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

There is no account whatever of the typographical labours of Caxton from the year 1471 to 1474; although it is extremely probable that a curious and active mind like his, just engaged in the exercise of a newly-discovered and important art, would have turned its attention to a variety of objects for publication. Of the exact period of his return to his native country no information has yet been obtained, and what Oldys and Lewis have advanced on this subject amounts to mere conjecture: still less credit is to be given to the fabricated story of Henry VI. paving sent a person to Holland who brought si way Frederick Corsellis, a vorkxnan, and that Caxton had a hand in this seduction. All that is certainly known is, that previously to the year 1477, Caxton, after printing there the three works nentioncd, had quitted the Low Countries, and taken up his residence in the vicinity of Westminster-abbey, vhen Thomas Milling, bishop of Hereford, held the abbctship of St. Peter’s in commendam; and he had no doubt brought over with him all the necessary implements and materials of his trade. The particular spot where Caxton first sxercised his business, if we may credit Stowe, was an old chapel about the entrance of the abbey, and Oldys, somewhat whimsically, concludes that the name of chapel, which is sometimes given to a printing room, is derived from this circumstance; but what is called a chapel, in a printing-office, is not a building, but a convocation of journeymenprinters, to inquire into and punish certain faults in each other. Where the place occurs in any of Caxton’s publications, Westminster is mentioned generally, but the greater number of the productions of his press specify only the. date of their execution. According to Bagford, Caxton’s ofHce was afterwards removed into King-street, but whereabouts is not known; and we have yet to regret, as of more importance, that the precise period of his first essay in the art of printing is a matter of conjecture. Mr, Dibdin has summed up the evidence with precision and judgment; and to his valuahle work we must refer the reader, as well as for a chronological detail of the works which issued from the Caxton press. Exclusive of the labours attached to the working of Caxton’s press, as a new art, he contrived, though “well stricken in years,” to translate no fewer than 5000 closely printed folio pages; and, as Oldys expivsses it, “kept preparing copy for the press to the very last.” From the evidence of Wynkyn de Worde, in the colophon of his edition of the “Vitas Patrum,” 1495, it appears that these lives of the fathers were “translated out of French into English by William Caxton, of Westminster, late dead,” and that he finished it “at the last day of his life.” He might have chosen this work as his final literary effort, from a consideration, according to Oldys, that “from the examples of quiet and solemn retirement therein set forth, it might farther serve to wean his mind from all worldly attachments, exalt it above the solicitudes of this life, and inure him to that repose and tranquillity with which he seems to have designed it.”

Sir William Cecil acted \yith such caution and prudence in the various intrigues for the crown on the death of king Edward, that on queen Mary’s accession, although known to be a zealous protestaut, he remained unmolested in person, property, or reputation. Rapin has given a very unfair colouring to sir William’s conduct at this critical period. After stating that he waited upon the queen, was graciously received, and might have kept his employment, if he would have complied so far as to have declared himself of her majesty’s religion, he closes with the following remark: “He was nevertheless exposed to no persecution on account of his religion, whether his artful behaviour gave no advantages against him, or his particular merit procured him a distinction above all other protestants.” As to the artfulness of his behaviour, it will best appear from the answer he gave to those honourable persons, who by command of the queen communed with him on this subject, to whom he declared, “That he thought himself bound to serve God first, and next the queen; but if her service should put him out of God’s service, he hoped her majesty would give him leave to chuse an everlasting, rather than a momentary service; and as for the queen, she had been his so gracious lady, that he would ever serve and pray for her in his heart, and with his body and goods be as ready to serve in her defence as any of her loyal subjects, so she would please to grant him leave to use his conscience to himself, and serve her at large as a private man, which he chose rather than to be her greatest counsellor,” The queen took him at his word, and this was all the art that sir William used to procure liberty of conscience for himself; unless we should call it art, that he behaved himself with much prudence and circumspection afterwards. Nor is it true, as insinuated by Rapin, that he was the only protestant unmolested in this reign. Among others, the names of sir Thomas Smith, and the celebrated Roger Ascham, may be quoted; but as Mary’s bigotry increased with her years, it may be doubtful whether those would have been long spared. Almost the last act of her life was an attempt to kindle the flames of persecution in Ireland.

Being harshly treated by those to whose care she was committed after the death of her mother, she resolved, whilst very young, to quit the country, and to go up to London to seek her fortune. The circumstances of her life at this period are involved in much obscurity, and the particulars which are related seem somewhat romantic. It is said that she attempted her journey to the capital alone, and on foot, and on her way thither was met by Anthony Hammond, esq. father of the author of the “Love Elegies.” This gentleman, who was then a member of the university of Cambridge, was struck with her youth and beauty, and offered to take her under his protection. Her distress and inexperience inducing her to comply with his proposal, she accompanied him to Cambridge, where, having equipped her in boy’s clothes, he introduced her to his intimates at college, as a relation who was come down to see the university, and to pass some time with him. Under this disguise an amorous intercourse was carried on between them for some months; but at length, being probably apprehensive that the affair would become known in the university, he persuaded her to go to London. He provided her, however, with a considerable sum of money, and recommended her by letter to a lady in town with whom he was acquainted. He assured her at the same time, that he would speedily follow her, and renew their connection. This promise appears not to have been performed: but notwithstanding her unfavourable introduction into life, she was married in her sixteenth year to a nephew of sir Stephen Fox, who did not live more than a twelvemonth after their marriage; but her wit and personal attractions soon procured her another husband, whose name was Carrol, who was an officer in the army, but who was killed in a duel about a year and a half after their marriage, when she became a second time a widow She is represented as having a sincere attachment to Mr. Carrol, and consequently as having felt his loss as a severe affliction.

The unfortunate loss of the Grosvenor East Indiaman, in 1782, was a calamity in which the private share of sir Robert Chambers was disproportionately heavy. He lost his eldest son, a promising youth, then going to England for education and the uncertain circumstances of the case left to imagination the most dreadful materials for conjecture. In this, as in every other situation, in proportion to the exigence, the firm and truly Christian piety of sir Robert Chambers afforded a great example; and he appeared a worthy son of that excellent national church which, on some occasions, he had strenuously defended while he was an advocate. On the resignation of sir Elijah Impey, in 1791, sir Robert Chambers was advanced to the office of chief justice: and in 1797 he became president of the Asiatic society. At length, after having remained in India twenty-five years, he also obtained permission to resign, and was succeeded by sir John Anstruther.

, an eminent architect, was a native of Sweden, but originally descended from the family of Chalmers in Scotland, barons of Tartas, in France. His grandfather was an opulent merchant, who supplied the armies of Charles XII. with money and military stores, and suffered considerably in his fortune by being obliged to receive the base coin issued by that monarch. This circumstance occasioned his son to reside many years in, Sweden, in order the more effectually to prosecute his pecuniary claims. The subject of this article was born in that country, and for what reason is not known, was brought over from Sweden in 1723, at the age of two years, and placed at a school at Rippon, in Yorkshire. His first entrance into life was as a supercargo to the Swedish East India company. In this capacity he made one voyage to China; and, it appears, lost no opportunity of observing what was curious in that country. At the age of eighteen, however, he quitted this profession, and with it all commercial views, to follow the bent of his inclination, which led him to design and architecture.

, a learned French antiquary, was born at Bourges, in 1656. In 1673 he entered among the Jesuits, and according to their custom, for some time taught grammar and philosophy, and was a popular preacher for about twenty years. He died at Paris, in 1730. He was deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity. He published: 1. A learned edition of “Prudentius” for the use of the Dauphin, with an interpretation and notes, Paris, 1687, 4to, in which he was much indebted to Heinsius. It is become scarce. 2. Dissertations, in number eighteen, on several medals, gems, and other monuments of antiquity, Paris, 1711, 4to. Smitten with the desire of possessing something extraordinary, and which was not to be found in the other cabinets of Europe, he strangely imposed on himself in regard to two medals which he imagined to be antiques. The first was a Pacatianus of silver, a medal unknown till his days, and which is so still, for that it was a perfect counterfeit has been generally acknowledged since the death of its possessor. The other medal, on which he was the dupe of his own fancy, was an Annia Faustina, Greek, of the true bronze. The princess there bore the name of Aurelia; whence father Chainillnrd concluded that she was descended from the family of the Antonines. It had been struck, as he pretended, in Syria, by order of a Quirinus or Cirinus, descended, he asserted, from that Quit-in us who is spoken of by St. Luke. Chamillard displayed his erudition on the subject in a studied dissertation; but while he was enjoying his triumph, a dealer in antiques at Rome declared himself the father of Annia Faustina, at the same time shewing others of the same manufacture.

, a celebrated French poet, called Chapelle from the place of his nativity, a village between Paris and St. Denys, was born in 1621. He was the natural son of Francis Lullier, a man of considerable rank and fortune, who was extremely tender of him, and gave him a liberal education. He had the celebrated Gassendi for his master in philosophy; but he distinguished himself chiefly by his poetical attempts. There was an uncommon ease in all he wrote; and he was excellent in composing with double rhymes. We are obliged to him for that ingenious work in verse and prose, called “Voyage de Bachaumont,” which he wrote in conjunction with Bachaumont. Many of the most shining parts in Moliere’s comedies it is but reasonable to ascribe to him: for Moliere consulted him upon all occasions, and paid the highest deference to his taste and judgment. He was intimately acquainted with all the wits of his time, and with many persons of quality, who used to seek his company: and we learn from one of his own letters to the marquis of Chilly, that he had no small share in the favour of the king, and enjoyed, probably from court, an annuity of 8000 livres. He is said to have been a very pleasant, but withal a very voluptuous man. Among other stories in the Biographia Gallica, we are told that Boileau met him one day; and as he had a great value for Chapelle, ventured to tell him, in a very friendly manner, that “his inordinate love of the bottle would certainly hurt him.” Chapelle seemed very seriously affected; but this meeting happening unluckily by a tavern, “Come,” says he, “let us turn in here, and I promise to attend with patience to all that you shall say.” Boileau led the way, in hopes of converting him, but both preacher and hearer became so intoxicated that they were obliged to be sent home in separate coaches. Chapelle died in 1686, and his poetical works and “Voyage” were reprinted with additions at the Hague in 1732, and again in 1755, 2 vols. 12mo.

, the descendant of a noble family, was born at Bourges in 1655, and came to Paris in his youth, where he was trained up to business, and obtained the place of receiver-general of the finances at Rochelle. During this employment he found leisure to indulge his taste for polite literature, and the prince of Conti having heard of his merits made him one of his secretaries in 1687. The prince also sent him into Svvisserland on political business, and the king being afterwards informed of his talents, employed him in the same capacity. La Chapelle disclosed his knowledge of the politics of Europe in a work printed at Paris in 1703, under the disguise of Basil, in 8 vols. 12mo, entitled “Lettres d'un Suisse a un Francois,” explaining the relative interest of the powers at war. He wrote also “Memoires historiques sur la Vie d'Armand de Bourbon, prince de Conti,” 16$9, 4to, and, if we are not mistaken, translated and published in English in 1711, 8vo. He also wrote poetry, and some dramas, in which last he was an unsuccessful imitator of Racine. In 1688 he was admitted a member of the French academy. He died at Paris in 1723.

