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

This worthy prelate had for some years been subject to ill health, which at length brought on a general debility, and on the 14th of May, 1808, he sunk under the pressure of accumulated disease, being in the 78th year of his age. He left behind him a justly-acquired reputation for propriety of conduct, benevolence to the clergy, and a strict attention to episcopal duties. As a preacher, he obtained the character of an accomplished orator; his language was chaste, his manner always serious, animated, and impressive, and his eloquence captivating. He seemed to speak from conviction, and being fully persuaded himself of the truth of those doctrines which he inculcated, he the more readily persuaded others. In private life he was mild, affable, easy of access, irreproachable in his morals, of a cheerful disposition, and ever ready to listen to and relieve the distresses of his fellow-creatures. In his behaviour towards dissenters from the established church, he discovered great moderation and candour. While he was a sincere believer in the leading doctrines contained in the thirty-nine articles, he could make allowance for those who did not exactly come up to the same standard. Toward the latter part of his life, he was accused of becoming the persecutor of the rev. Francis Stone, a clergyman of his own diocese, against whom he formally pronounced a sentence of deprivation for preaching and publishing a sermon in direct hostility to the doctrines of the church to which he belonged. Mr. Stone had for many years avowed his disbelief of the articles of faith which he had engaged to defend, and for the support of which he had long received a handsome income, but no notice whatever was taken of the unsoundness of his creed. He preached the offensive sermon before many of his brethren of different ranks in the church yet perhaps even, this attack, which could scarcely be deemed prudent or even decent, would have been unnoticed, had he contented himself with promulgating his opinions from the pulpit only but when he made the press the vehicle of disseminating opinions contrary to the articles of his church, the prelate took the part which was highly becoming the high office which he held.

, a heretic of the fourth century, well known in ecclesiastical history for having revived the errors of the Gnostics and Manicheans, was a Spaniard, of high birth, and great fortune, with considerable talents and eloquence. His opinions first became known in the year 379, and were rapidly diffused in Spain. But in the ensuing year a council was held by the bishops of Aquitaine at Saragossa, in which the Prisciliianists were solemnly condemned. He was then but a layman, but soon after he was ordained bishop of Labina, or Lavila, supposed to be Avila, one of the cities of Galicia, by two bishops of his own party. In the year 384, or, as Baronius in his Annals writes, 387, the ringleaders of this sect were put to death by the emperor Maximus, having been convicted before the magistrates of the grossest immoralities. These were, Priscillian himself, Felicissimus, and Armenus, two ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his doctrine; Asarinus and Aurelius, two deacons Latronianus, or, as Jerome calls him, Matronianus, a layman and Eucrocia, the widow of the orator Delphidius, who had professed eloquence in the city of Bourdeaux a few years before. These were all beheaded at Treves. The rest of Priscillian’s followers, whom they could discover or apprehend, were either banished or confined. The bodies of Priscillian, and those who suffered with him, were conveyed by the friends and adherents into Spain, and there interred with great pomp and solemnity; their names were added to those of other saints and martyrs, their firmness extolled, and their doctrine embraced by such numbers of proselytes that it spread in a short time over all the provinces between the Pyrenees and the ocean. The author of the notes upon Sulpitius Severus tells us that he saw the name of Priscillian in some not very ancient martyrologies. In practice they did not much differ from the Manichees the same, or nearly the same, infamous mysteries being ascribed to both: for, in the trial of Priscillian, before the emperor Maximus, it was alledged that he had countenanced all manner of debauchery, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of lewd women, and that he used to pray naked among them. Others, however, are of opinion that these charges had not much foundation, and that the execution of Priscillian and his followers was rather a disgrace than an advantage to the Christian cause.

Being descended from a whig family, and educated in revolution-principles, he warmly espoused that party, and during the whole reign of queen Anne opposed the measures of the tories. His first speech was in support of the place-bill. He had formed a notion, that no young member ought to press into public notice with too much forwardness, and fatigue the House with long orations, until he had acquired the habit of order and precision. He was often heard to declare, that hardly any person ever became a good orator, who began with making a set speech. He conceived that the circumstances of the moment should impel them to the delivery of sentiments, which should derive their tenor and application from the course of the debate, and not be the result of previous study or invariable arrangement. These rules are generally good, but we can recollect at least one splendid exception. On the prosecution of Dr. Sacheverel, Mr. Pulteney distinguished himself in the House of Commons, in defence of the revolution, against the doctrines of passive obedience and nonresistance. When the tories came into power, in 1710, he was so obnoxious to them, thathis uncle, John Pulteney, was removed from the board of trade. He not only took a principal share in the debates of the four last years of queen Anne, while the whigs were in opposition, but was also admitted into the most important secrets of his party, at that critical time, when the succession of the Hanover family being supposed to be in danger, its friends engaged in very bold enterprizes to secure it. He was a liberal subscriber to a very unprofitable and hazardous loan, then secretly negociated by the whig party, for the use of the emperor, to encourage him to refuse co-operating with the tory administration in making the peace of Utrecht.

In the year 68, upon the death of Nero, Galba returned to Rome, and took Quintilian with him who there taught rhetoric at the expence of the government, being allowed a salary out of the public treasury. His career was attended with the highest reputation, and he formed many excellent orators, who did him great honour; among whom was the younger Pliny, who continued in his school to the year 78. After teaching for twenty years he obtained leave of Domitian to retire, and applied himself to compose his admirable book called “Institutiones Oratorise.” This is the mpst complete work of its kind which antiquity has left us; and the design of it is to form a perfect orator, who is accordingly conducted through the whole process necessary to attain eminence in that art. Few books abound more with good sense, or discover a greater degree of just and accurate taste. Almost all the principles of good criticism are to be found in it. He has digested into excellent order all the ancient ideas concerning rhetoric, and is at the same time himself an eloquent writer. “Though some parts of his work,” says Blair, “contain too much of the technical and artificial system then in vogue, and for that reason may be thought dry aiui tedious, yet I would not advise the omitting to read any part of his ‘ Institutions.’ To pleaders at the bar, even these technical parts may prove of some use. Seldom has any person of more sound and distinct judgment than Quintilian, applied himself to the study of the art of oratory.” The first entire copy of the “Institutiones Oratorio,” for the Quiutilian then in Italy was much mutilated and imperfect, was discovered by Poggius, as we have already noticed in his article, in the monastery of St. Gall, at the time of holding the council of Constance. The most useful editions of this work are those of Burman, 1720, 2 vols. 4to of Capperoperius, Paris, fol. 1725; of Gesner, Gottingen, 1738, 4to, beautifully reprinted in 1805, at Oxford, 2 vols. 8vo.

Quintilian spent the latter part of his life with great dignity and honour. Some imagine that he was consul but the words of Ausonius, on which they ground their supposition, shew that he did not possess the consulship, but only the consular ornaments“honestamenta nominis potius quam insignia potestatis” and we may add, that no mention is made of his name in the “Fasti Consulares.” It is certain that he was preceptor to the grandsons of the emperor Domitian’s sister. Though Quintilian’s outward condition and circumstances were prosperous and flourishing, yet he laboured under many domestic afflictions. In his forty-first year he married a wife who was but twelve years old, and lost her when she was nineteen. He bestows the highest applauses on her, and was inconsolable for her loss. She left him two sons, one of whom died at five years old, and the other at ten, who was the eldest, and possessed extraordinary talents. He soon after, however, married a second wife, and by her he had a daughter, whom he lived to see married who also, at the time of her marriage, received a handsome dowry from the younger Pliny, who had been his scholar, in consideration, as we are told, that she was married to a person of superior rank, who of course required more with her than her father’s circumstances would admit. Quintilian lived to be fourscore years of age, or upwards, as is pretty certainly determined although the time of his death is not recorded. He appears, from his works, and from what we are able to collect of him, to have been a man of great innocence and integrity of life. His “Oratorial Institutions” contain a great number of excellent moral instructions; and it is a main principle inculcated in them, that “none but a good man can make a good orator.”

