. 18, 1743. He published various complimentary Latin poems, and some pious works; but was principally known for his share in the *' Lettres edifiantes et curieuses,“or correspondence from the Jesuit missionaries, which he published from collection 9th to the 26th; and for his” Description geographique, historiqae, chronologique, et physique de Tempire de la Chine, et de la Tartarie Chinoise," Paris, 1735, 4 vols. fol. which has been often reprinted, and considered as the most ample history we have of the Chinese empire. It was translated into English soon after its appearance, by persons employed by Cave, the printer, and another translation having been attempted at the same time, occasioned a controversy, the particulars of which may amuse the reader.