About this time he published an “Epicede, or Funeral Song on prince Henry;” and when the societies of Lincoln’s Inn and the Middle Temple, in 1613, had resolved to exhibit a splendid masque at Whitehall, in honour of the nuptials of the Palsgrave and the princess Elizabeth, Chapman was employed for the poetry, and Inigo Jones for the machinery. The same year he published, in 4to, a tragedy entitled “Bussy d'Amboise his Revenge,” not acted with much applause. In 1714 he published in 4tq, “Andromeda liberata; or, the Nuptials of Perseus and Andromeda,” dedicated, in a poetical epistle, to Robert, earl of Somerset, and Frances, his countess. The same year he printed his version of the “Odyssey,” which he also dedicated to the earl of Somerset. This was soon followed, by the “Batrachomuomachy,” and the “Hymns,” and “Epigrams.” In 1616 he published in 12mo, a translation of “Musceus,” with a dedication to Inigo Jones, in which he is addressed as the most skilful and ingenious architect that England had yet seen. Mr. Warton remarks, that “there was an intimate friendship between our author and this celebrated restorer of Grecian palaces.” Chapman also published a paraphrastic translation, in verse, of Petrarch’s “Seven Penitential Psalms,” with “A xHymn to Christ upon the Cross;” “The Tragedy of Al­>phonsus, emperor of Germany” “Revenge for Honour,” a tragedy and some attribute to him the “Two Wise Men,” a comedy. He is also supposed to have translated “Hesiod,” but it does not appear to have been printed.

This war being finished in less than six weeks, in the course of the year 1700, he marched against the Russians, who were then besieging Narva with 100,000 men. He attacked them with 8000, and forced them into their entrenchments. Thirty thousand were slain or drowned, 20,000 asked for quarter, and the rest were taken or dispersed. Charles permitted half the Russian soldiers to return without arms, and half to repass the river with their arms. He detained none but the commanders in chief, to whom, however, he returned their arms and their money. Among these there was an Asiatic prince, born at the foot of mount Caucasus, who was now to live captive amidst the ice of Sweden; “which,” says Charles, “is just the same as if I were some time to be a prisoner among the Crim-Tartars:” words, which the capriciousness of fortune caused afterwards to be recollected, when this Swedish hero was forced to seek an asylum in Turkey. It is to be noted, that Charles had only 1200 killed, and 800 wounded, at the battle of Narva.

, who was born August 17, 1659, at Paris, studied at the college de la Marche, and there became acquainted with M. de Seigneley, who procured him an employment in the marine. The greatest part of his life passed in voyages to the Levant, Canada, and the East Indies. In Canada he was taken prisoner by the English; he was also a prisoner in Turkey. Chasles was gay, sprightly, and loved good cheer, but yet satirical, particularly against the monks, and the constitution. He was banished from Paris to Chartres, for some of these liberties, where he was living in a sordid manner, in 1719 or 1720. He wrote “Les Illustres Francoises,” 3 vols. 12mo, containing seven histories, to which two others are added in the edition of Utrecht, 1737, 4 vols. 12mo, and of Paris, 4 vols.; but these two are much inferior to the rest. “Journal d'un Voyage fait aux Indes Orientales sur Tescadre de M. du Quesrie en 1690 et 1691,” Rouen, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo; and a sixth volume of Don Quixote. Though Chasles was an advocate, the “Diet, de Justice, Police, et Finances,”, written by Francis James Chasles, 1725, 3 vols. fol. must not be ascribed to him.

, a marshal in the French army, and a member of the French academy, and of many other literary societies, was born in 1734, of a distinguished family. His military talents raised him to the rank of brigadier-general, and he is said to have served in that capacity with great reputation in America. Of his military, however, we know less than of his literary career, which he pursued amidst all his public employments. He had early in life a strong passion for poetry and music. Many of his comedies, written for private theatres, and heard with transport, might have been equally successful on the public stages, had he had courage sufficient to make the experiment. He was an officer in the French guards in 1765, when he published his ingenious “Essay on the Union of Poetry and Music.” This essay was the consequence of a voyage into Italy, where he seems to have adopted an exclusive taste for the dramatic music of that country, as Rousseau had done before. He even adopts some of Rousseau’s ideas upon music; but in general he thinks for himself, both deeply and originally. By his reflections on the musical drama, he not only offended the musicians of France, but the lyric poets of every country; not scrupling to assert that in an opera, music, which ought to be the principal consideration, had been too long a slave to syllables; for since the cultivation of the melo-drama, it was found that music had its own language, its tropes, metaphors, colouring, movements, passions, and expression of sentiment. This little tract, for it was but a pamphlet of 90 or 100 pages, 12mo, gave birth to a long controversy in France, in which the author was supported by the abbe Arnaud, M. D'Alembert, the abb Morellet, and M. Marmontel. His chief antagonist was the author of a “Treatise on the Melo-Drama,” who, loving poetry better than music, wished to reduce the opera to a mere recitative or musical declamation. During the subsequent feuds between the Gluckists and Piccinists, the opponents of the marquis de Chastellux enlisted with the former, and his friends with the latter of these sects.

In the beginning of October 1768, the completion of the new bridge at Bristol suggested to him a fit opportunity for playing off the first of his public deceptions. This was an account of the ceremonies on opening the old bridge, said to be taken from an ancient manuscript, a copy of which he sent to Farley’s Bristol Journal, in a short letter signed Dunhelmus Bristoliensis. Such a memoir, at so critical a time, naturally excited attention; and Farley, who was called upon to give up the author, after touch inquiry, discovered that Chatterton had sent it. Chatterton was consequently interrogated, probably without much ceremony, where he had obtained it. And here his unhappy disposition shewed itself in a manner highly affecting in one so young, for he had not yet reached his sixteenth year, and according to all that can be gathered, had not been corrupted either by precept or example. “To the threats,” we are told, “of those who treated him (agreeably to his appearance) as a child, he returned nothing but haughtiness, and a refusal to give any account. By milder usage he was somewhat softened, and appeared inclined to give all the information in his power.”

But the most remarkable of his pretended discoveries issued in an application to one who was not so easily to be deceived. This \yas the celebrated Horace Walpole, the late lord Orford, who had not long before completed his “Anecdotes of Painters.” In March 1769, Chatterton, with his usual attention to the wante or prejudices of the persons on whom he wished to impose, sent Mr. Walpole a letter, offering to furnish him with accounts of a series of great painters who had flourished at Bristol, and remitted also a small specimen of poems of the same remote sera. Mr. Walpole, although he could not, as he informs us, very readily swallow “a series of great painters at Bristol,” appears to have been in some measure pleased with the offer, and discovered beauties in the verses sent. He therefore returned a polite and thankful letter, desiring farther information. From this letter Chatterton appears to have thought he had made a conquest, and therefore, in his answer, came to the direct purpose of his application. He informed his correspondent that he was the son of a poor widow, who supported him with great difficulty; that he was an apprentice to an attorney, but had a taste for more elegant studies; he affirmed that great treasures of ancient poetry had been discovered at Bristol, and were in the hands of a person who had lent him the specimen already transmitted, as well as a pastoral (“Elinoure and Juga”) which accompanied this second letter. He hinted also a wish that Mr. Walpole would assist him in emerging from so dull a profession, by procuring some place, in which he might pursue the natural bias of his genius. Mr. Walpole immediately submitted the poems to Gray and Mason, who at first sight pronounced them forgeries, on which he returned Chatterton an answer, advising him to apply to the duties of his profession, as more certain means of attaining the independence and leisure of which he was desirous. This produced a peevish letter from Chatterton, desiring the manuscripts back, as they were the property of another, and after some delay, owing to Mr. Walpole' s taking a trip to Paris, the poems were returned in a blank cover. This affront, as Chatterton considered it, he never forgave, and at this no man need wonder, who reflects how difficult it must ever be for an impostor to forgive those who have attempted to detect him.

, D. D. a learned divine of the church of England, was born about 1740 in Westminster, and educated at Westminster school, on bishop Williams’ s foundation. From that school he went to St. John’s college, Cambridge, but did not continue long there; as Dr. Freind, one of the canons of Christ church, gave him a studentship in that celebrated college. Here he resided for many years, taking his master’s degree in 1762, that of bachelor of divinity in 1772, and that of D. D. in 1773. It has been said he was for some time usher at Westminster school; but this is doubtful. At Oxford he entered into orders in. 1.762, and was presented to the college curacy of Lathbury near Newport Pagnel, and to the benefice of Badger in Shropshire, by Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq, His other and chief preferment, was the rectory of Droxford in Hampshire, given him by Dr. North, bishop of Winchester, whose chaplain he was. His learning was extensive; and his manners, though somewhat austere, were yet amiable. Bad health, however, created an unequal flow of spirits, which injured the powers of his mind towards the close of his life. He died in 1801, and was buried at Droxford. Besides some fugitive pieces without his name, and a tew occasional sermons, he wrote one of the ablest series of “Remarks on Gibbon’s Roman History,” 1772, 8vo, which Gibbon having noticed in a contemptuous manner, Dr. Chelsum answered him in a “Reply to Mr. Gibbon’s Vindication,” 1735, 8vo. The best edition of his “Remarks” was the second, published in 1773, much enlarged. Dr. Chelsum is also supposed to have had a share in the collection of papers published at Oxford under the title of “Olla Podrida,” and to have published an “Essay on the History of Mezzotinto.” As an amateur of the fine arts, he made a valuable collection of prints and gems, especially Tassie’s imitations, to whom he was an early and zealous patron.

Lord Clarendon’s character of him, however, appears superior to any given by those who had no personal knowledge of Chillingworth. “Mr. Chillingworth,” says that admirable portrait-painter, "was of a stature little superior to Mr. Hales, (and it was an age in which there were many great and wonderful men of that size) and a man of so great a subtilty of understanding, and so rare a temper in debate, that as it was impossible to provoke him into any passion, so it was very difficult to keep a man’s self from being a little discomposed by his sharpness, and quickness of argument, and instances, in which he had a rare facility, and a great advantage over all the men I ever knew. He had spent all his younger time in disputation; and had arrived to so great a mastery, as he was inferior to no man in those skirmishes; but he had, with his notable perfection in this exercise, contracted such an irresolution, and habit of doubting, that by degrees he grew confident of nothing, and a sceptic at least, in the greatest mysteries of faith.