, an eminent antiquary, and great benefactor to the university of Oxford, was the fourth son of sir Thomas; and was educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he was admitted gentleman commoner, and proceeded M. A. and grand cornpounder in 1713, and was admitted to the degree of doctor of civil law by diploma in 1719. He was F. R. S. and became F. S. A. May 10, 1727. He was greatly accessary to the bringing to light many descriptions of counties; and, intending one of Oxfordshire, had collected materials from Wood’s papers, &c. had many plates engraved, and circulated printed queries, but received accounts only of two parishes, which in some degree answered the design, and encouraged him to pursue it. In this work were to be included the antiquities of the city of Oxford, which Wood promised when the English copy of his “Historia & Antiquitates Oxon.” was t.o be published, and which have since been faithfully transcribed from his papers, by Mr. Gutch, and much enlarged and corrected from ancient original authorities. All Dr. Rawlinson’s collections for the county, chiefly culled from Wood, or picked up from information, and disposed b,y hundreds in separate books, in each of which several parishes are omitted, would make but one 8vo volume. But he made large collections for the continuation of Wood’s “Athena Oxonienses” and “History of Oxfor.d,” and for an account of “Non-compilers” at the Revolution which, together with some collections of Hearne’s, and note-books of his own travels, he bequeathed by his will to the university of Oxford. The Life of Mr. Anthony Wood, historiographer of the most famous university of Oxford, with an account of his nativity, education, works, &c. collected and composed from Mss. by Richard Rawlinson, gent, commoner of St. John’s college, Oxon. was printed at London in 1711. A copy of this life, with ms additions by the author, is in the Bodleian library. He published proposals for an “History of Eton College,” 1717; and, in 1728, “Petri Abselardi Abbatis Ruyensis & Heloissae Abbatissae Paracletensis Epistolae,” 8vo, dedicated to Dr, Mead. The books, the publication of which he promoted, are supposed to be the “History and Antiquities of Winchester,” 1715, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Hereford,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Rochester,” 1717, 1723, 8vp. “Inscriptions on tombs in Bunhill-fields,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of the Churches of Salisbury and Bath,” 1719, 1723, 8vo. “Aubrey’s History of Surrey,” 1719, 5 vols. 8vo. “Norden’s Delineation of Northamptonshire,” 1720, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Glastonbury,” Oxford, 1722, 8vo. In 1728, he translated and printed Fresnoy’s “New Method of studying History, with a Catalogue of the chief Historians,” 2 vols. 8vo. But his principal work was “The English Topographer, or, an Historical Account of all the Pieces that have been written relating to the antient Natural History or Topographical Description of any Part of England,” 1720, 8vo, the plan of which has been so much augmented and improved in Mr. Cough’s two editions of the “British Topography.” In 1750, he gave, by indenture, the yearly sum of 87l. 165. Sd. being the rents and profits of various estates which he inherited under the will of his grandfather Daniel Rawlinson to the university of Oxford, for the maintenance and support of an Anglo-Saxon lecture or professorship for ever. To the Society of Antiquaries, he gave, by will, a small freehold and copyhold estate at FulEam, on condition that they did not, upon any terms, or by any stratagem, art, means, or contrivance howsoever, increase or add to their (then) number of 150 members, honorary members only excepted. He also made them a considerable bequest of dies and matrices of English seals and medals, all his collection of seals , charters, drawings by Vertue and other artists, and other antiquities ten walnut-tree book-cases, which had been given to his late brother Thomas by the then earl of Pembroke, and four mahogany presses, all marked P, all his English prints of which they had not duplicates, and a quit-rent of 5L per annum, in Norfolk, for a good medal for the best description on any English, Saxon, Roman, or Greek, coin, or other antiquity not before treated of or in print; but, resenting some supposed want of deference to his singularities and dictatorial spirit, and some reflections on his own and his friend’s honour, in an imputation of libelling the Society in the public papers, he, by a codicil made and signed at their house in Chancery lane, revoked the whole, and excluded all fellows of this or the Royal Society from any benefit from his benefactions at Oxford, which, besides his Anglo-Saxon endowment, were extremely considerable; including, besides a number of books with and without ms notes, all his seals, English and foreign, his antique marbles, and other curiosities; his copper-plates relative to several counties, his ancient Greek and Roman coins and medals, part of his collection of English medals, his series of medals of Louis XIV. and XV. a series of medals of the popes, which Dr. Rawlinson supposed to be one of the most complete collections in Europe; and a great number of valuable Mss. which he ordered to be safely locked up, and not to be opened till seven years after his decease . His music, ms. and printed, he gave to the music-school at Oxford. He died at Islington, April 6, 1755 and in the same year was printed “The Deed of Trust and Will of Richard Rawlinson, of St. John the Baptist college, Oxford, doctor of laws concerning his endowment of an Anglo-Saxon lecture, and other benefactions to the college and university.” He left to Hertford college the estate in F-ulham before mentioned, and to the college of St. John the Baptist the bulk of his estate, amounting to near 700l. a year, a plate of archbishop Laud, thirty-one volumes of parliamentary journals and debates; a set of the “Fo?dera,” all his Greek, Roman, and English, coins not given to the BocU leian library, all his plates engraved at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries, with the annuity for the prizemedal, and another to the best orator. The produce of certain rents bequeathed to St. John’s college was, after 40 years’ accumulation, to be laid out in purchase of an estate, whose profits were to be a salary to a keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, being a master of arts, or bachelor Ib civil law; and all legacies refused by the university or others, to center in this college. To the hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlehem, for the use of the incurables of the latter he left 200l. and ten guineas as an equivalent for the monthly coffee which he had received in Bethlehem common room: but, if they did not give up the picture of his father hanging in their hall, in order to its being put up in the Mansion-house, they were to forfeit the larger sum, and receive only the smaller. This picture, after it had hung up at the Mansion-house for some years, without any companion, in a forlorn, neglected state, and received considerable damage, the late sir Walter Rawlinson obtained leave of the court of aldermen (being then himself & member of that body, and president of those hospitals) to restore to Bridewell. It is one of sir Godfrey Kneller’s best performances, and well engraved by Vertue. Constanxine, another brother, is mentioned by Richard RawJinson’s will, as then residing at Venice, where he died in 1779. To him he gave the copper-plate of his father’s portrait, and all family-pictures, except his father’s portrait by Kneller, which was given to the Vintners’ company, of which his father was a member. He left him also his rents in Paul’s-head court, Fenchurch-street, jointly with his sisters, Mary Rawlinson, and Anne Andrews, for life. In the same will is mentioned another brother, John, to whom he left estates in Devonshire-street, London; and a nephew Thomas. To St. John’s college he bequeathed also his diploma, and his heart, which is placed in a beaur tiful marble urn against the chapel- wall, inscribed

, one of the most learned divines of his time, was born in 1499, descended from a Yorkshire family, and was nearly related to Tonstall, bishop of Durham. By the encouragement of this learned prelate, he was from his infancy devoted to literature, which he cultivated first in Corpus Christi, Oxford, under the first president, John Claymond, a man of singular erudition and generosity. From Oxford he went for a time to study at Paris, and continued there until he became of age. He then, on his return, fixed himself in St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he is said to have been so adorned with the knowledge of Cicero and the purest authors of antiquity, that Cheke, then a young man there, was fired with emulation; and in a short time, through their united pains and example, that seminary acquired the fame of being more than a match for a whole foreign university. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1526, that of master in 1530, and that of D. D. in 1534. He was also elected public orator of the university. He was soon after chosen master of King’s-hall, which he resigned in 1547, being then appointed the first master of Trinity college. He was likewise archdeacon of Taunton, and a member of the convocation in 1547 and 1550; also prebendary of Wells, and of Westminster, in the college of which cathedral he died in 1551, aged fifty-two, and was buried in the north aile of the abbey.

Urban then returned to his studies, and became so distinguished, that the emperor Maximilian, passing through Ingoldstadt, made him his poet-laureat and orator; and he was afterwards made professor of poetry and oratory in that university. But, having applied to the study of divinity, he engaged with warmth and assiduity in the controversies of the times, particularly in that between Luther and Eckius, in which he inclined to Luther; but unwilling to give personal offence to his preceptor and good friend Eckius, he left Ingoldstadt and went to Augsburgh, where, at the importunity of the magistrates and citizens, he undertook the government of the church. Here he departed farther and farther from the errors of Popery, and soon joined with Luther in preaching against them. In his opinions, however, concerning the sacrament and original sin, he sided, fora time, with Zuinglius, -in consequence of a correspondence in which that reformer explained to him the grounds of his belief. In his preaching against errors so general as those of popery then were, he met with much opposition, but appears to have been supported by some of the principal citizens, one of whom bestowed on him his daughter, by whom he had thirteen children. Eckius, both by letters and by the intervention of friends, endeavoured to gain him back to the church, but his principles were fixed, and he resisted both flatteries and promises.

, an English prelate of great eminence and talents, the son of Austin Reynolds, one of the customers of Southampton, was born there in November 1599, and educated at the free-school. In 1615 he became post-master of Merton-college, Oxford, and in 3620 probationer-fellow, for which preferment he was indebted to his proficiency in the Greek language, and his talents as a disputant and orator. After he had taken his master’s degree he went into orders, and was made preacher at Lincoln r s-inn, where he acquired much popularity. He also was preferred to the rectory of Braynton in Northamptonshire. Finding himself inclined to acquiesce in the breach that was to be made in the church at least, if not the state, when the rebellion broke out in 1642, he joined the presbyterian party? and in 1643 was nominated one of the assembly of divines, took the covenant, and frequently preached before the long parliament. That he was in their eyes a man of high consideration, appears from their naming him, in September 1646, one of the seven divines authorized by parliament to go to Oxford, and to preach in any church of that city, in lieu of the preachers appointed by the university.

, an eminent English prelate, and martyr to the cause of the reformed religion, descended from an ancient family in Northumberland, was born early in the sixteenth century, in Tynedale, at a place called Wilmomswick in the above county. As he exhibited early proofs of good natural abilities, he was placed in a grammar-school at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in which he made such progress, that he was taken from thence and entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, about 15 18, when Luther was preaching against indulgences in Germany. His disposition was open and ingenuous, and his application to his studies unremitting both at school and university. He was taught Greek by Robert Crook, who had begun a course of that language at Cambridge. His religious sentiments were those of the Romish church in which he had been brought up, and in which he would probably be encouraged by his uncle, Dr. Robert Ridley, then fellow of Queen’s college. In 1522 he took the degree of B. A.; and to his knowledge of the learned languages, now added that of the philosophy and theology then in vogue. In 1524 his abilities were so generally acknowledged, that the master and fellows of University college, Oxford, invited him to accept of an exhibition there; but this he declined, and the same year was chosen fellow of his own college in Cambridge. Next year he took the degree of M. A. and in 1526 was appointed by the college their general agent in all causes belonging to the churches of Tilney, Soham, and Saxthorpe, belonging to Pembroke-hall. But as his studies were now directed to divinity, his uncle, at hjs own charge, sent him for farther improvement to the Sorbonne at Paris; and from thence to Louvain; continuing on the continent till 1529. In 1530, he was chosen junior treasurer of his college, and about this time appears to have been more than ordinarily intent on the study of the scriptures. For this purpose he used to walk in the orchard at Pembroke-hall, and there commit to memory almost all the epistles in Greek; which walk is still called Ridley’swaik. He also distinguished himself by his skill in disputation, but frequently upon frivolous questions, as was the custom of the time. In 1533 he was chosen senior proctor of the university, and while in that office, the important point of the pope’s supremacy came to be examined upon the authority of scripture. The decision of the university was, that “the bishop of Rome had no more authority and jurisdiction derived to him from God, in this kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop;” which was signed by the vicechancellor, and by Nicholas Ridley, and Richard Wilkes, proctors. In 1534, on the expiration of his proctorship, he took the degree of B. D. and was chosen chaplain of the university, and public reader, which archbishop Tenison calls pradicater publicus, and in the Pembroke ms. he is also called Magister Glonieriaf, which office is supposed to be that of university orator. In the year 1537 his great reputation as an excellent preacher, and his intimate acquaintance with the scriptures and fathers, occasioned Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, to invite him to his house, where he appointed him one of his chaplains, and admitted him into his confidence. As a farther mark of his esteem, he collated him, in April 1538, to the vicarage of Herne in Kent. Here he was diligent to instruct his charge in the pure doctrines of the gospel, as far as they were discovered to him, except in the point of transubstantiation, on which he had as yet received no light; and to enliven the devotion of his parishioners, he used to have the Te Deum sung in his parish church in English, which was afterwards urged in accusation against him.

, Quintius, a Roman actor, was born at Lanuvium, and became so celebrated on the stage that every actor of superior eminence to his contemporaries has been since called a Roscius. It is said that he was not without some personal defects; particularly his eyes were so distorted that he always appeared on the stage with a mask; but the Romans frequently obliged him to take it off, and overlooked the deformities of his face, that they might the better hear his elegant pronunciation. In private life he was so much esteemed as to be raised to the rank of senator. When falsely accused, Cicero, who had been one of his pupils, undertook his defence, and cleared him of the malevolent aspersions of his enemies, in an elegant oration extant in his works. Roscius wrote a treatise, which, however, has not descended to our times, comparing with great success and learning, the profession of the orator with that of the comedian. He died about 61 before Christ. His daily pay for acting is said to have been 1000 denarii, or 32l. 6s. of our money, though Cicero makes his yearly income amount to the enormous sum of 48,434l. 10s.

, a French orator and poet, was born at Paris in 1643, and educated in the Jesuits’ college, where he afterwards became professor of humanity and rhetoric. In 1667, when only twenty-four, he wrote a Latin poem, upon the conquests of Lewis XIV. which was thought so excellent, that Peter Corneille translated it into French, and presented it to the king; apologizing, at the same time, for not being able to convey to his majesty the beauties of the original. No introduction could be more favourable, and the king shewed him singular respect ever after. He was one of those who had the care of the Delphine editions of the classics; and Virgil was allotted to him, which he published with good notes, and a,correct life of the author, in 1675, 4to. He published also panegyrics, funeral orations, and sermons, which shew him to have been a very great orator: but his master-piece is a funeral oration for the prince of Luxembourg. There are also tragedies of his writing in Latin and French, which had the approbation of Corneille, and therefore cannot be without merit; but he would not suffer them to be performed. A collection of his Latin poems was published at Paris, in 1680, in 12mo, and at Antwerp in 1693. He died at Paris May 27, 1725, in his eighty-second year.

, in Latin Sammartbanus, is the name of a family in France, which produced many men of letters. The first, Gaucher de Sainte-Marthe, had a son Charles, born in 1512, who became physician to Francis II. and was remarkable for his eloquence. Queen Margaret of Navarre and the duchess of Vendome honoured him with their particular esteem; and when they died in 1550, he testified his grief by a funeral oration upon each, published the same year. That upon the queen was in Latin, the o.ther in French. There is also some Latin and French poetry of his in being. He died in 1555. Scevole, or Sclevola, the nephew of Charles, was born at Lou dun in 1536, and became very distinguished both in learning and business. He loved letters from his infancy, attained an intimate acquaintance with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues and became an orator, a lawyer, a poet, and an historian he is also represented as a good friend, zealous for his country, and of inviolable fidelity to his prince. He had, in the reigns of Henry III. and Henry IV. several considerable employments, which he filled with great reputation. In 1579, he was governor of Poitiers, and afterwards treasurer of France for this district. In 1593 and 1594, he exercised the office of intendant of the finances, in the army of Breta^ne, commanded by the duke de Montpensier: and, in the latter of these years, he reduced Poitiers to the subjection of Henry IV, Some time after, he conceived thoughts of retiring to his own country, and devoting the remainder of his life to contemplation: but was again made governor of Poitiers, in so honourable a manner that he could not decline it. Upon the expiration of this office, he went to Paris, and thence to Loudun, where he passed the rest of his days “in otio cum dignitate.” This town had been often protected from ruin in the civil wars merely by his credit, and therefore regarded hiui as its protector. He died there in 1623, universally regretted; and his funeral oration was pronounced by the famous Urban Graudier. He was the author of “La louange de la ville de Poitiers,” 1573; “Opera Poetica,” consisting of odes, elegies, epigrams, and sacred poems, in French and Luiin, 1575; “Gallorum doctrina illustrium elogia,” 1598:“hut ins chief work, and that which keeps his lame still alive in the republic of letters, is his work called” Paedotrophia, seu de puerorum eciucatione,“printed in 1584, and dedicated to Henry III. This poem^vent through ten editions in the author’s life time, and hath gone through, as many since. It was neatly printed at London in 1708, in 12mo, together with the” Calliurfdia“of Quillet. It is also printed with a complete edition of his and his son Abel’s works, under the title” Sammarthanorum patris et lilii opera Latina et Gallica, turn soluta oratione, turn versa scnpta,“Paris, 16:33, 4to. Scevole left several sons; of whom Abel, the eldest, born at Loudun in 1570, applied himself, like his father, to literature. He cultivated French and Latin poetry; the latter were printed with those of his father in the edition just mentioned, but are inferior to them. Lewis XIII. settled on him a pension, for the services he had -lone him, and made him a counsellor of state. In 1627, he was made librarian to the king at Fontainebleau; and had after that other commissions of importance. He died at Poitiers in 1652, where his” Opuscula Varia“were printed in 1645, 8vo. This Abe) had a son of his own name, born in 1630, and afterwards distinguished by his learning. He succeeded his father as librarian at Fontainebleau, and in that quality presented to Lewis XIV. in 1668,” Un Discours pour le r6tablissement de cette Bibliorheque." He died in 1706.

A friend to humanity, and not in the least jealous ohis literary property, he made his library public. It was the most complete in the article of history that ever belonged to a private person, rich in Mss. medals, inscriptions, figures, vases, and ancient instruments of every kind, collected by him with great judgment in his travels. All these, in his old age, he presented to the city of Strasbourg, without any other condition except that his library should be open both to foreigners and his own countrymen. The city, however, rewarded this disinterested liberality by a pension of a hundred louis. He was admitted to the debates in the senate upon this occasion, and there complimented the senate and the city on the favour they had shewn to literature ever since its revival in Europe. November 22, 1770, closed the fiftieth year of the professorship of Mr. S.; this was celebrated by a public festival: the university assembled, and Mr. Lobstein, their orator, pronounced before them a discourse in praise of this extraordinary man, and the whole solemnity concluded with a grand entertainment. Mr. S. seemed born to outlive himself. Mr. Ring, one of his pupils, printed his life in 1769. In 1771, he was attacked by a slow fever, occasioned by an obstruction in his bowels and an ulcer in his lungs, after an illness of many months. He died August 7, the first day of the eleventh month of his seventy-seventh year, sensible to the last. He was buried in the collegiate church of St. Thomas, the city, in his favour, dispensing with the law which forbids interment within its limits.

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

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

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

In the mean time, Mr. Smith acquired great reputation by his Greek lectures, which were frequented by a vast concourse of students, and by men then or afterwards of great eminence, such as Redman, Cox, Cecil, Haddon, Ascharn, &c. In 1536 he was appointed university orator; and in 1539 set out on his travels, prosecuting his studies for some time in the universities of France and Italy. At Padua he took the degree of doctor of laws, and some time after his return, in 1542, was admitted ad eundem at Cambridge, and appointed regius professor of civil law. He was also appointed chancellor to the bishop of Ely; and in both situations appears to have exerted himself to promote the cause of the reformed religion, as well as of learning. At a commencement about 1546, both his disputations aod determinations were such, that the learned Haddon, in a letter to Dr. Cox, says that, “had he been there, he would have heard another Socrates, and that Smith caught the forward disputants as it were in a net with his questions, and that he concluded the profound causes of philosophy with great gravity and deep knowledge.”

In 1713, he had been installed a canon of Windsor, and on Feb. 21, 1719, was elected provost of King’s college, although the court-interest was in favour of Dr. Waddington. In 1723 he served the office of vice-chancellor of the university, and gave every satisfaction in discharging the duties of both offices. The revenues of the college were greatly augmented in his time, by the assistance of some fellows of the college, his particular friends. It was said that in 1722 he drew up the address to his majesty, George II. upon the institution of Whitehall preachers, “an address,” says Dr. Zachary Grey, “worthy of the imitation of both universities on all occasions of the like kind, as it was thought to have nothing redundant or defective in it.” He was for a short time rector of Knebworth in Hertfordshire, and afterwards, in 1737, of West-Ildesley in Berkshire. This last he retained till his death, which happened at his lodgings at Windsor castle, Dec, 30, 1742. He was buried at the east end of the south aile of the choir of the chapel, near his wife, who died in 1731. She was, when he married her, the opulent widow of sir Joshua Sharpe, knt. and alderman of London. It remains yet to be added to his preferments that he was several years head master of Eton school. He was a man of great learning and acuteness, and of an amiable temper. His zeal for the principles of the church of England was warm and honest, for it procured him many enemies, and probably obstructed his promotron. In 17 15, '3 vols. 8vo. of his “Sermons” were published by Drs. Berriman and Chapman. He had himself been editor of Dean Moss’s Sermons, and gave that divine a character which was thought to resemble his own. Although we seldom notice such matters, it may be worth while to add that there was a 4to mezzotinto print of him, which, after he was out of fashion, the print-sellers imposed on the public as the portrait of orator Henley.