, one of the wise men of Greece, as they are called, flourished about the first year of the fifty-sixth Olympiad, or 556 B. C. Diogenes Laertius, however, thinks he was an old man in the fifty-second olympiad. Fenelon, with his usual respect for the ancient philosophers, asserts that he was a perfect model of virtue. About the fifty-fifth olympiad, he was made one of the ephori at Lacedaemon, a dignity which counterbalanced the authority of the kings. He appears to have been superstitiously attached to divination, and stories are told of his foretelling future events, which he contended might be done by the human intellect. He died at Pisa, through excess of joy, when embracing his son, who had returned from the Olympic games, crowned as victor. He executed the offices of magistracy with so much uprightness, that in his old age, he said, that he recollected nothing in his public conduct which gave him uneasiness, except that, in one instance, he had endeavoured to screen a friend from punishment. He held, however, the selfish maxim of Pittacus, that “we ought to love as if we were one day to hate, and hate, as if we were one day to love.” The more valuable of his precepts and maxims, were: Three things are difficult: to keep a secret, to bear an injury patiently, and to spend leisure well. Visit your friend in misfortune rather than in prosperity. Never ridicule the unfortunate. Think jbefore you speak. Do not desire impossibilities. Gold is tried by the touchstone, and men are tried by gold. Honest loss is preferable to shameful gain; for by the one, a man is a sufferer but once; by the other, always. In conversation use no violent motion of the hands; in walking, do not appear to be always upon business of life or death; for rapid movements indicate a kind of phrenzy. If you are great, be condescending; for it is better to be loved then feared. Speak no evil of the dead. Re­\erence the aged. Know thyself.

Having studied medicine for some time, under Dr. Simmons, he spent two winters, attending the medical classes at Edinburgh, and afterwards travelled, in search of general knowledge, to almost every considerable town in the kingdom, where his letters of recommendation, his insatiable thirst for information, and above all, his pleasing manners, and interesting juvenile figure, procured him admission to all who were distinguished for science, and by many of the most eminent literary characters he was welcomed and encouraged as a young man of extraordinary talents. He then went to the continent for further improvement; and while he was at Paris, some advantageous offers from a mercantile house in London, induced him to resume his original pursuit, and to become a partner in that house. This journey to Paris, however, produced another effect, not quite so favourable to his future happiness. Becoming acquainted with many of the literati of France, and among them, with many of the founders of the French revolution, he espoused their principles, was an enthusiast in their cause, and seemed to devote more attention, more stretch of mind, to the study and support of the revolutionary measures adopted in that country, than was consistent with the sober pursuits of commerce. This enthusiasm, in which it must be confessed he was at that time not singular, produced in 1790, “A Sketch of the New Constitution of France,” in two folio sheets; and in 1791, he enlisted himself among the answerers of Mr. Burke’s celebrated “Reflections,” in “Letters on the Revolution of France, and the new Constitution established by the National Assembly,” a large 8vo volume, which was to have been followed by a second; but the destruction of that constitution, the anarchy which followed, and the disappointment of his, and the hopes of all the friends of liberty, probably prevented his prosecuting the subject. In 1792, having dissolved partnership with the mercantile-house above alluded to, he became a partner in the carpet-manufactory of Messrs. Moore and Co. in Finsbury- square but in 1796, some necessary arrangements of trade induced him to take a voyage to Surinam, where he died in the prime of life in October of that year.

, whose family name was Kochhafe, or Rochhafe, was an eminent Lutheran divine, and a promoter of the reformation. He was born at Ingelsing in Suabia, in 1530, of parents who, discerning his capacity, bestowed much pains on his education, and in his ninth year sent him to Tubingen, where he was placed under the ablest masters. Such was his proficiency that he was soon after admitted into the university of that place, and at the age of fifteen took his master’s degree with the greatest credit. He then went to Wittemberg, and studied under Melancthon, who expressed himself surprised at his having so early attained academic honours, and received him into his house. There also he heard some of Luther’s lectures. After Luther’s death, and the interruption which the wars occasioned to the university of Wittemberg, Chytreeus went to Heidelberg, where he studied Hebrew, and to Tubingen, where he took some lessons in mathematics; but prince Maurice having restored the university of Wittemberg, and recalled Melancthon, Chytraeus went back also, and completed his theological course. In 1548, having raised some money by private teaching, he visited a considerable part of Italy, and on his return was invited to become one of the professors of the university of Rostock, where he acquired such reputation for learning, that various offers were made to him by the princes of Germany, and by the universities, all which he declined; and yet when prince John Albert offered to increase his stipend as an inducement for him to remain at Rostock, he refused to accept it. He travelled, however, occasionally during his residence here to such places as he was invited to assist the reformation, or to give advice in founding schools and colleges, but always returned in time for his regular courses of lectures; and amidst his many public employments, found leisure to write a great many works on subjects of theology, philology, and history, which extended his fame, he died June 25, 1600. His principal works are, a commentary on the Revelations, and “C|ironologia historice lierodoti et Thucydidis,” Strasburgh, 1563, 8vq; “Chroniconanni 1593, 1594, etinitii 1595,” Leipsic, 1595, 8vo. We have also, written by his son, “Vita D. Chytraei memoriae posteritatis orationibus et carminibus consecrata,” Rostock, 1601, 4to. There is an edition of his whole works, printed at Hanover, 1604, 2 vols. folio but'Freytag gives the preference to the life of Chytvoeus, written by Otto Frederic Schurzius, under the title “De vitaD. Chytrasi commentariorum libri quatuor, ex editis et ineditis monumentis ita conpinnata, ut sit annalium instar et supplementorum pist_ Eccles. seculi XVI. speciatim rerum in Lutherana ecclesia et academia Rostochiensi gestarum,” IJamtmrgh, 1720 1728, 4 vols. 8vo, Of so much importance was Chytncus above a century after his death, that hi$ personal history was thought a proper foundation and connecting medium, for a general history of the Lutheran church,

, poet-laureat to George II. and a dramatic writer of considerable genius, was born in Southampton-street, London, November 6, 1671. His father, Caius Gabriel Cibber, was an eminent statuary, and his mother was the daughter of William Colley, esq. of an ancient family of Glaiston, in Rutland. He took his Christian name from her brother, Edward Colley, esq. In 1681—2 he was sent to the free-school of Grantham, in Lincolnshire and such learning he tells us, as that school could give him, is the most he ever pretended to, neither utterly forgetting, nor much improving it afterwards by study. In 1687 he stood at the election of Winchester scholars, upon the credit of being descended by his mother’s side from William of Wykeham, the founder; but not succeeding, he prevailed with his father, who intended him for the church, to send him to the university. The revolution of 1688, however, gave a turn to Cibber’s fortune; and instead of going to an university, he supplied his father’s place in the army, under the earl of Devonshire, at Nottingham, who was on his road to Chatsworth, in Derbyshire. There his father was then employed, with other artists of all kinds, changing the architecture and decorations of that seat. The revolution having been accomplished without bloodshed, Cibber had no opportunity of proving his valour, and immediately determined to gratify a very early inclination he had somehow formed for the stage. Here, however, he did not meet with much encouragement at first, being full three quarters of a year before he was taken into a salary of 105. per week; yet this, with the assistance of food and raiment at his father’s house, he tells us he then thought a most plentiful accession, and himself the happiest of mortals. The first part in which he appeared with any success, was the chaplain in the “Orphan,” which he performed so well, that Goodman, an old celebrated actor, affirmed with an oath, that he would one day make a good actor. This commendation from an acknowledged judge, filled his bosom, as he tells us, with such transports, that he questioned whether Alexander himself, or Charles XII. of Sweden, felt greater at the head of their victorious armies. The next part he played, was that of Lord Touchwood, in Congreve’s “Double Dealer,” acted before queen Mary which he prepared upon only one day’s notice, by the recommendation of the author, and so well, that Congreve declared he had not only answered, but exceeded his expectations; and from the character he gave of him, his salary was raised from 15s. a week, as it then stood, to 20s. The part of Fondlewife, in the “Old Batchelor,” was the next in which he distinguished himself.

As a philosopher, he rather related the opinions of others than advanced any new doctrines of his own conceptions. He attached himself chiefly to the Academic sect, but did not neglect to inform himself of the doctrines of other sects, and discovered much learning and ingenuity in refuting their dogmas. He was an admirer of the doctrine of the stoics concerning natural equity and civil law, and adopted their ideas concerning morals, although not with servility. The sect to which he was most averse was the Epicurean, but upon the whole, from the general cast of his writings, the Academic sect was best suited to his natural disposition. Through all his philosophical works, he paints in lively colours, and with all the graces of fine writing, the opinions of philosophers; and relates, in the diffuse manner of an orator, the arguments on each side of the question in dispute; but we seldom find him diligently examining the exact weight of evidence in the scale of reason, carefully deducing accurate conclusions from certain principles, or exhibiting a series of arguments in a close and systematic arrangement. On the contrary, we frequently hear him declaiming eloquently, instead of reasoning conclusively, and meet with unequivocal proofs, that he was better qualified to dispute on either side with the Academics, than to decide upon the question with the Dogmatists, and therefore appears rather to have been a warm admirer and an elegant memorialist of philosophy, than himself to have merited a place in the first order of philosophers. The editions of Cicero’s works, in whole, or in parts, are far too numerous to be specified in this place. We may, however, notice among the most curious or valuable: 1. his whole works, first edition, by Minutianus, Milan, 1498—1499, 4 vols. fol. of great rarity and price 2. By Paul Manutius, Venice, 1540 4to 10 vols. 8vo; 3. By R, Stephens, Paris, 1543, 8 vols. 8vo 4. By Lambinus, Paris, 1566, 2 vols. fol.; 5. Elzivir, Leyden, 1642, 10 vols. 8vo; 6. Gronovius, 11 vols. 12mo, and 4 vols. 4to; 7. Verburgius, Amst. 1724, 2 voLs. fol.; 4 vols. 4to; 8. Ernest, Leipsic, 1774, 8 vols. 8vo 9. Olivet, Paris, 1740, 9 vols. 4to; Geneva, 1758, 9 vols. and Oxford, 1783, 10 vols. 4to; 10. Foulis, Glasgow, 1749, 20 vols. 12mo; 11. Lallemande, Paris, 1768, 12 vols. 12mo. For his separate pieces we must refer to Dibdin and Clarke. Most of his productions have been translated into various languages, and several into English, by Melmoth, Guthrie, Jones, and others. Melmoth, as well as Middleton, has written a life of Cicero, both with some degree of partiality, but with great ability.

, nephew to Nicolas Cirillo, a Neapolitan physician of considerable eminence, was born at Naples in 1730, and liberally educated. His principal study was medicine, as a profession but his inclination led him more particularly to natural history and at the age of thirty he was appointed botanical professor at Naples. In 1761, he published his “Introductio ad Botanicam,” which in the then state of botany was considered as a useful book. In the mean time, his knowledge of the English language made him be consulted by all visitors from that nation, and among others by lady Walpole, who engaged him to accompany her to England, as her travelling physician; and here he attended Dr. Hunter’s, and probably other medical lectures. On his return he published his “Nosologiae methodicse rudimenta,” 1780; and in 1784 another work, “De essentialibus nonnullarum plantarum characteribus,” which was followed by other botanical treatises, learned, but badly written, his Latin and Italian style being both ungrammatical and uncouth. His most splendid work was an account of the “Papyrus,” printed by Bodoni in 1796, and this was his last. He soon caught the delusion of French liberty; and when the French army entered Naples, he not only joined them, but was appointed a functionary, for which treasoiij on the restoration of the lawful government, he was executed in 1799.

Soon after Dr. Clayton’s marriage, he went with his lady to England, and while at London, a person in distressed circumstances applied to him for assistance, with the testimony of Dr. Samuel Clarke for a recommendation, upon which, instead of the usual donation on such occasions, he gave to the necessitous man the sum of three hundred pounds, which was the whole that he wanted to make him easy in the world. This circumstance introduced him to Dr. Clarke, and the result of their acquaintance was, Dr. Clayton’s embracing the Arian principles, to which he adhered during the remainder of his life. Dr. Clarke having carried to queen Caroline an account of Dr. Clayton’s remarkable beneficence, it made a powerful impression on her majesty’s mind in favour of his character; which impression was strongly enforced by her bed-chamber woman, Mrs. Clayton, afterwards lady Sundon. Such a powerful interest procured an immediate recommendation to lord Carteret, then chief governor of Ireland, for the very first bishopric tbat should become vacant, and accordingly, he was advanced to that of Killala, January 1729-30. In this situation he continued till November 1735, when he was translated to the see of Cork, and in 1745 to that of Clogher. Excepting a letter written to the royal society upon a subject of no great consequence, his first publication was an “Introduction to the History of the Jews,” which was afterwards translated into French, and printed at Leyden. His next work was “The Chronology of the Hebrew Bible vindicated: the facts compared with other ancient histories, and the difficulties explained, from the flood to the death of Moses; together with some conjectures in relation to Egypt during that period of time; also two maps, in which are attempted to be settled the journeyings of the children of Israel,” 1747, 4to, and containing a variety of observations which deserve the attention of the learned reader. In 1749 he published a “Dissertation on Prophecy,” in which he endeavoured to shew, from a joint comparison of the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Revelation of St. John, that the final end of the dispersion of the Jews will be coincident with the ruin of the popedom, and take place about 2000. This was followed by an “Impartial Enquiry into the time of the coming of the Messiah,” in two letters to an eminent Jew, printed first separately, and then together, in 1751. In the same year (1751), appeared the “Essay on Spirit,” a performance which excited very general attention, and was productive of a fruitful controversy. Its object was to recommend the Arian doctrine of the inferiority of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to prepare the way for suitable alterations in the Liturgy. His biographer, who is at the same time his warm panegyrist, allows that in this performance he has indulged too freely in imagination and conjecture; and that he might have confined the question with greater advantage to the direct and simple standard of Scripture. The work, after all, was not Dr. Clayton’s, but one of his adoption, the real authoi being a young clergyman in his diocese, who shewed the manuscript to his lordship, but had not the courage to print it in his own name. The bishop, with what is called a romantic generosity, conveyed it to the press, and managed the affair in such a manner, that the treatise was universally ascribed to him in all the attacks to which it was exposed, and the sentiments certainly were his. One effect of this conduct was, his being prevented from rising higher in the church. In 1752, he was recommended by the duke of Dorset, then viceroy of Ireland, to the vacant archbishopric of Tuam, but this was refused, solely on account of his being regarded as the writer of the Essay.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher, of the stoical sect, son of Phanias, and disciple of Zeno, was born at. Assus in Lydia, 33<J B. C. He subsisted by drawing water during the night, that he might pursue his studies by day. Being cited before the areopagus to declare how he gained his livelihood, he brought with him a gardener and a country-woman, saying that he drew water for the one, and kneaded dough for the other. The judges were ordering him a present; but Cleanthes refused to accept of it. This philosopher was for many years so poor, that he was obliged to write the heads of his master’s lectures upon shells and bones, for want of money to buy paper. But, notwithstanding all his poverty, he persevered in the study of philosophy, and remained a pupil of Zeno nineteen years. His natural faculties were slow; but resolution and perseverance enabled him to overcome every difficulty; and he at last became so complete a master of the stoic system, that he was perfectly qualified to succeed Zeno in his school. His fellow disciples often ridiculed him for his dulness, by calling him an ass; but he took no other notice of the sarcasm, than by saying in his defence, that if he was an ass, he was the better able to bear the burthen of Zeno’s doctrine. Being reproved for his timidity, he replied, “It is to this quality that I am indebted for my innocence.” Though he was not of the school of Arcesilaus, when he heard him condemned for undermining by his doctrine the foundations of virtue, he candidly apologized for him, by remarking, that though he might seem an enemy to virtue in his discourses, he showed himself her friend in his conduct. Arcesilaus being informed of the handsome apology which Cleanthes had made for him, said to him, “You know how much I dislike flattery; why will you flatter me?” “Is it then flattery,” replied Cleanthes, “to say of you, that you speak one thing, and do another?” Cleanthes frequently advised his pupils to conceive of pleasure, as a deity sitting on her throne, attended by the virtues, who are ready on every occasion to whisper in her ear, “Do nothing which will occasion pain or grief 'to yourself or others.” A friend observing him silent in company, said, “One would think, Cleanthes, from your silence, that you took no pleasure in conversing with your friends” Cleanthes replied, “It is because I know the value of this pleasure, that I am silent for I wish my friends to enjoy it as well as myself.” The reason which he assigned for the superiority of former philosophers above the present was, that formerly philosophers studied things, whereas now they study only words. When he was old, he still retained the entire use of his faculties, and often said, that he should always think life worth preserving as long as he should be able to write and "study. Long after his death; which happened in his ninetieth year, the Roman senate paid respect to his memory, by ordering a statue to be erected in honour of him at Assus.

, an eminent father of the church in the end of the second and beginning of the third century, was an Athenian, or according to others an Alexandrian on which account he is usually called Clemens Alexandrines, by way of distinguishing him from Clemens Romanus. When Pantsenus was sent by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, to preach the gospel to the Indians, at th6 request of their ambassadors, about the year 191 Clemens succeeded him in the catechetical school. He acquitted himself admirably well in this employment, and had many eminent pupils, as Origen and Alexander bishop of Jerusalem. Clemens’s method of instructing the catechumens is said to have been this. He pointed out to them, and explained all that was good in the pagan philosophy; and then led them on insensibly to Christianity. In his philosophic character, which he too much preserved, he was an eclectic; that is, not attached to any particular sect of philosophers, but a selector of what he thought good and sound in them all.

When the season for military operations was over, the troops remained at St. David’s, and before the return of spring they received news of a cessation of hostilities between Great Britain and France. Still, however, the sense of ancient rivalship. the reciprocal aggravation of recent injuries, an opposition of interests, a mutual confidence in strength, seemed to animate both nations to a renewal of the war. The dominions of the rajah of Tanjore had at that time been claimed by his brother, with a declaration that he, though deposed by his subjects, was their rightful sovereign; and that the reigning rajah was an usurper. The English of St. David’s, convinced by these allegations, determined to espouse the cause of the deposed rajah. They resolved to begin their attack upon a fort of the rajah’s, called Devi Cdtah. On their advance, rinding the approaches difficult, and the ramparts covered with innumerable forces, they were at first deterred from their enterprize. Clive, however, insisted that the attempt, though dangerous, was not hazardous. He thought the town might easily b$ taken by storm; recommending only to advance the cannons in the night, as by them the gates might be effectually destroyed. Captain Cope, the commander, refused to listen to the advice, as too desperate; till, after having exhausted his ammunition by a fruitless cannonade, he was compelled to retreat to Fort St. David’s. The disgrace of this discomfiture; its pernicious influence upon their trade 5 and the exultation of their common enemy the French, induced the English once more to attempt the reduction of Devi Cotah. The command of this expedition was entrusted to major Lawrence, an officer at that time but little known, but who was afterwards distinguished for his abilities in the service. As a breach was made in the walls, Clive, who then possessed only the rank of a lieutenant, solicited the command of the forlorn hope. Lawrence, willing to preserve him from so dangerous a station, told him the service did not then fall in his turn. Clive replied, that knowing it did not, he came rather to ask it as a favour, than to demand it as a right; but that on such an occasion he hoped the request of a volunteer would not be rejected. Major Lawrence consented; and Clive, in consequence of his appointment to the command of thirty-four British soldiers and seven hundred Sepoys, was ordered to storm the breach. Accord, ingly they led the way; but in passing a rivulet between the camp and the fort, four of the English fell by the fire of the enemy. The Sepoys were alarmed, and halted as soon as they had passed the stream but the English persevered, and, advancing closely upon the breach, presented their musquets, when a party of horse, which had been concealed in the tower, rushed upon their rear, and killed twenty-six. Clive, by stepping aside, escaped a stroke which had been aimed at him by oqe of the horse as they passed him. He ran towards the rivulet, and, having passed, had the good fortune to join the Sepoys. Of the whole fouj>and- thirty, himself and three others were all that were left alive. Major Lawrence, seeing the disaster, commanded all the Europeans to advance. Clive still marched in the first division. The horse renewed their attack, but were repulsed with such slaughter that the garrison, dismayed at the sight, gave way as the English approached the breach, and, flying through the opposite gate, abandoned the town to the victors. Alarmed at the success of the English, the rajah sent them overtures of peace; to which, on condition that a settlement should be made on his rival, and the fort of Devi Cutah, with the adjoining district, be ceded to the company, the English readily agreed.

, an eminent French lawyer, was born at Paris June 10, 1687, and admitted a counsellor in 1706, in the grand council, where he acquired such reputation, that at the age of thirty, he was looked upon as one of the ablest canonists, and he now determined, with the advice of his friends and clients, to plead in the parliament. He was heard there with universal applause, and, from that time till his death, there was scarce any affair of importance at the palace but the public crowded to hear him, and returned convinced that M. Cochin possessed all the extraordinary talents which characterise a great orator. He was consulted from every part of the kingdom, and never ceased to serve the public by his assiduous and unremitted labours. He died at Paris, after several attacks of an apoplexy, February 24, 1747, aged 60. His works were published at Paris, 1751, and the following year, 6 vols. 4to, with his life. These, however, have not preserved his reputation undiminished; and M. la Cretelle, in along article on them in the French Mercure for April 1782, concludes with asserting that Cochin was an advocate of great merit, but a genius of the second order. This sen*­tence, however, seems in some measure to proceed from an opinion that no man can be a genius who does not introduce novelties in his profession. France has unfortunately abounded of late years in such geniuses.