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

fora g'iceque. Nor did any ri:aii-ever exactness in his family.“ Many are the encomiums which have been bestowed upon this noble and illustrious person. Burnet tells us that” he was very learned in his own profession, with a great deal more learning in other professions; in divinity, philosophy, and history. He had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; for he was fair and gentle, perhaps to a fault, considering his post: so that he ru:d all the patience and softness, as well as the justice and equity, becoming a great magistrate.“Lord Orford calls him” one of those divine men, who, like a chapel in a palace, remain unprofaned, while all the rest i tyranny, corruption, and folly. All the traditional accounts of him, the historians of the last age, and its best authors, represent him as the most incorrupt lawyer, and the honestest statesman, as a master-orator, a genius of the finest taste, and as a patriot of the noblest and most extensive views; as a man who dispensed blessings by his life, and planned them for posterity.“He was a very great patron of men of parts and learning, and particularly of Mr. Addison, who has drawn his character at large in one of his” Freeholders,“in that of May 4, 1716, where he has chosen -his lordship’s motto for that of his paper,” Prodesse quam conspici.“Lord Somers was one of those who first redeemed Milton’s” Paradise Lost“from that obscurity in which party-prejudice and hatred had suffered it long to lie neglected, and who pointed out the merits of that noble poem. The most unfavourable character of lord Somers is that drawn by Swift, once his friend, as appears by the dedication of the” Tale of a Tub,“if that be Swift’s; and here we may notice that lord Somers’s biographer, Mr. Cooksey, offers some arguments, and combines some facts, to prove that this satire was the production of his lordship, and of his gay young friend lord Shrewsbury. The characters of Peter, Jack, and Martin, are said to have been sketched from living persons, and these sketches of character, after many years remaining in ms. and passing through the hands of lord Shaftesbury and sir William Temple, are said to have been published by dean Swift. That this work was the sportive production of Mr. Somers,” I have no doubt,“says Mr. Cooksey,” from the private tradition of the family, and drawn by him from real life, and originals within his own observation.“Blurton, the uncle of Mr. Somers, a good and pious man, furnished, it is said, the portrait of the church of England man. The character of Jack, the Calvinist, exhibited that of his grandfather, Somers, who was so devoted an admirer of Richard Baxter, of presbyterian memory, as to be induced to spend most of his latter days with him at Kidderminster, and to direct his remains to be deposited under a cross in the church-yard there, as he supposed the ground hallowed by die sanctity of Baxter. Peter had his lineaments from father Petre, the Jesuit. Lord Somers’s later biographer, Mr. Maddock, after examining the probability of this story, discredits it, and leaves the” Tale of a Tub" the property of its generally reputed author, dean Swift; and most readers, we apprehend, will be more inclined to acquiesce in the opinion of Mr. Maddock than in that of Mr. Cooksey.

He seems to have proceeded as he had begun; that is, he pushed himself on by an extraordinary zeal for the powers that were; and he did not succeed amiss. On Aug. 10, 1660, he was chosen public orator of the university , and at the same time “tugged bird,” says Wood, “such was the high conceit of his worth, to be canon of Christcburch, as belonging to that office; but was kept back by the endeavours of the dean. This was a great discontent to him; and not being able to conceal it, he clamoured at it, and shewed much passion in his sermons till he could get preferment, which made them therefore frequented by the generality, though shunned by some. This person, though he was a junior master, and h;id never suffered for the royal cause, yet so great was his conceit, or so blinded he was with ambition, that he thought he could never be enough loaded with preferment; while others, who had suffered much, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, could get nothing.” South’s talents, however, might be of use, and were not to be neglected; and these, together with his ardent zeal, which he was ever ready to exert on all occasions, recommended him effectually to notice and preferment. In 1661 he became domestic chaplain to lord Clarendon, chancellor of England, and of the university of Oxford; and, in March 1663, was installed prebendary of Westminster. On October the 1st following, he was admitted to the degree of D. D.; but this, as Wood relates, not without some commotion in the university. “Letters were sent by lord Clarendon, in behalf of his chaplain South, who was therein recommended to the doctorate: but some were so offended, on account of certain prejudices against South, whom they looked upon as a mere time-server, that they stiffly denied the passing of these letters in convocation.” A tumult arose, and they proceeded to a scrutiny; after which the senior proctor, Nathaniel Crew, fellow of Lincoln-college, and afterwards bishop of Durham, did “according to his usual perfidy, which,” says Wood, “he frequently exercised in his office; for he was born and bred a presbyterian”) pronounce him passed by the major part of the house; in consequence of which, by the double presentation of Dr. John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry, he was first admitted bachelor, then doctor of divinity.

Anxious to support a literary character, lord Chesterfield wished also to be considered as a patron of literature, but, occupied by other cares, and not willing to make any great sacrifices for that object, he managed his advances to Dr. Johnson on the subject of his Dictionary so ill, that they procured for him only a rebuff, accompanied by that letter of dignified severity, which, though he affected to despise, he could not but feel at the time. It must be owned, however, that the two papers which he published on the occasion, in the World (No. 100 and 101), gave an honourable and useful recommendation to the work. In November, 1768, he lost that son whose education and advancement had been, for many years, the principal objects of his care; and, his own infirmities increasing very fast upon him, the remainder of his life wore a cast of melancholy and almost of despondency. He represents himself, in some letters at that period, as “totally unconnected with the world, detached from life, bearing the burthen of it with patience, from instinct rather than reason, and, from that principle alone, taking all proper methods to preserve it.” This, indeed, was not uniform; his natural vivacity still occasionally displayed itself; but in his moments of seriousness he presents a melancholy picture, of a mind destitute of the only effectual supports under natural decay and pain. He lived, with increasing infirmities, to the 24th of March 1773. His character is thus briefly summed up by Dr. Maty. “A nobleman unequalled in his time for variety of talents, brilliancy of wit, politeness, and elegance of conversation. At once a man of pleasure ancl of business; yet never suffering the former to encroach upon the latter. His embassy in Holland marks his skill, dexterity, and address as an able negotiator. His administration in Ireland, where his name is still revered by all ranks and orders of men, indicates his integrity, vigilance, and sound policy as a statesman. His speeches in parliament fix his reputation as a distinguished orator, in a refined and uncommon species of eloquence. His conduct in public life was upright, conscientious, and steady: in private, friendly and affectionate; in both, pleasant, amiable, and conciliating.” He adds, “these were his excellencies; let those who surpass him speak of his defects.” This friendly artifice to close the mouths of objectors, ought not, however, to prevent an impartial biographer from saying, for the benefit of mankind at large, that the picture he has exhibited of himself in hisLetters to his Son,“proves him to have been a man in whose mind the applause of the world was the great, and almost the sole governing principle. No attack of an enemy could have degraded his character so much as the publication of these letters; which, if they do not quite deserve the severe reprehension of Johnson, that they” inculcate the morals of a strumpet, with the manners of a dancing-master," certainly display a relaxation of principle, for which no talents can make amends.

These favours, however honourable to the king’s taste and discernment, were ultimately of disadvantage to Robert, by exciting the jealousy of the Sorbonnists, who could not endure that his majesty should bestow his confidence on a man whom they suspected of being unsound in the faith, and therefore sought occasion to convict him of heresy. Grounds for this they thought were to be found in the new edition of the Bible which Robert published in 1545, and which had a double Latin version, and the notes of Vatablus. Leo Juda, well known to be a Zuinglian, was the translator of one of these versions; and they farther alleged that Robert had corrupted the notes of Vatablus. This was, in those days, a serious accusation, and the king had again to interpose between him and his enemies. His majesty died about this time, and Robert, as a mark of gratitude, printed with particular care, Duchatel’s funeral oration on Francis L in which that orator happened to say that the king was “translated from the present life to eternal glory.” This expression, although common in every eulogium of the kind, was now made the subject of an accusation by the Sorbonnists, who asserted that it was contrary to the doctrine of the church respecting purgatory. Robert, therefore, soon perceived that he could no longer depend on the protection he had hitherto received, and after some years struggling against the machinations of his enemies, determined to remove to Geneva with his family. He accordingly took his leave of Paris, and arrived at Geneva in the beginning of 1552. There he printed the same year, in partnership with his brother-in-law Conrad Radius, the New Testament in French. He afterwards set up a printing-house of his own, from which some valuable works issued. He was chosen a burgher of Geneva in 1556, and died there Sept. 7, 1559. Robert is said to have been a man of a firm and decided character; but it has been objected by his popish biographers, that he did not allow that liberty to other* which he had taken himself, and that he disinherited one of his children for not embracing the reformed religion. Beza, Dorat, and St. Marthe, have given him the highest character. Thuanus places him above Aldus Manutius, and Froben, and asserts that the Christian world was more indebted to him than to all the great conquerors it had produced, and that he contributed more to immortalize the reign of Francis I. than all the renowned actions of that prince. His mark was an olive with branches, and the device, Noli altum sapere, to which sometimes were added the words sed time. The works he executed as King’s printer, are marked with a lance, round which a serpent is entwined, and a branch of olive, and underneath a verse of Homer, “B<nXi raya&ia xgaltfjca r‘ai%/*>iV’” to the good king and the valiant soldier.“All the printers who afterwards were permitted to use the royal Greek types adopted the same emblems. The works which he printed at Geneva are marked only with the olive, and these words, Oliva Roberti Stephani. It was not Robert, however, as has been commonly said, who first divided the Bible into verses, which he is said to have done inter equitandum, while riding from Paris to Lyons. That mode of division had been used in the Latin Bible of Pagninus in 1527, 4to, in the” Psalterium quintuples," 1509, and in other works. Another report concerning him is untrue, namely, that when he left Paris, he carried with him the Greek types belonging to the royal printing-house. The fact seems to have been that the matrices employed in casting those types were already at Geneva, and were the property of the family of Robert, and probably given to him by Francis I.; for when the French clergy in 1619 were about to reprint the Greek fathers, they requested that the king would demand of the state of Geneva the matrices used in casting the Greek types for Francis I. The answer was, that they might be bought for the sum of 3000 livres, to be paid either to the state of Geneva, or to the heirs of Robert Stephens.

Among other reports respecting this great man, it has also been said that he composed his works in English, but was obliged to have recourse to Dr. Mapletoft to translate them into Latin. This has been asserted by Ward in his Lives of the Gresham professors, but without bringing any proof*; and it is observable that his “Processus Integri,” published after his death, discovers alone more skill in the Latin language than is commonly ascribed to him. It is likewise asserted by sir Hans Sloane, with whom he was familiarly acquainted, that Dr. Sydenham was particularly versed in the writings of the great Roman orator and philosopher; and there is evidently such a luxuriance in his style, as may discover the author who gave him most pleasure, and most engaged his imitation.

Tacitus had been four years absent from Rome when he received the news of Agricola’s death, which happened in the year of Rome 846, and of the Christian sera 93. A report prevailed that he was poisoned by the emperor’s orders; his rapid course of brilliant success in Britain having alarmed the jealousy of Domitian, who dreaded nothing so much as a great military character: but Tacitus acknowledges that this report rested on no kind of proof. After this event, however, Tacitus returned to Rome/ and from that time saw the beginning of the most dreadful aera, in which Domitian broke out with unbridled fury, and made the city of Rome a theatre of blood and horror. At length this tyrant fell the victim of a conspiracy, and was succeeded by a virtuous emperor, Nerva, in whose reign, in the year of Rome 850, Tacitus succeeded the celebrated Verginius Rufus, as consul for the remainder of the year, and for that reason, as before noticed, his name is not to be found in the Fasti Consulares. In honour of Verginius, the senate decreed, that the rites of sepulture should be performed at the public expence. Tacitus delivered the funeral oration from the rostrum, and the applause of such an orator, Pliny says, was sufficient to crown the glory of a well-spent life.

It has been said of lord chancellor Talbot, that eloquence never afforded greater charms from any orator, than when the public attention listened to his sentiments, delivered with the most graceful modesty; nor did wisdom and knowledge ever support it with more extensive power, nor integrity enforce it with greater weight. In apprehension he so far exceeded the common rank of men, that he instantaneously, or by a kind of “intuition, saw the strength or imperfection of any argument; and so penetrating was his sagacity, that the most intricate and perplexing mazes of the law could never so involve and darken the truth, as to conceal it from his discernment. As a member of each house of parliament, no man ever had a higher deference paid to his abilities, or more confidence placed in his inflexible public spirit; and so excellent was his temper, so candid his disposition in debate, that he never offended those whose arguments he opposed. When his merit, and the unanimous suffrage of his country, induced his prince to intrust him with the great seal, his universal affability, his easiness of access, his humanity to the distress, which his employment too frequently presented to his view, and his great dispatch of business, engaged to him the affection and almost veneration of all who approached him. And by constantly delivering with his decrees the reasons upon which they were founded, his court was a very instructive school of equity, and his decisions were generally attended with such conviction to the parties, against whose interest they were made, that their acquiescence in them commonly prevented any farther expence. As no servile expedient raised him to power, his country knew he would use none to support himself in it. He was constant and regular in his devotions both in his family and in public. His piety was exalted, rational, and unaffected. He was firm in maintaining the true interest and legal rights of the church of England, but an enemy to persecution. When he could obtain a short interval from business, the pompous formalities of his station were thrown aside; his table was a scene where wisdom and science shone, enlivened and adorned with elegance of wit. There was joined the utmost freedom of dispute with the highest good breeding, and the vivacity of mirth with primitive simplicity of manners. Whtii he had leisure for exercise, he delighted in field-sports; and even in those trifles shewed, that he was formed to excel in whatever he engaged; and had he indulged himself more in them, especially at a time when he found his health unequal to the excessive fatigues of his post, the nation might not yet have deplored a loss it could ill sustain. But though he was removed at a season of life when others but begin to shine, he might justly be said,” satis & ad vitam & ad gloriam vixisse" and his death united in one general concern a nation, which scarce ever unanimously agreed in any other particular; and notwithstanding the warmth of our political divisions, each party endeavoured to outvie the other in a due reverence to his memory.

Tasso’s father saw with regret the success of his son’s poem: he was apprehensive, and not without reason, that the charms of poetry would detach him from those more solid studies-which he judged were most likely to raise him in the world: and he knew well, by his own experience, that the greatest skill in poetry will not advance a man’s private fortune. He was not deceived in his conjecture; Torquato, insensibly carried away by his predominant passion, followed the examples of Petrarch, Boccace, Ariosto, and others, who, contrary to the remonstrances of their friejids, quitted the severer studies of the law for the more pleasing entertainment of poetical composition. In short, he entirely gave himslf up to the study of poetry and philosophy. His first poem extended his reputation through all Italy; but his father was so displeased with his conduct that he went to Padua o'n purpose to reprimand him. Though he spoke with great vehemence, and made use of several harsh expressions, Torquato heard him without interrupting him, and his composure contributed not a little to increase his father’s displeasure. (t Tell me,“said Bernardo, lt of what use is that vain philosophy, upon which you pride yourself so much?” “It has enabled me,” said Tasso modestly, “to endure the harshness of your reproofs.” The resolution Tasso had taken to devote himself to the Muses was known all over Italy; the principal persons of the city and college of Bologna invited him thither' by means of Pietro Donato Cesi, then vice-legate, and afterwards legate. But Tasso had not long resided there, when he was pressed by Scipio Gonzaga, elected prince of the academy established at Padua, under the name of Etherei, to return to that city. He could not withstand this solicitation; and Bologna being at that time the scene of civil commotion, he was the more willing to seek elsewhere for the repose he loved. He was received with extreme joy by all the academy, and being incorporated into lhat society, at the age of twenty years, took upon himself the name of Pentito; by which he seemed to show that he repented of all the time which he had employed in the study of the law. In this retreat he applied himself afresh to philosophy and poetry, and soon became a perfect master of both; it was this happy mixture of his studies that made him an enemy to all kinds of licentiousness. An oration was made one day in the academy upon the nature of love; the orator treated his subject in a very masterly manner, but with too little regard to decency in the opinion of Tasso, who, being asked what he thought of the discourse, replied, “that it was a pleasing poison.”

In the autumn of 1661, bishop Taylor, foreseeing a vacancy in the deanery of Connor, wrote to Cambridge for some able person, who might fill that dignity, and the proposition being made to Dr. George Rust, he was preferred as soon as the vacancy took place (See Rust); and thus a friendship commenced between these two great men, which continued with mutual warmth and admiration till it was interrupted by death. Dr. Rust was the survivor, and succeeded bishop Taylor in the see of Dromore, and preached his funeral sermon. In 1662-3, bishop Taylor published “Three Sermons” which he had preached at Christ’s church, Dublin “Eleven Sermons,” preached since the restoration and his “Discourse on Confirmation” In July 1663, he preached the funeral sermon of Dr. John Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, from whose hands he had received confirmation. This was published, and contains a well-drawn character of the primate. In the same year, at the request of the bishops of Ireland, he published “A Dissuasive from Popery, addressed to the people of Ireland.” This work went through several editions, and some answers being published by the popish party, he wrote a second part of his “Dissuasive,” which however, did not appear until after his death. He had also began a discourse on the beatitudes, when he was attacked by a fever, which proved fatal in ten days. He died at Lisburn, August 13, 1667, and was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore. Dr. Rust, as we have already observed, preached his funeral sermon, and entered largely into his character. He was indisputably, as Dr. Rust represents him, a man of the acutest penetration and sagacity, the richest and most lively imagination, the solidest judgment, and the profoundest learning. He was perfectly versed in all the Greek and Roman writers, and was not unacquainted with the refined wits of later ages, whether French or Italian. His skill was great, both in civil and canon law, in casuistical divinity, in fathers, and ecclesiastical writers ancient and modern. He was a man of the greatest humility and piety: it is believed, says Dr. Rust, that he spent the greatest part of his time in heaven, and that his solemn hours of prayer took up a considerable portion of his life. He was indeed a great devotee, and had in him much of natural enthusiasm. Dr. Rust concludes his character with observing, that “he had the goodhumour of *a gentleman, the eloquence of an orator, the fancy of a poet, the aruter.ess of H schoolman, the profoundness of a philosopher, the wisdom of a chancellor, the sagacity of a prophet, the rrnson of an angel, and the piety of a saint. He had devotion enough for a cloister, learning enough for an university, and wit enough for a college of virtuosi; and had his parts and endowments been parcelled out among his clergy that he left In-hind him, it would, perhaps, have made one of the otst dioceses in the world.” Yet amidst the blaze of this panegyric, we must not forget that dispassionate criticism will assign as bishop Taylor’s highest excellence, his powers of moral suasion. He is always seen to most advantage as a moral writer, and his genius is every where inspired and invigorated by a love of what is good. Nor must it be forgot that he was one of the refiners of our language. His biographer has justly said that “English prose was in his time in a progressive state. It had been advanced very far by the genius of Sidney and the wisdom of Hooker; but the pedantry of the reign of James had done much to eclipse its lustre. In Taylor it broke out from its obscurity with energy and brightness. His polemical discourses exhibit a specimen of English composition superior to any that had gone before.”