, a learned English monk and Jiistorian, lived Jn the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He was of the Cistercian order, and was esteemed a man of uncommon knowledge for his time. The surname under which we here place this article, was given him from the abbey over which he presided. The principal work of his which is come down to us, is a chronicle of the Holy Land; and it is so much the more valuable, as he was an eye-witness of the facts he relates. He was at Jerusalem, and was even wounded there, during the siege of that city by Saladin. It is thought that he died in 1228. This chronicle was published in 1729, by the fathers Martenne and Durand, in the fifth volume of the “Amplissima collectio veterum scriptorum et monumentorum,” &c. In this volume are likewise two other works of the same author; the first entitled “Chronicon Anglicanum ab anno 1066 ad annum 1200;” and the second, “Libellus de motibus Anglicanis sub Johanne rege.” Some of his Mss. are in our public libraries.

In 1767, after resigning Bletchley, he went into a hired house at Waterbeche, and continued there two years, while a house was fitting for him at Milton, a small village on the Ely road, near Cambridge, where he passed the remainder of his days, and from which he became familiarly distinguished as “Cole of Milton.” In May 1771, by lord Montfort’s favour, he was put into the commission o-f the peace for the town of Cambridge. In 1772, bishop Keene, without any solicitation, sent Mr. Cole an offer oif the vicarage of Maddingley, about seven miles from Milton, which, for reasons of convenience, he civilly declined, but has not spoken so civilly of that prelate in his ts Atbenae/' He was, however, instituted by Dr. Green, bishop ef Lincoln, to the vicarage of Burnham, in Buckinghamshire, on the presentation of Eton college, June 10, 1774, void by the cession of his uterine brother, Dr. Apthorp. He still, however, resided at Milton, where he died Dec. 16, 1782, in his sixty-eighth year, his constitution having been shattered and worn down by repeated attacks of the gout. Mr. Cole was an antiquary almost from the cradle, and had in his boyish days made himself acquainted with those necessary sciences, heraldry and architecture. He says, the first “essay of his antiquarianism” was taking a copy both of the inscription and tomb of Ray, the naturalist, in 1734; but it appears that, when he was at Eton school, he used during the vacations to copy, in trick, arms from the painted windows of churches, particularly Baberham iii Cambridgeshire, and Moulton in Lincolnshire* Yet, although he devoted his whole life to topography and biography, he did not aspire to any higher honour than that of a collector of information for the use of others, and certainly was liberal and communicative to his contemporaries, and so partial to every attempt to illustrate our English antiquities, that he frequently offered his services, where delicacy and want of personal knowledge would have perhaps prevented his being consulted.

The descriptions which are given of his person and character are much to his advantage. He was a tall, comely, graceful, well-bred man; and of uncommon learning and piety. In his writings his style was plain and unaffected; and for rhetoric he had rather a contempt, than a want of it. He could not bear that the standard of good writing should be taken from the exact rules of grammar; which, he often said, was apt to obstruct a purity of language, not to be obtained but by reading the best authors. This contempt of grammar, though making him sometimes inaccurate, and, as we have observed, laying him open to the critics, did not hinder him from attaining a very masterly style; so that his preaching, though popular, and adapted to mean capacities, was agreeable to men of wit and learning, and in particular was much admired by sir Thomas More. With regard to some of his notions, he was an eminent forerunner of the reformation; and he and Erasmus jointly promoted it, not only by pulling down those strong holds of ignorance and corruption, the scholastic divinity, and entirely routing both the Scotists and Thomists, who had divided the Christian world between them, but also by discovering the shameful abuses of monasteries, and the folly and danger of imposing celibacy upon the clergy; to which places he gave little or nothing while he lived, and left nothing when he died. Colet thought immorality in a priest more excusable than pride and avarice; and was with no sort of men more angry than with those bishops who, instead of shepherds, acted the part of wolves, and who, under the pretence of devotions, ceremonies, benedictions, and indulgences, recommended themselves to the veneration of the people, while in their hearts they were slaves to filthy lucre. He condemned auricular confession; and was content to say mass only upon Sundays and great festivals, or at least upon very few days besides. He had gathered up several authorities from the ancient fathers against the current tenets and customs of the church; and though he did not openly oppose the established religion, yet he shewed a particular kindness and favour to those who disliked the worshiping of images. As to his moral qualities, he was a man of exemplary temperance, and all other virtues: and is so represented by his intimate friend Erasmus, in an epistle to Jodocus Jonas, where the life, manners, and qualifications of Colet are professedly described.

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

, an engraver and print-seller of Antwerp, of the sixteenth century, is said to have received the first instructions in his art, in the place of his nativity; after which he repaired to Italy to complete his studies. He contributed not a little, by his assiduity, and the facility of his graver, to the numberless sets of prints of sacred stones, huntings, landscapes, flowers, fish, &c. with which the states of Germany and Flanders were at that time inundated. Many of these are apparently from his own designs, and others from Martin de Vos, Theodore Bernard, P. Breughel, John Stradanus, Hans Bol, and other masters. His style of engraving is at the same time masterly and neat, and his knowledge of drawing appears to have been considerable; but his prints partake of the defects of his contemporaries, his masses of light and shade being too much scattered, and too equally powerful. The following are amongst his numerous performances. The “Life of Christ in 36 small prints.” “The twelve months, small circles from H. Bol.” “The women of Israel chanting the psalm of praise, after the destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea.” This artist flourished according to Strutt and Heinecken about 1530 1550. His son, Hans or John, was an excellent draughtsman and engraver. He studied some time in Rome, and afterwards settled in his native place, Antwerp, where he assisted his father in most of his great works; and afterwards published a prodigious number of prints of his own, nowise inferior to those of Adrian. The works attributed by some to one Herman Coblent, are, by Heinecken, supposed to be by this master. His prints, according to Strutt, are dated from 1555 to 1622, so that he must have lived to a great age. We shall only notice the following amongst his numerous performances “The Life of St. Francis in 16 prints lengthways, surrounded by grotesque borders.” “Time and Truth,” a small upright print beautifully engraved, from J. Stradanus “The Last Judgment,” a large print, encompassed with small stories of the life of Christ. M. Heinecken mentions a print by an artist, who signs himself William Collaert, and supposes him the son of John Collaert.

, was an ingenious botanist, whose family is of ancient standing in the north. Peter and James were the great grandsons of Peter Collinson, who lived on his paternal estate called Hugal-Hall, or Height of Hugal, near Windermere Lake, in the parish of Stavely, about ten miles from Kendal in Westmoreland. Peter, who vvus born Jan. 14, 1693-4, whilst a youth, discovered his attachment to natural history. He began early to make a collection of dried specimens of plants; had access to the best gardens at that time in the neighbourhood of London; and became early acquainted with the most eminent naturalists of his time; the doctors Derham, Woodward, Dale, Lloyd, and Sloane, were amongst his friends. Among the great variety of articles which form, that superb collection, now (by the wise disposition of sir Hans Sloane and the munificence of parliament) the British Museum, small was the number of those with whose history Collinson was not well acquainted, he being one of those few who visited sir Hans at all times familiarly; their inclinations and pursuits in respect to natural history being the same, a firm friendship had early been established between, them. Peter Collinson was elected F. R. S. Dec. 12, 1728 and perhaps was one of the most diligent and useful members, not only in supplying them with many curious observations, but in promoting and preserving a most extensive correspondence with learned and ingenious foreigners, in all countries, and on every useful subject. Besides his attention to natural history, he minuted every striking hint that occurred either in reading or conversation; and from this source he derived much information, as there were very few men of learning and ingenuity, who were not of his acquaintance at home; and most foreigners of eminence in natural history, or in arts and sciences, were recommended to his notice and friendship. His diligence and economy of time was such, that though he never appeared to be in a hurry, he maintained an extensive correspondence with great punctuality; acquainting the learned and ingenious in distant parts of the globe, with the discoveries and improvements in natural history in this country, and receiving the like information from the most eminent persons in almost every other. His correspondence with the ingenious Cadwallader Golden, esq, of NewYork, and the celebrated Dr. Franklin of Philadelphia, furnish instances of the benefit resulting from his attention to all improvements. The latter of these gentlemen communicated his first essays on electricity to Collinson, in a series of letters, which were then published, and have been reprinted in a late edition of the doctor’s works. Perhaps, at the present period, the account procured of the management of sheep in Spain, published in the Gentleman’s Magazine for May and June 1764, may not be considered among the least of the benefits accruing from his extensive and inquisitive correspondence. His conversation, cheerful and usefully entertaining, rendered his acquaintance much desired by those who had a relish for natural history, or were studious in cultivating rural improvements; and secured him the intimate friendship of some of the most eminent personages in this kingdom, as distinguished by their taste in planting and horticulture, as by their rank and dignity. He was the first who introduced the great variety of trees and shrubs, which are now the principal ornaments of every garden; and it was owing to his indefatigable industry, that so many persons of the first distinction are now enabled to behold groves transplanted from the Western continent flourishing so luxuriantly in their several domains, as if they were already become indigenous to Britain. He had some correspondents in almost every nation in Europe; some in Asia, and even at Pekin, who all transmitted to him the most valuable seeds they could collect, in return for the treasures of America. Linnæus, during his residence in England, contraded an intimate friendship with Mr. Collinson, which was reciprocally increased by a multitude of good offices, and continued to the last. Besides his attachment to natural history, he was very conversant in the antiquities of our own country, having been elected F. S. A. April 7, 1737; and he supplied the society with many curious articles of intelligence, and observations respecting both our own and other countries. In the midst of all these engagements, he was a mercer by trade, and lived at the Red Lion, in Gracechurch-street. His person was rather short than tall; he had a pleasing and social aspect; of a temper open and communicative, capable of feeling for distress, and ready to relieve and sympathize. Excepting some attacks of the gout, he enjoyed, in general, perfect health and great equality of spirits, and had arrived at his 75th year; when, being on a visit to lord Petre, for whom he had a singular regard, he was seized with a total suppression of urine, which, baffling every attempt to relieve it, proved fatal Aug. 11, 1768. Mr. Collinson left behind him many materials for the improvement of natural history; and the present refined taste of horticulture may in some respects be attributed to his industry and abilities. He married, in 1724, Mary, the daughter of Michael Russell, esq. of Mill Hill, with whom he lived very happily till her death, in 1753. He left issue a son, named Michael, who resided at Mill Hill, and died Aug. 11, 1795, whose son is still living; and a daughter, Mary, married to the late John Cator, esq. of Beckenham, in Kent. Both his children inherited much of the taste and amiable disposition of their father.