, a learned critic and philologist, was born at Shrewsbury, and baptised at St; Alkmund’s church June 22, 1704. His father followed the humble occupation of a barber, and his son wasdesigned for the same business but a strong passion for letters, which early displayed itself, being providentially fostered by the generous patronage of a neighbouring gentleman, enabled young Taylor to fill a far higher station in society than that to which he was entitled by his birth. The steps which led to this happy change in his situation are worthy of notice. Taylor, the father, being accustomed to attend Edward Owen, of Condover, esq. in his capacity of a barber, that gentleman used to inquire occasionally into the state of his family, for what trade he designed his son, &c. These inquiries never failed to produce a lamentation from the old man, of the untoward disposition of his son Jack, “whom,” said he, “I cannot get to dress a wig or shave a beard, so perpetually is he poring over books.” Such complaints, often repeated, at length awakened the attention of Mr. Owen, who determined to send him to the university, chiefly at his own expence. St. John’s in Cambridge, which has an intimate connection with the free-school of Shrewsbury, naturally presented itself as the place of his academical education; and Mr. Taylor was doubtless assisted by one of the exhibitions founded in the college for the youth of that school. Under this patronage he pursued his studies in the university, and regularly took his degrees, that of B. A. in 1727, and of M. A. in 1731, and in the preceding year was chosen fellow. Thus employed in his favourite occupations, the periods of his return into his native country were the only times which threw a transient clouJ over the happy tenor of his life. On such occasions he was expected to visit his patron, and to partake of the noisy scenes of riotous jollity exhibited in the hospitable mansion of a country gentleman of those days. The gratitude of young Taylor taught him the propriety of making these sacrifices of his own comfort; but it could not prevent him from sometimes whispering his complaints into the ears of his intimate friends. A difference of political opinion afforded a more serious ground of difference. A great majority of the gentry of Shropshire was at that period strenuous in their good wishes for the abdicated family. Though educated at Cambridge, Taylor retained his attachment to toryism, but did not adopt all its excesses; and he at length forfeited the favour of his patron, without the hopes of reconciliation, hy refusing to drink a Jacobite toast on his bare knees, as was then the custom. This refusal effectually precluded him from all hopes of sharing in the great ecclesiastical patronage at that time enjoyed by the Condover family, and inclined him, perhaps, to abandon the clerical profession for the practice of a civilian. But however painful to his feelings this quarrel with his benefactor might prove, he had the consolation to reflect that it could not now deprive him of the prospect of an easy competence. His character as a scholar was established in the university; he was become a fellow and tutor of his conege; and on the 30th of Jan. 1730, he was appointed to deliver the Latin oration then annually pronounced in St. Mary’s before the university on that solemn anniversary; and at the following commencement he was selected to speak the music speech, both of which were printed. This last performance, of which but two instances occur in the last century, viz. 1714 and 1730, was supposed to require an equal share of learning and genius: for, besides a short compliment in Latin to the heads of the university, the orator was expected to produce a humourous copy of English verses on the fashionable topics of the day, for the entertainment of the female part of his audience: and in the execution of this office (derived like the Terras filius of Oxford, from the coarse festivities of a grosser age) sometimes indulged a licentiousness which surprises one on perusal. The music speech of Mr. Taylor is sufficiently free; and, though it does some credit to his poetical talents, is not very civil to his contemporaries of Oxford, (whom he openly taxes with retaining their fellowships and wives at the expence of their oaths) or to the members of Trinity college, in his own university, whom he ironically represents as the only members of Cambridge who could wipe off the stigma of impoliteness imputed to them by the sister university. This speech was printed by his young friend and fellow collegian Mr. Bowyer, and the publication concludes with an ode designed to have been set to music. These were not the only effusions of Mr. Taylor’s muse, for in the Gent. Mag. 1779, p. 365, are some verses by him on the marriage of Lady Margaret Harley to the duke of Portland, and others reprinted by Mr. Nichols.

This volume is printed on the same type with, and was intended as a specimen of, his projected edition of all the works of that great orator; a task which “either the course of his studies, or the general consent of the public, had,” he says, “imposed upon him.” While he was engaged in this laborious undertaking he received an accession of dignity and emolument; being in the beginning of 174-4 appointed by the bishop of Lincoln, Dr. John Thomas, to the office of chancellor of that extensive diocese, in the room of Mr. Reynolds. For his introduction to this prelate he was indebted to the kindness of his great patron lord Granville, as we learn from the dedication of the third volume of his Demosthenes, which came out in the spring of 1748, the publication of the first volume being postponed, that the life of the great orator and the other prolegomena might appear With more correctness.

, an ancient Gretik orator and philosopher, whose eloquence procured him the name of Euphrades, was of Paphlagonia, and flourished in the fourth century His father, Eugenius, was a man of noble birth, and educated his son under his own care. After teaching philosophy twenty years at Constantinople, and acquiring a great reputation, he went to Rome, where the emperor offered any conditions if he would fix himself in that city; but he returned soon, and settled at Constantinople, where he married, and had children. Themistius was a peripatetic, and tells us in one of his orations that he had chosen Aristotle for the arbiter of his opinions, and the guide of his life; yet he was not so bigotted to this master, but that he was well versed in Plato, and was particularly studious of the diction and manner of this philosopher, as appears from his works. He had a great opinion of the necessity of sacrificing to the graces; and he says in another oration, “I often converse with the divine Plato, I live with Aristotle, and I am very unwillingly separated from Homer.”

, a member of the French academy, was born in 1732, at Clermont in Auvergne, the country of the celebrated Pascal. He received from his mother a severe, and almost a Spartan education. The three children of that estimable woman were brought up chiefly under her own eyes. His two elder brothers died, the one in 1748, the other in 1755, both young men, and both having signalized themselves in literature. Joseph, the eldest, had produced a comedy; and John, the second, excelled in Latin poetry. The death of his second brother, impressed Antony very early with a strong sense of the vanity of worldly cares; and with a profound piety ^ which enhanced the value of his character. He had a decided taste for poetry, but was designed for the bar. In obedience to the wish of his mother, he went to Clermont, to follow a study repugnant to his taste; but going with her to Paris, when John was at the point of death, his friends offered him a professorship in the qoliege of Beauvais. This, therefore, he accepted, as more congenial to his feelings, though less splendid in appearance, than the profession for which he had been designed. He was soon in high estimation for his talents as a poet and an orator; and M. Watelet, a rich man, and a man of letters, offered him a pension as a tribute to his merit; but he chose, with becoming pride, to owe his subsistence to hi own talents, rather than to the generosity of any one: He was afterwards secretary to the duke de Praslin, minister for foreign affairs; secretary to the Swiss cantons (an independent place in the government); and finally secretary to the duke of Orleans. He was also a member of the academy, tho-ugh it is said that he once refused to be chosen, when he found that he was proposed chiefly out of pique to another candidate, M. Marmontel. Without any fortune but his pension from the court, and the trifling reward he received for his assiduous attendance at the academy, he continued to reside at Paris; and latterly, with a sister* who superintended his domestic concerns. But, his health being impaired by excessive application, he was obliged to seek the more favourable climate of Nice, where for a time he recovered the use of all his powers. But his lungs had always been weak, and being seized also with a fever, he died September 17, 1785, in the ho,use of the archbishop of Lyons, and was buried at the neighbouring village of Qulins. At the time of his death he was employed in writing a poem on the czar Peter the Great, styled the “Pe*treade,” which has never been published.

He excelled in the two great points which form a just historian, truth and eloquence. The faith of his History has never been called into question. He wanted no opportunities of knowing the truth, and he does not appear to have misrepresented it; and though some have fancied him a little malevolent towards his country, because the usage hy had received would have made most people so, yet he has not written any thing that discovers such a passion. His manner of writing is coherent, perspicuous, and persuasive, yet close, strong, and pithy. The ancients have spoken <of him in the highest terms and if Herodotus, as his senior, obtained the title “father of history,” yet the greater part have allowed that Thucydides is the better historian. Plutarch says, in his treatise De Gloria Atheniensinm, that Thucydides “aims always at this, to make his auditor a spectator, and to excite in his reader the same passions witii those who were beholders.” Then enumerating some examples, “these things,” he says, “are so described, and so evidently set before our eyes, that the mind of the reader is no less affected, than if he had been present in the actions.” And it was probably for his skill in painting, certainly not for his eloquence (for, as Cicero says, “what great rhetorician ever borrowed any thing of Thucydides?”) that the famous orator Demosthenes wrote over his History, according to Lucian, eight times with his own hand. The same Lucian, in his book “How a history ought to be written,” continually exemplifies the virtues required in an historiographer by Thucydides; and it seems as if the image of Thucydides’s History, preconceived in Lucian’s mind, suggested to him all the precepts he there delivers. As to his style, Cicero speaks of it thus: “Thucydides in the art of speaking, in my opinion, has far exceeded them all. ^For he is so full of matter, that the number of his sentences almost equals the number of his words; and in his words he is so apt, and so close, that it is hard to say, whether his words more illustrate his sentences, or his sentences his words,” The Romans thought highly of Thucydides’s work; and Sallust evidently took him for his model.

As good sense, sound reasoning, and profound knowledge, justly entitled archbishop Tillotson to the character of a great and excellent divine, so copiousness of style, and ease of composition, have made him also esteemed and admired as an orator. Yet a polite writer of our own country, Melmoth, in “Fitzosborne’s Letters,” cannot allow this to him, but, on the contrary, “thinks that no man had ever less pretensions to genuine oratory, than this celebrated preacher. One cannot indeed but regret,” says he, “that Dr. Tillotson, who abounds with such noble and generous sentiments, should want the art of setting them off with all the advantage they deserve; that the sublime in morals should not be attended with a suitable elevation of language. The truth, however, is, his words are frequently ill chosen, and almost always ill placed; his periods are both tedious and unharmonious; as his metaphors are generally mean, and often ridiculous.” He imputes this chiefly to his “having had no sort of notion of rhetorical numbers,” which seems, indeed, to have been in some measure the case and, as far as this can detract from the character of a complete orator, it is necessary to make some abatement: yet there is certainly great copiousness, and, as this gentleman allows, “a noble simplicity,” in his discourses. As for his language, notwithstanding some exceptionable passages with regard to the use of metaphors, incident to the best authors, Dryden frequently owned with pleasure, that, if he had any talent for English prose (as certainly he had a very great one), it was owing to his having often read the writings of archbishop Tillotson. Addison likewise considered Tiltotson’s writings as the chief standard of our language and accordingly marked the particular pbrases in the sermons published during his life-time, as the ground-work of an English dictionary, which he had projected. But there are some very just sentiments of Tillotson in one of Warbiirton’s letters, which deserve more attention. Tillotson, Warburton says, “was certainly a virtuous, pious, humane, and moderate man, which last quality was a kind of rarity in those times. His notions of civil society were but confused and imperfect, as appears in the affair of lord Russel. As to religion, he was among the class of latitudinarian divines. I think the sermons published in Iris life-time are fine moral discourses. They bear indeed the character of their author, simple, elegant, candid, clear, and rational. No orator in the Greek and Roman sense of the word, like Taylor; nor a discourser in their sense, like Barrow: free from their irregularities, but not able to reach their heights. On which account I prefer them infinitely to him. You cannot sleep with Taylor; you cannot forbear thinking with Barrow. But you may be much at your ease in the mi^lst of a long lecture from Tillotson: clear, and rational, and equable as he is. Perhaps the last quality may account for it.”