Comenius became at last sensible of the vanity of his labours, as we learn from the book he published in 1668 at Amsterdam, entitled “Unius necessarii,” or “Of the one thing needful;” in which he acquaints us also with the resolution he had made, of employing all his future thoughts wholly on his salvation, and this he probably kept. He died at Amsterdam, 1671, in his eightieth year. Had he lived much longer, he would have seen the falsity of his prophecies with regard to the millennium, which he affirmed would begin in 1672, or 1673. Whatever mortification Comenius must have felt on the score of his prophecies, his enemies have brought more serious charges against him. He was first reproached with having done great prejudice to his brethren, who were banished with him from Moravia. Most of them had fled from their country with considerable sums of money; but, instead of being ceconomists, they squandered it away in a short time, because Comenius prophesied they should return to their country immediately, and thus they were very soon reduced to beggary. He was also accused of having been the cause of the plundering and burning of Lesna, where his brethren had found an asylum, by the panegyric he made so unseasonably upon Charles Gustavus of Sweden, when he invaded Poland. Comenius proclaimed him in a prophetic manner to be the immediate destroyer of popery; by which the protestants of Poland became extremely odious to the Roman catholics of that kingdom. He did not seem to be undeceived when the king of Sweden turned his arms against Denmark; for he made him a second panegyric, wherein he congratulated him no less on this new invasion than he had done upon the former. But whatever credit the protestants of Lesna might give to Comenius, that city was surprised and burnt by the Polish army; on which occasion Comenius lost his house, his furniture, and his library; a proof that, if he was an impostor, he had first deceived himself. Part of his apocalyptic treatises, and some other pieces relating to his Pansophia, escaped the flames; he having just time to cover them, in a hole under ground, from which they were taken ten days after the fire but his “Lexicon Bobemicum,” a work which baron Born conceives would have been of the highest utility, was totally destroyed. On this he had spent above forty years of his life.

While this matter was in dependence, the princess of Orange thought it became her to interpose in the bishop’s favour; and wrote to the king, earnestly begging him to be gentle tp the bishop, who she could not think would offend willingly. She also wrote to the bishop, expressing the great share she took in the trouble he was fallen into; as did also the prince. The king wrote an answer to the princess, reflecting severely on the bishop, not without some sharpness on her for meddling in such matters. The bishop in the mean time acquiesced in his sentence; but being suspended only as a bishop, and remaining still whole in his other capacities, he made another stand against the king, as one of the governors of the Charter-house, in refusing to admit one Andrew Popham, a papist, into the first pensioner’s place in that hospital. While he was thus sequestered from his episcopal office, he applied himself to the improvement of his garden at Fulham; and having a great genius -for botany, enriched it with a variety of curious plants, domestic and exotic*. His suspension, however, was so flagrant a piece of arbitrary power, that the prince of Orange, in his declaration, could not omit taking notice of it; and when there was an alarm of his highness’s coming over, the court was willing to make the bishop reparation, by restoring him, as they did on Sept. 23, 1688, to his episcopal function. But he made no haste to resume his charge, and to thank the king for his restoration; which made some conjecture, and, as appeared afterwards with good reason, that he had no mind to be restored in that manner, and that he knew well enough what had been doing in Holland. On Oct. 3, 1688, however, he waited upon king James, with the archbishop of Canterbury, and seven other bishops, when they suggested to his majesty such advice as they thought conducive to his interest, but this had no effect. The first part the bishop acted in the revolution, which immediately ensued, was the conveying, jointly with the earl of Dorset, the princess Anne of Denmark safe from London to Nottingham; lest she, in the present confusion of affairs, might have been sent away into France, or put under restraint, because the prince, heir consort, had left king James, and was gone over to the prince of Orange.

, an eminent French philosopher and mathematician, was born at Ribemont in Pirardy, three leagues from Saint-Quintin and De la Fere, September 17, 1743, of a very ancient family. At the age of fifteen he was sent to study philosophy at the college of Navarre, under Giraud de Keroudon, who has since distinguished himself by several scientific works, and was an able teacher of mathematics. During the first year of his residence there, young Condorcet exhibited but little relish for the metaphysical questions relative to the nature of ideas, of sensations, and of memory, but in the course of the following year, mathematics and natural philosophy decided his future vocation; and although he had more than one hundred and twenty fellow-students, he acquired a greater portion of fame than any of them. At Easter he supported a public thesis, at which Clairaut, D'Alembert, and Fontaine, the first geometricians of France, assisted; and his conduct on this occasion obtained their approbation. After his course of philosophy was finished, he returned to his family, but still continued to cultjrate geometry; and his attachment to it carried him back to Paris in 1762, where he lived with his old professor, in order to have more frequent opportunities of indulging his ruling passion. He at the same time attended the chemical lectures of Macquer and Beaume, and soon distinguished himself among the geometricians.

, an English officer and statesman, the second son of Francis, first lord Conway, was born in 1720, and appeared first in public life in 1741 as one of the knights for the county of Antrim, in the parliament of Ireland; and in the same year was elected for Higham Ferrers, to sit in the ninth parliament of Great Britain. He was afterwards chosen for various other places from 1754 to 1780, when he represented St. Edmund’s Bury. In 1741 he was constituted captain-lieutenant in the “first regiment of foot-guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel; and in April 1746, being then aid-de-camp to the duke of Cumberland, he got the command of the xorty-eighth regiment of foot, and the twenty-ninth in July 1749. He was constituted colonel of the thirteenth regiment of dragoons in December 1751, which he resigned upon being appointed colonel of the first, or royal regiment of dragoons, Septembers, 1759. In January 1756 he was advanced to the rank of major-general; in March 1759, to that of lieutenant-general; in May 1772, to that of general; and in October 12, 1793, to that of field marshal. He served with reputation in his several military capacities, and commanded the British forces in Germany, under prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, in 1761, during the absence of the marquis of Granby. He was one of the grooms of the bed-chamber to George II. and likewise to his present majesty till April 1764, when, at the end of the session of parliament, he resigned that office and his military commands, or, more properly speaking, was dismissed for voting against the ministry in the question of general warrants. His name, however, was continued in the list of the privy counsellors in Ireland; and William, the fourth duke of Devonshire, to whom he had been secretary when the duke was viceroy in Ireland, bequeathed him at his death, in 1764, a legacy of 5000l. on account of his conduct in parliament. On the accession of the Rockingham administration in 1765, he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed joint- secretary of state with the duke of Grafton, which office he resigned in January 1768. In February following, he was appointed colonel of the fourth regiment of dragoons; in October 1774, colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and in October 1772, governor of the island of Jersey. On March 30, 1782, he was appointed commander in chief of his majesty’s forces, which he resigned in December 1783. He died at his seat at Park-place, near Henley upon Thames, July 9, 1795. General Conway was an ingenious man, of considerable abilities, but better calculated to be admired in the private and social circle, than to shine as a great public character. In politics, although we believe conscientious, he was timid and wavering. He had a turn for literature, and some talent for poetry, and, if we mistake not, published, but without his name, one or two political pamphlets. In his old age he aspired to the character of a dramatic writer, producing in 1789, a play, partly from the French, entitled” False Appearances," which was not, however, very successful. His most intimate friend appears to have been the late lord Orford, better known as Horace Walpole, who was his cousin, and addressed to him a considerable part of those letters which form the fifth volume of his lordship’s works. This correspondence commenced in 1 7-1-0, when Walpole was twenty-three years old, and Mr. Couway twenty. They had gone abroad together with the celebrated poet Gray in 1739, had spent three months together at Rheims, and afterwards separated at Geneva. Lord Orford’s letters, although evidently prepared for the press, evince at least a cordial and inviolable friendship for his correspondent, of which also he gave another proof in 3 letter published in defence of general Couway when dismissed from his offices; and a testimony of affection yet more decided, in bequeathing his fine villa of Strawberry Hill to Mrs. Darner, general Con way’s daughter, for her life.

, a learned divine and prelate of the church of England, was born at Pinhoe, near Exeter, on the 31st of January, 1691-2. His father was the rev. John Conybeare, vicar of Pinhoe; and his mother, Grace Wilcocks, was the daughter of a substantial gentleman farmer of that place. At a proper age, he was sent to the free-school of Exeter for grammatical education, where Hallet and Foster, afterwards two eminent dissenting divines, were his contemporaries. On the 23d of February, 1707-8, Mr. Conybeare was admitted a battler of Exeter college, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Kennel, afterwards Dr. Kennel, many years rector of Drew’s Teington, Pevon. Mr. Conybeare, on his coming to the university, was, according to the language of that place, chum with Mr. Richard Harding, who was elected fellow of Exeter college in 1709, and died rector of Marwood in Devonshire, in 1782, in the ninety-fifth year of his age. How early our young student obtained the esteem of the learned society with which he was connected, appears from his having been chosen on the 30th of June, 1710, and admitted on the 8th of July following, a probationary fellow of his college, upon sir William Petre’s foundation, in the room of Mr. Daniel Osborrie. When he was proposed as a candidate, it was only with the design of recommending him to future notice; but such was the sense entertained of his extraordinary merit, that he was made the object of immediate election. Mr. Harding used to say, that Mr. Conybeare had every way the advantage of him, excepting in seniority; and that he should have had no chance in a competition with him, if they had both been eligible at the same time. The patronage of Dr. Ilennel, Mr. Conybeare' s worthy tutor, concurred with his own desert, in bringing him forward thus early to academical advantages. On the 17th of July, 1713, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and at the next election of college officers, upon the 30th of June, 1714, he was appointed praelector, or moderator, in philosophy. On the 19th of December following, he received deacon’s orders from the hanclaof Dr. William Talbot, bishop of Oxford; and on the 2rikof May, 1716, he was ordained priest by sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester. On the 16th of April, 1716, he proceeded to the degree of master of arts; soon after which he entered upon the curacy of Fetcham, in Surry, where he continued about a year. He was advised to this change of scene for the benefit of his health, which was always delicate, and had been greatly impaired by the intenseness of his application. Upon his return from Fetcham to Oxford, he became a tutor in his own college, and was much noticed in the university as a preacher. In the beginning of the year 1722, he published a sermon, which he had delivered before the university, on the 24th of December preceding, from Hebrews ii. 4, entitled “The nature, possibility, and certainty of Miracles, &c.” This discourse was so well received, that it went through four editions. Mr. Conybeare was hence encouraged to commit to the press a second sermon, from 1 Corinthians xiii. 12, which he had preached before the university, on the 21st of October, 1724, and the title of which was, “The Mysteries of the Christian Religion credible.” It is probable, that the reputation our author gained by these discourses, recommended him to the notice of the bishop of London (Dr. Gibson), who appointed him one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall, upon the first establishment of that institution. The esteem in which his abilities and character were held, procured him, also, the favour of the lord chancellor Macclesfield, who, in May 1724, presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s in Oxford; a preferment of no great value, but which was convenient to iiim from his constant residence at that place, and from its being compatible with his fellowship. In 1725, he was chosen senior proctor of the university, which office he served in conjunction with Mr. Barnaby Smyth, fellow of Corpus-Christi college, and a scholar of eminence. In the same year, Mr. Conybeare was called upon to preach a visitation sermon before the bishop of Oxford, at whose request it was published, under the title of “The Case of Subscription to Articles of Religion considered,” and obtained no small degree of celebrity, being referred to in the controversy relating to subscription. The position of Mr. Conybeare is, that “every one who subscribes the articles of religion, does thereby engage, not only not to dispute or contradict them; but his subscription amounts to an approbation of, and an assent to, the truth of the doctrines therein contained, in the very sense in which the compilers are supposed to have understood them.” Mr. Conybeare’s next publication was an assize sermon, preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, in 1727, from Ezra vii. 26, and entitled “The Penal sanctions of laws considered.” This discourse was dedicated by him to the honourable Charles Talbot, at that time solicitor-general, afterwards lord high chancellor of Great Britain, who had honoured our author with the care of his two eldest sons, Mr. Charles Talbot, celebrated by the poet Thomson, and the late earl Talbot, steward of his majesty’s household. On the llth of July, 1728, Mr. Conybeare was admitted to the degree of bachelor of divinity; and on the 24th of January following, he took his doctor’s degree. In the year 1729, he again appeared from the press, in a sermon that had been preached before the lord mayor and aldermen at St. Paul’s cathedral, and which was entitled ^The Expediency of a Divine Revelation represented.“It was accompanied with a dedication to bishop Talbot, father of the solicitor-general. From Dr. Conybeare’s introduction to this family, and the reputation he had acquired as a divine, it was expected that he would soon have been promoted to some dignity in the church. But the good bishop was taken off before he had a proper opportunity of carrying his benevolent intentions in our author’s favour into execution. In 1730, the headship of Exeter college becoming vacant, by the death of Dr. Hole, Dr. Conybeare was chosen to succeed him. His competitor, on this occasion, was the rev. Mr. Stephens, vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, a truly worthy clergyxpan, and the author of several ingenious discourses, Nevertheless, as he had retired early from the society, he could not be supposed to carry such weight with him as Dr. Conybeare, who had resided constantly in the college. In this year Dr. Tindal’s famous deistical book had appeared, entitled” Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the Law of Nature.“This work excited the greatest attention, and drew forth the pens of some of the ablest divines of the kingdom, both in the church of PZngland, and among the protestant dissenters. Bishop Gibson, who had himself engaged in the controversy in his” Pastoral Letters,“encouraged Dr. Conybeare to undertake the task of giving a full and particular answer to Tindal’s production. Accordingly, he published in 1732, his” Defence of Revealed Religion,“Londoq, 8vo, by which he gained great credit to himself, and performed an eminent service to the cause of Christianity. In his dedication to the learned prelate now mentioned, he observes, that if he has not succeeded in his book according to his wishes, he may plead that it was drawn up amidst a variety of interruptions, and under a bad state of health.” This,“says he,” will in some sort excuse the author, though it may detract from the performance.“But Dr. Conybeare’s work did not stand in need of an apology. It is distinguished by the perspicuity of its method, and the strength of its reasoning; and is, indeed, one of the ablest vindications of revelation which England has produced. So well was the work received, that the third edition of it was published in 1733. Dr. Warburton justly styles it one of the best reasoned books in the world. It is likewise recommended by the temper and candour with which it is composed. Dr. Conybeare' s Defence will always maintain its rank, and perhaps be thought to sustain the first place among the four capital answers which Tindal received. The other three were, Foster’s” Usefulness, Truth, and Excellency of the Christian Revelation;“Leland’s” Answer to a late book, entitled Christianity as old as the Creation;“and Mr. Simon Browne’s” Defence of the Religion of Nature and the Christian Revelation."