, Earl of Worcester, a patron of learning, and one of the few literary ornaments of England in the fifteenth century, was born at Everton, or Eversten, in Cambridgeshire, and educated at Baliol college, Oxford. He was son of the lord Tibetot, or Tiptoft, and Powys, and was created a viscount and earl of Worcester by king Henry VI. and appointed lord deputy of Ireland. By Edward IV. he was made knight of the garter, and constituted justice of North Wales for life. Dugdale says, he was soon after made constable of the Tower for life, and twice treasurer of the king’s exchequer, but other historians say he was twice lord high constable, and twice lord treasurer: the first time, according to Lud. Carbo, at twenty-five years old; and again deputy of Ireland for the duke of Clarence. But whatever dispute there may be about his titles in the state, there is no doubt that he was eminently at the head of literature, and so masterly an orator, that he drew tears from the eyes of pope Pius II. otherwise Æneas Sylvius, a munificent patron of letters. This was on pronouncing an oration before the pontiff when he visited Rome, through a curiosity of seeing the Vatican library, after he had resided at Padua and Venice, and made great purchases of books. He is said to have given Mss. tonne value of 500 marks to duke Humphrey’s library at Oxford. He was about this time on his return from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which expedition is partly attributed to the suspence of his lordship’s mind between gratitude to king Henry and loyalty to king Edward; but he seems not to have been much influenced by the former, in the opinion of lord Orford. It is certain that Richard Nevil, earl of Warwick, did not ascribe much gratitude to him, nor did Worcester confide much in any merit of that sort; for, absconding during the short restoration of Henry, and being taken concealed in a tree in Wey bridge-forest in Huntingdonshire, he was brought to London, accused of cruelty in his administration of Ireland, particularly towards two infant sons of the earl of D^mon.il, and condemned and beheaded at the Tower in 1470. For his imputed offences, some authors are inclined to allow a foundation, but in these turbulent times malice and political intrigue are supposed to have frequently had a share in fallen greatness. Pennant, however, is of opinion that all his love for the sciences did not protect him from imbibing the temper of the unhappy times he lived in.

, a learned and amiable divine, was born about 1710, and educated at St. John’s college in Cambridge, of which he became fellow and a principal tutor. He was instituted to the rectory of Sturmer in Essex, in 1739, and, in 1741, elected public orator of the university. He afterwards became chaplain to Potter, abp. of Canterbury; and was there a person of such uniform meekness and humility as to make it said, after he left Lambeth, that “many a man came there, as chaplain, humble, but that none ever departed so except Dr. Tunstall.” He was created D. D. at Cambridge in 1714; was collated by the archbishop to the rectory of Great Chart in Kent, and to the vicarage of Minster in the Isle of Thanet, both which he resigned in 1757, for the valuable vicarage of Rochdale in Lancashire, given him by abp. Hutton, who married his wife’s aunt; but the exchange, from many circumstances, di i not answer his expectation; he wished for a prebend of Canterbury. It is supposed that either family uneasinesses, or the above disappointment, hastened his death, which took place March 28, 1772.

, a learned politician, was the son of Arthur Wake, rector of Billing, in Northamptonshire, master of the hospital of St. John at Northampton, and canon of Christ Church; and was born, it is supposed, at Billing, about 1575. He became a member of the university of Oxford in 1593, and in 1598 was elected probationer-fellow of Merton college. In 1604 he was chosen public orator, and in that capacity had frequent opportunities, sometimes before the king and court at their visits to the university, of delivering speeches in a pure and eloquent style. In 1609 he travelled in France and Italy, and after his return was made private secretary to sir Dudley Carleton, one of the chief secretaries of state, and discovering, in this situation, talents which might qualify him for diplomatic commissions, his majesty (James I.) employed him as ambassador to Venice, Savoy, and other courts. Previous to his setting out for Savoy in 1619, he received the order of knighthood. In 1625 he sat as member of parliament for the university of Oxford, and his speeches added considerably to his reputation. His accomplishments likewise, both as a scholar and a gentleman, were greatly admired. He died in 1632, while at Paris, in the service of Charles I. and his body being brought to England, was interred in the chapel at Dover castle. His funeral, which was very magnificent, was expressly at the charge of the king, who had intended him for the place of secretary of state had he lived.

He wrote many political pieces, “with knowledge, but in a bad style,” as his nephew says, “yet better than his speeches.” Among these are, 1. “The case of the Hes^ sian troops in the pay of Great Britain,” Lond. 1730. 2. “The Interest of Great Britain steadily pursued, in answer to a pamphlet, entitled” The case of the Hanover forces, impartially and freely examined, Part I.“1743. This” Case“was written by lord Chesterfield and Mr. Waller. 3.” A Letter to a certain distinguished patriot and applauded orator, on the publication of his celebrated speech on the Seaford petition, in the Magazines,“&c. 1748. 4.” Complaints of the Manufacturers, relating to the abuses in marking the sheep, &c.“1752. 5.” Answer to the latter part of lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the study of history," printed in 1763. Some other pamphlets are attributed to lord Walpole in our authority, but rather on doubtful evidence.

, son to the preceding, was born about 1699. He was educated at home; and, as what was calculated to distinguish him most, his father’s prime object was to form him a complete orator. The first prelude to his innumerable misfortunes may justly be reckoned his falling in love with, and privately marrying at the Fleet, when he was scarcely sixteen years old, a young lady, the daughter of major-general Holmes; a match by no means suited to his birth and fortune, and far less to the ambitious views his father had entertained for him. However, the amiable lady deserved infinitely more happiness than she met with by an alliance with his family; and the young lord was not so unhappy through any misconduct of hers as by the death of his father, which this precipitate marriage is thought to have occasioned about a year after. The duke, being so early free from paternal restraints, and possessed of a fortune of 16,000l. a year, plunged into those numberless excesses which became at last fatal to him; and proved, as Pope expresses it,

, an eminent puritan divine, was born at Banbury in Oxfordshire, in May 1583, where his father, Thomas Whately, was justice of the peace, and had been several times mayor. He was educated at Christ’scollege, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Potman, a man of learning and piety, and was a constant hearer of Dr. Chaderton, Perkins, and other preachers of the Puritan-stamp. It does not appear that he was originally destined for the church, as it was not until after his marriage with the daughter of the Rev. George Hunt that he was persuaded to study for that purpose, at Edmund -hall, Oxford. Here he was incorporated bachelor of arts, and, according to Wood, with the foundation of logic, philosophy, and oratory, that he had brought with him from Cambridge, he became a noted disputant and a ready orator. In 1604, he took his degree of M. A. as a member of Edmund-hall, “being then esteemed a good philosopher and a tolerable mathematician.” He afterwards entered into holy orders, and was chosen lecturer of Banbury, his native place. In 1610, he was presented by king James to the vicarage of Banbury, which he enjoyed until his death. He also, with some of his brethren, delivered a lecture, alternately at Stratford-upon-Avon. In his whole conduct, Mr. Leigh says, he “was blameless, sober, just, holy, temperate, of good behaviour, given to hospitality”,&c. Fuller calls him “a good linguist, philosopher, mathematician, and divine;” and adds, that he “was free from faction?' Wood, who allows that he possessed excellent parts, was a noted disputant, an excellent preacher, a good orator, and well versed in the original text, both Greek and Hebrew, objects, nevertheless, that,” being a zealous Calvinist, a noted puritan, and much frequented by the precise party, for his too frequent preaching, he laid such a foundation of faction at Banbury, as will not easily be removed.“Granger, who seems to have considered all these characters with some attention, says, that” his piety was of a very extraordinary strain; and his reputation as a preacher so great, that numbers of different persuasions went from Oxford, and other distant places, to hear him. As he ever appeared to speak from his heart, his sermons were felt as well as heard, and were attended with suitable effects.“In the life of Mede, we have aa anecdote of him, which gives a very favourable idea of his character. Having, in a sermon, warmly recommended his hearers to put in a purse by itself a certain portion from every pound of the profits of their worldly trades, for works of piety, he observed, that instead of secret grudging, when objects of charity were presented, they would look out for them, and rejoice to find them. A neighbouring clergyman hearing him, and being deeply affected with what he so forcibly recommended, consulted him as to what proportion of his income he ought to give.” As to that,“said Whately,” lam not to prescribe to others; but I will tell you what hath been my own practice. You know, sir, some years ago, I was often beholden to you for the loan of ten pounds at a time; the truth is, I could not bring the year about, though my receipts were not despicable, and I was not at all conscious of any unnecessary expenses. At length, I inquired of my family what relief was given to the poor; and not being satisfied, I instantly resolved to lay aside every tenth shilling of all my receipts for charitable uses; and the Lord has made me so to thrive since I adopted this method, that now, if you have occasion, I can lend you ten times as much as I have formerly been forced to borrow."

The editor of his “Memorials” give* him this character. “He not only served the state in several stations and plaices of the highest trust and importance botn at *Wn‘e and in foreign countries, and acquitted himself with success and reputation answerable to each respective character; but likewise conversed with books, and made himself a large provision from his studies and contemplation. Like that noble Roman, Portius Cato, as described by Nepos, he was `Reipublicae peritus, et jurisconsultus, et’nfttgnus iniperator, et probabilis orator, cupidissimus titerafttuf:' a statesman and learned in the law, a great commander, an eminent speaker in parliament, and an exquisite scholar. He had all along so much business, one would not imagine he ever had leisure for books yet who considers his studies might believe he had been always shut up with his friend Selden, and the dust of action never fallen on his gown. His relation to the public was such throughout all the revolutions, that few mysteries of state could be to him any secret. Nor was the felicity of his pen less considerable than his knowledge of affairs, or did less service to the cause he espoused. So we find the words apt and proper for the occasion; the style clear, easy, and wichout the least force or affectation of any kind, as is shewn in his speeches, his narratives, his descriptions, and in every place where the subject deserves the least care or consideration.” Lord Clarendon has left this testimony in favour of Whitelocke: whom, numbering among his early friends in life, he calls, a man of eminent parts and great learning out of his profession, and in his profession of signal reputation. “And though,” says the noble historian, “he did afterwards bow his knee to Baal, and so swerved from his allegiance, it was with less rancour and malice than other men. He never led, but followed; and was rather carried away with the torrent than swam with the stream; and failed through those infirmities, which less than a general defection and a prosperous rebellion could never have discovered.” Lord Clarendon has elsewhere described him, as “from the beginning concurring with the parliament, without any inclinations to their persons or principles and,” says he, “he had the same reasons afterwards not to separate from them. All his estate was in their quarters and he had a nature, that could not bear or submit to be undone ‘though to his friends, who were commissioners for the king, he used his old openness, and professed his detestation of all the proceedings of his party, yet could not leave them.’”

Sir Thomas Wilson wrote, 1. “Epistola de vita et obita duorum fratrum SufFolciensium, HenricietCaroli Brandon,” Lond. 1552, 4to, prefixed to a collection of verses written on their deaths by several scholars of Oxford and Cambridge. Of this rare book there are only three copies known, one in the Bodleian, another in the British museum, and a third in the magnificent library of earl Spencer. 2. “The rule of Reason, containing the art of Logic,” 1551, 1552, 1553, 1567, 4to. 3. “The art of Rhetoric,” 1553, 4to, often reprinted. 4. “Discourse upon Usury,” Lond. 1572, a work much praised by Dr. Lawrence Humphrey, the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford, in his life of Jewell. Wilson also translated from Greek into English, <c The three Orations of Demosthenes, chief orator among the Grecians,“Lond. 1570. Of his” Art of Logic,“Mn Warton says that such a” display of the venerable mysteries of this art in a vernacular language, which had hitherto been confined within the sacred pale of the learned tongues, was esteemed an innovation almost equally daring with that of permitting the service of the church to be celebrated in English; and accordingly the author, soon, afterwards happening to visit Rome, was incarcerated by the inquisitors of the holy see, as a presumptuous and dangerous heretic.“Of his” Art of Rhetoric," Mr. Wartori says, it is liberal and discursive, illustrating the arts of eloquence by example, and examining and ascertaining the beauties of composition with the speculative skill and sagacity of a critic. It may therefore be justly considered as the first book or system of criticism in our language. This opinion Mr. Warton confirms by very copious extracts.

* When about to visit that country in perhaps I make the time shorter than his official capacity, he called on Dr. it was. Such conversation I shall not Johnson and in the course of con- have again till I come back to the reversation lamented that he should be gions of Literature, and there Windunder the necessity of sanctioning ham is inter stellas luna. minores.“Alpractices of which he could not ap- though e have said that illness was prove.” Don't be afraid, sir,“said the cause of Mr. Windham’s resignathe tioctor, with a pleasant smile, tion, his biographer affords some rea­”you will soon in -ke a very pretty son to think that it really arose from rascal.“Dr. Johnson in a letter to the conscientious scruples which Dr. Dr. Bruckle.-'by, written an Ashbourne Johnson thought might soon vanish, in 1784 says:” Mr. Wjiuiham has and that it was owing to his being been here to see me he came, [ dissatisfied with some part of the lord think, forty miles ou of his Vay, lieutenaut’s conduct, and staid about a day aud a half; Although from the time of his coming into parliament, he usually voted with the opposition of that day, he never was what is called a thorough party-man, frequently deviating from those to whom he was in general attached, when, in matters of importance, his conscience directed him to take a different course from them; on which account his virtues and talents were never rightly appreciated by persons of that description, who frequently on this ground vainly attempted to undervalue him. After thq rupture between Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, in consequence of the French revolution, Mr. Windham attached himself wholly to the latter, with whom he had for many years lived in the closest intimacy; and of whose genius and virtues he had always the highest admiration. Being with him thoroughly convinced of the danger then impending over his country from the measures adopted by certain classes of Englishmen, in consequence of that tremendous convulsion, he did not hesitate to unite with the duke of Portland, lord Spencer, and others, in accepting offices under the administration in which Mr. Pitt then presided. On this arrangement Mr. Windham was appointed secretary at war, with a seat in the cabinet, an honourable distinction which had never before been annexed to that office. This station he continued to fill with the highest reputation from that time (17S4) till 1801, when he, lord Spencer, lord Grenville, and Mr. Pitt, resigned their offi-r ces; and shortly afterwards Mr. Addington (now lord viscount Sidmouth) was appointed chancellor of the exchequer and first lord of the treasury. On the preliminaries of peace with France being acceded to by that statesman aod his coadjutors, in 1801, Mr. Windham made his celebrated speech in parliament, which was afterwards (April 1802) published, with an Appendix, containing a character of the Usurper of the French throne, which will transmit to posterity the principal passages of his life up to that period, in the most lively colours. On Mr. Addington being driven from the helm, in 1805, principally by the battery of Mr, Windham’s eloquence, a new administration was again formed by Mr. Pitt, which was dissolved by his death, in 1806; and shortly afterwards, on lord Grenville’s accepting the office of first lord of the Treasury, Mr. Windham was appointed secretary of state for the war department, which he held till his majesty in the following year thought fit to constitute a new administration. During this period he carried into a law his bill for the limited service of those who enlist in our regular army; a measure which will ever endear his name to the English soldiery. But it is not our purpose to detail the particular measures which either originated from him, or in which he took a part. This indeed would be impossible within any prescribed limits; and would involve the history of perhaps the whole of the war. It may suffice to notice that his genius and talents were universally acknoxvledged. He was unquestionably not inferior, in many respects, to the most admired characters of the age that is just gone by. He had been in his earlier years a very diligent student, and was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar. In his latter years, like Burke and Johnson, he was an excursive reader, but gathered a great variety of knowledge from different books, and from occasionally mixing, like them, with very various classes and descriptions of men. His memory was most tenacious. In his parliamentary speeches his principal object always was to convince the understanding by irrefragable argument, which he at the same time enlivened by a profusion of imagery, drawn sometimes from the most abstruse parts of science, but oftener from the most familiar objects of common life. But what gave a peculiar lustre to whatever he urged, was his known and uniform integrity, and a firm conviction in the breasts of his hearers, that he always uttered the genuine and disinterested sentiments of his heart. His language, both in writing and speaking, was always simple, and he was extremely fond of idiomatic phrases, which he thought greatly contributed to preserve the purity of our language. He surveyed every subject of importance with a philosophic eye, and was thence enabled to discover and detect latent mischief, concealed under the plausible appearance of public advantage. Hence all the clarnourers for undefined and imaginary liberty, and all those who meditate the subversion of the constitution under the pretext of Reform, shrunk from his grasp; and persons of this description were his only enemies. But his dauntless intrepidity, and his noble disdain of vulgar popularity, held up a shield against their malice; and no fear of consequences ever drove him from that manly and honourable course, which the rectitude and purity of his mind induced him to pursue. As an orator, he was simple, elegant, prompt, and graceful. His genius was so fertile, and his reading so extensive, that there were few subjects on which he could not instruct, amuse, and persuade. He was frequently (as has justly been observed) “at once entertaining and abstruse, drawing illustrations promiscuously from familiar life, and the recondite parts of science; nor was it unusual to hear him through three adjoining sentences, in the first witty, in the second metaphysical, and in the last scholastic.” But his eloquence derived its principal power from the quickness of his apprehension, and the philosophical profundity of his mind. In private life no man perhaps of any age had a greater number of zealous friends and admirers. In addition to his extraordinary ta-^ lents and accomplishments, the grace and happiness of his address and manner gave an irresistible charm to his conversation; and few, it is believed, of either sex (for his address to ladies was inimitably elegant and graceful) ever partook of his society without pleasure and admiration, or quitted it without regret. His brilliant imagination, his various knowledge, his acuteness, his good taste, his wit, his dignity of sentiment, and his gentleness of manner (for he never was loud or intemperate) made him universally admired and respected. To crown all these virtues and accomplishments, it mav be added, that he fulfilled all the duties. of life, the lesser as well as the greatest, with the most scrupulous attention; and was always particularly ardent in vindicating the cause of oppressed merit. But his best eulogy is the general sentiment of sorrow which agitated every bosom on the sudden s and unexpected stroke which terminated in his death. During the nineteen days of his sickness, his hall was daily visited by several hundred successive inquirers concerning the state of his health; and that part of Pall Mall in which his house was situated, was thronged with carriages filled with ladies, whom a similar anxiety brought to his door. Every morning, and also at a late hour every evening, when his physicians and surgeons attended, several apartments in his house were filled with friends, who anxiously waited to receive the latest and most accurate accounts of the progress or abatement of his disorder. This sympathetic feeling extended almost through every class, and even reached the throiio, for his majesty frequently inquired concerning the state of his health, pronouncing on him this high eulogy, that “he was a genuine patriot, and a truly honest man.” Of the fatal malady which put an end to his invaluable life, erroneous accounts have been published, but the fact was, that on the 8th of July 1809, Mr. Windham, returningon foot at twelve o'clock at niiht from the house of a friend, as he passed by the end of Conduit-street, saw a house on fire, and instantly hastened to the spot, with a view to assist the sufferers; and soon observed that the house of the Hon. Mr. Frederic North was not far distant from that which was then on fire. He therefore immediately undertook to save his friend’s library, which he knew to be very valuable. With the most strenuous activity he exerted himself for four hours, in the midst of rain and the playing of the fire-engines, with such effect that, with the assistance of two or three persons whom he had selected from the crowd assembled on this occasion, he saved four parts out of five of the library; and before they could empty the fifth book room, the house took fire. The books were immediately removed, not to Mr. Windham’s house, but to the houses of the opposite neighbours, who cook great care of them. In removing same heavy volumes he accidentally fell, and suffered a slight contusion on his hip, of which, however, he unfortunately took no notice for some months, when an indolent encysted tumour was formed, which, after due consultation, it was judged proper to cut out. The operation was accordingly performed apparently with success on May 17, 1810, but soon after unfavourable symptoms came on, and terminated fatally June 4, to the unspeakable regret of all who knew him.