, a poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Braintree in Essex, in 1702 or 1703, where his father was an inn-keeper, and as Pope used to say, a Muggletonian. He was educated at Felsted school, where he made considerable proficiency, but how long he remained here, or what was his destination in life is not known. For some time he appears to have been domesticated in the family of lord Pembroke, who died in 1733, and who probably suggested to him a translation of Hesiod, to which his lordship contributed some notes. Before this nobleman’s death, he came to London in 1722, and became a writer by profession, and a strenuous supporter of revolution-principles, which formed a bond of union between him and Tickell, Philips, Welsted, Steele, Dennis, and others, whose political opinions agreed with his own. He wrote in some of the weekly journals of the time, and was considered as a man of learning and abilities. He is supposed to have attacked Pope from political principles, but it is fully as probable, that, as he was a good Greek scholar, he wished to derive some reputation from proving that Pope, in his translation of Homer, was deficient in that language. In 1725 he published a poem entitled “The Battle of the Poets,” in which Pope, Swift, and some others were treated with much freedom and translated and published in the Daily Journal, 1727, the episode of Thersites, from the second book of the Iliad, to show how much Pope had mistaken his author. For this attack Pope gave him a place in the “Dunciad,” and notices him with equal contempt in his Epistle to Dr. Arbutlmot. In a note likewise he informs us that Cooke “wrote letters at the same time to him, protesting his innocence;” but Cooke’s late biographer, sir Joseph Mawbey, is inclined to doubt this, and rather to believe that he was regardless of Pope’s enmity. In a subsequent edition of “The Battle of the Poets” Cooke notices the Dunciad with becoming spirit, and speaks with little respect of Pope’s “philosophy or dignity of mind, who could be provoked by what a boy writ concerning his translation of Homer, and in verses which gave no long promise of duration.” In 1725 or 172G, Cooke published “The Knights of the Bath,” and “Philander and Cydippe,” both poetical tales; and several other pieces of poetry the former evidently meant to attract the public attention, on the revival, about that time, of the order of the Bath. He wrote soon after “The Triumphs of Love and Honour,” a play; “The Eunuch,” a farce; and “The Mournful Nuptials,” a tragedy; all performed at Drury-lane theatre, but with little success. In 1726 he published an account of the “Life and Writings of Andrew Marvell, esq.” prefixed to an edition of the poetical works of that celebrated politician, 2 vols. 12mo, and in 1728 his translation of “Hesiod.” In 1734 he published an edition of Terence, with an English translation, 3 vols. 12mo, and in 1737 “A Translation of Cicero on the Nature of the Gods,” with philosophical, critical, and explanatory notes, to which is added an examination into the astronomy of the ancients, 8vo. In 1741 he encreased his classical reputation by an edition of Virgil, with an interpretation in Latin, and notes in English. In 1742 he published a volume of his original “Poems,” with imitations and translations, and in 1746 undertook a new edition and translation of Plautus, by subscription. Of this he produced in 1754 the first volume, containing a dissertation on the life of Plautus, and a. translation of the comedy of Amphitryon, but although his list of subscribers was very copious, and he went on receiving more, he never completed the work.

But lord Shaftesbury’s principal study was the writings of antiquity; and those which he most admired, were the moral works of Xenophon, Horace, the Enchiridion of Epictetus, with Arrian’s Commentaries, and Marcus Antoninus. From these he formed to himself the plan of his philosophy: and the idea which he framed to himself of philosophy in general, may be best comprehended from the following words of his, where addressing himself to a correspondent, he says: “Nor were there indeed any more than two real distinct philosophies; the one derived from Socrates, and passing into the old academic, the peripatetic, and stoic; the other derived in reality from Democritus, and passing into the Cyrenaic, and Epicurean. For as for that mere sceptic or new academic, it had no certain precepts, and so was an exercise of sophistry, rather than of philosophy. The first therefore of these two philosophies recommended action, concernment in civil affairs, religion, &c. the second derided all this, and advised inaction and retreat. And good reason for the first maintained, that society, right, and wrong, were founded in nature, and that nature had a meaning, and was herself; that is to say, in her wits, well governed, and administered by one simple and perfect intelligence. The second again derided this, and made providence and dame nature not so sensible as a doting old woman. So the Epicurean in Cicero treats providence, Anus fatidica stoicomm Kfoma. The first therefore of these philosophies is to be called the civil, social, and theistic: the second the contrary.”

His writings were: 1. “The epitome of Chronicles from the 17th year after Christ to 1540, and thence to 1560.” The two first parts of this chronicle, and the beginning of the third, as far as the 17th year after Christ, were composed by Thomas Lanquet, a young man of 24 years old: but he dying immaturely, Cooper finished the work, and published it under the title of “Cooper’s Chronicle,” though the running-title of the first and second partis “Lanquet’s Chronicle.” A faulty edition of this work was published surreptitiously in 1559; but that of 1560, in 4to, was revised and corrected by Cooper. 2. “Thesaurus Linguae Romanae & Britannicse,” &c. and, “Dictionarium historicum & poeticum,” 1565, folio. This dictionary was so much esteemed by queen Elizabeth, that she endeavoured, as Wood tells us, to promote the author for it in the church as high as she could. It is an improvement of “Bibliotheca Eliotae,” Eliot’s library or dictionary, printed in 1541; or, as some think, it is taken out of Robert Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, and” Frisii Lexicon Latino-Teutonicum.“3.” A brief exposition of such chapters of the Old Testament as usually are read in the church at common prayer, on the Sundays throughout the year,“1573, 3to. 4.” A sermon at Lincoln,“1575, 8vo. 5. ”Twelve Sermons,“1580, 4to. 6.” An admonition to the people of England, wherein are answered not only the slanderous untruths reproachfully uttered by Martin the libeller, but also many other crimes by some of his brood, objected generally against all bishops and the chief of the clergy, purposely to deface and discredit the present state of the church,“1589, 4to, This was an answer to John ap Henry’s books against the established church, published under the name of Martin Mar-Prelate. Ap Henry, or his accomplices, replied to the bishop’s book, in two ludicrous pamphlets, entitled,” Ha' ye any work for a Cooper?“and” More work for a Cooper."

The Foundling Hospital, for several years after its institution, was an eminently popular object: numbers of affluent persons were ardent to encourage it, and the benefactions to the hospital flowed in, in a very great abundance. It was at length taken under the direction of parliament, and, from 1756 to 1759, annual and liberal grants were made for its support; in consequence of which children were poured in from every part of the kingdom. This circumstance, after some time, excited a general alarm. It was suggested, that the children, being cut off from all intercourse with their fathers and mothers, would, when they grew up, be aliens in their native land, without any tisible obligations, and consequently without 'affections, It was farther suggested, that they might look upon themselves as a kind of independent beings in society; and that, if they were permitted to increase as they had lately done, no one could tell what harm might ensue to the state, when there were such numbers who could scarcely be said to be connected with the body politic. Nay, it was asked, whether they might not, in time, rise like the slaves of Rome, and throw the kingdom into confusion? Sentiments of this nature were first thrown out to the world by a Mr. Massie, a political writer of that period. In a pamphlet, entitled “A plan for the establishment of Charity-houses for exposed or deserted women and girls, and for penitent prostitutes,” and which was printed in 1758, he introduced some observations concerning the Foundling Hospital, shewing the ill consequences of its receiving public support. Afterwards, in 1759, he made a second attack upon the Hospital, in a tract written solely for that purpose. In this tract, the good man’s zeal upon the subject led him to several extravagancies and absurdities: but his general principles, concerning the evil that might arise from bringing up large multitudes of people who were not bound to society by the common ties of private and domestic affection, had a powerful influence on the public mind. The indiscriminate admission of infants into the Hospital was put a stop to; parliamentary support was withdrawn; and the institution was left to be maintained, as it now is very handsomely, by the generosity of individuals.

, in Latin Corderius, lived in the sixteenth century, and was an eminent teacher. He understood the Latin tongue critically, was a man of virtue, and performed his functions with the utmost diligence, mixing moral with literary instruction. He spent his long life in teaching children at Paris, Nevers, Bordeaux, Geneva, Neufchastel, Lausanne, and lastly again at Geneva, where he died September the 8th, 1564, at the age of eighty-five, having continued his labours until three or four days before his death. He studied divinity for some time at Paris in the college of Navarre, about the year 1528, after he had taught a form in the same college but he left off that study in order to apply himself to his former functions of a grammarian. He had taught at Nevers in 1534, 1535, and 1536. Calvin, who had been his scholar at Paris in the college de la Marche, dedicated his Commentary on the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians to him. It is not exactly known of what province Mathurin Cordier was; some say he was born in Normandy; others pretend he was born in the earldom of Perche. He published several books for the use of schools, among which were, 1. “Epistres Chrestiennes,” Lyons, 1557, 16to. 2. “Sentences extraictes de la Saincte Escriture pour Tinstruction des Enfans,” Latin and French, 1551. 3. “Cantiques spirituels en nombre 26,” 1560. 4. “Le Miroir de la Jeunesse, pour la former a bonnes mceurs, et civilite de la vie,” Paris, 16to. 5. “L‘ Interpretation et construction en Francois des distiques Latins, qu’on attribue a Caton,” Lyons, 8vo, and since, perhaps, above an hundred times. His “Colloquia” have long been used in schools, and have been printed, says Bayle, a thousand times.

, a monk of the Ecoles-Pies, and a mathematician and antiquary, was born at Fanano in 1702, and died in 1765, at Pisa, where the grand duke had given him a chair in philosophy. This science occupied his first studies, and his success soon appeared from the “Philosophical and Mathematical Institutions,” 1723 and 1724, 6 vols. 8vo. For the doctrines of Aristotle, which then were generally adopted in a part of Italy, he substituted a species of philosophy at once more useful and more true. Encouraged by the favourable reception his work had met with, he published in 1735 a new “Course of Geometrical Elements,” written with precision and perspicuity. On being appointed professor at Pisa, he revised and retouched his two performances. The former appeared, with considerable corrections, at Bologna in 1742; and the second, augmented with f< Elements of Practical Geometry,“was published at Venice in 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. He was well versed in hydrostatics and history. After having sedulously applied for several years to the classical authors, and particularly those of Greece, he proposed to write the” Fasti of the Archons of Athens,“the first volume of which appeared in 1734, in 4to, and the fourth and last, ten years after. Being called in 1746 to the chair of moral philosophy and metaphysics, he composed a” Course of Metaphysics,“which appeared afterwards at Venice in 1758. His learned friends Muratori, Gorio, Maffei, Quirini, Passionei, now persuaded him to abandon philosophy; and, at their solicitations, he returned to criticism and erudition. In 1747 he published four dissertations in 4to, on the sacred games of Greece, in which he gave an exact list of the athletic victors. Two years afterwards he brought out, in folio, an excellent work on the abbreviations used in Greek inscriptions, under this title,” De notis Graecorum.“This accurate and sagacious performance was followed by several dissertations relative to objects of learning. But the high esteem in which he was held by his acquaintance on account of his virtues and industry, was an interruption to his labours, he being appointed general of his order in 1754; yet the leisure left him by the arduous duties of his station he devoted to his former studies, and when the term of his generalship expired, he hastened back to Pisa, to resume the functions of professor. He now published several new dissertations, and especially an excellent work, one of the best of his performances, entitled” De praefectis urbis.“At length he confined the whole of hi:; application on the” History of the University of Pisa," of which he had been appointed historiographer, and was about to produce the first volume when a stroke of apoplexy carried him off, in spite of all the resources of the medical art, in December 1765.

, was a native of Uzez, who fled to England on account of religion in the time of queen Anne, and after residing many years in London, where he was employed in literary pursuits, returned to Paris some time before his death, which happened in 1746. His principal works were: l. Translations into French of Locke’s Essay on human understanding, Amsterdam, 1736, 4to, and Trevoux, 4 vols. 12mo; of Newton’s Optics, 4to, and of the Reasonableness of Christianity, by Locke, 2 vols. 8vo. 2. An edition of Montaigne’s Essays, 3 vols. 4to, and 10 vols. 12mo, with remarks and annotations. 3. An edition of Fontaine’s Fables, 12mo, with cursory notes at the bottom of the pages. He ventured to add a fable of his own, which served to prove that it was far more easy to comment on Fontaine than to imitate him. 4. The defence of la Bruyere, against the Carthusian d'Argonne, who assumed the name of Vigneul Marville: which is prefixed to OzelPs English translation of Bruyere’s works, 1713, 2 vols. 8vo, 5. The life of the Grand Conde, 4to and 12mo. Coste, as an editor, was often tediously minute, and, as an original author, not above mediocrity; but he bestowed great attention on whatever he did. He was an excellent corrector of the press, thoroughly versed in his own language, well acquainted with the foreign tongues, and had a general knowledge of the sciences. In this country he must have been highly respected, as, although he died in France, a monument was erected to his memory in the old church of Paddington, in which parish he probably resided. This monument is now in a light vault under the present church

The cares of his college, and the education of his numerous family, occupied near the whole of his long life. His poems and prose pieces were probably the amusement of such hours as he could snatch from the duties of his profession. He carried on also an extensive correspondence with some of the literary characters of the day, by whom, as well as by all who knew him, he was beloved for his amiable and engaging manners. Among others, he corresponded with Dr. Dodd ridge, and appears to have read much and thought much on subjects which are usually considered as belonging to the province of divines. He is not known to have produced any thing of the medical kind, except a quarto pamphlet, entitled “Observations on a particular kind of Scarlet Fever that lately prevailed in and about St. Alban’s,” 1749. The dates of some of his poetical pieces show that he was an early suitor to the muses. His “Visions in Verse” were first published in 1751, again in 1764, and frequently since. He contributed likewise a few pieces to Dodsley’s collection. A complete collection of his productions, both in prose and verse, was published in 1791, 2 vols. 12mo, by one of his sons, but without any memoir of the author.

Soon after his arrival in England, in concert with his friends, William Courten began his litigations in behalf of himself and his sister. The first object he aimed at was to set aside the letters that, in his absence and minority, Carew had surreptitiously obtained, and to get himself legally invested with the administration of the estate and effects of his ancestors. He contended that George Carew was an officious intruder, under false pretexts of being a sufferer, and an agent for other sufferers by the losses of his father and grandfather; and urged that this man’s intermeddling with the wrecks of their fortunes, had been equally t > the prejudice of the rightful heirs, and to the detriment of the legal creditors of the family. He claimed therefore for himself, as his natural right, the administration of the Courten estates and his aunt, lady Knightly, who seems to have been then the only surviving child of sir William, from whom the estates descended, concurred with her nephew in this claim. George Carew, who was both a courtier and a lawyer, seems to have exerted his utmost address and professional skill to stop or frustrate these proceedings. He expressly owns in one of his papers that he had indeed paid indefinite sums of money to William Courten, esq. after he came of age, though he says at the same time that he did not pay the monies because William Courten had a right to them, but solely to prevent and terminate debates. The causes here assigned for the payments to William Courten, esq. after he came of age, are very questionable; for Carew does not appear a man likely to have parted with money on such principles merely to prevent or terminate debates.

So obnoxious were Dr. Coward’s positions, that on Friday, March 10, 1704, a complaint was made to the house of commons of the “Second Thoughts” and the “Grand Essay;” which books were brought up to the table, and some parts of them read. The consequence of this was, an order, “that a committee be appointed to examine the said books, and collect such parts thereof as are offensive; and to examine who is the author, printer, and publisher thereof.” At the same time the matter was referred to a committee, who were directed to meet that afternoon, and had power given them to send for persons, papers, and records. On the 17th of March, Sir David Cullum, the chairman, reported from the committee, that they had examined the books, and had collected out of them several passages which they conceived to be offensive, and that they found that Dr. Coward was the author of them; that Mr. David Edwards was the printer of the one, and Mr. W. Pierson of the other; and that both the books were published by Mr. Basset. Sir David Cullum having read the report in his place, and the same being read again, after it had been delivered in at the clerks’ table, the house proceeded to the examination of the evidence with regard to the writing, printing, and vending of the two books. Sufficient proof having been produced with respect to the writer of them, Dr. Coward was called in. Being examined accordingly, he acknowledged that he was the author of the books, and declared that he never intended any thing against religion; that there was nothing contained in them contrary either to morality or religion; and that if there were any thin^ therein contrary to religion or morality, he was heartily sorry, and ready to recant the same. The house then resolved, “that the said books do contain therein divers doctrines and positions contrary to the doctrine of the church of England, and tending to the subversion of the Christian religion;” and ordered that they should be burnt, next day, by the common hangman, in New Palace-yard, Westminster; which order was carried into execution. Notwithstanding this proceeding, in the course of the same year he published a new edition of his “Second Thoughts;” which was followed by a treatise, entitled, “The just Scrutiny; or, a serious inquiry into the modern notions of the Soul.”

The first occasion of his entering into business, was an elegy he wrote on the death of Mr. William Hervey. This brought him into the acquaintance of John Hervey, the brother of his deceased friend, from whom he received many offices of kindness, and principally this, that by his means he came into the service of the lord St. Alban’s. la 1643, being then M. A. he was, among many others, ejected his college and the university, by the prevalence f parliament; upon which, he retired to Oxford, settled in St. John’s college there, and that same year, under the name of an Oxford Scholar, published a satire entitled “The Puritan and the Papist.” His affection to the royal cause engaged him in the service of the king and he attended in several of his majesty’s journies and expeditions. Here he became intimately acquainted with lord Falkland, and other great men, whom the fortune of the war had drawn together. During the heat of the civil war, he was settled in the family of the earl of St. Alban’s, and attended the queen mother when she was forced to retire into France. He was absent from England about ten years, says Wood; about twelve, says Sprat; which, be they more or less, were wholly spent, either in bearing a share in the distresses of the royal family, or in labouring in their affairs. To this purpose he performed several dangerous journies into Jersey, Scotland, Flanders, Holland, and elsewhere; and was the principal instrument in maintaining a correspondence between the king and his royal consort, whose letters he cyphered and decyphered with his own hand, an employment of the highest confidence and honour.

At intervals he still wrote a few original verses, of which “The Cast-away,” his too favourite subject, was the last that came from his pen, but he amused himself occasionally with translations from Latin and Greek epigrams. His last effort of the literary kind, was an improved version of a passage in Homer, which he wrote at Mr. Hayley’s gestion, and which that gentleman received on the 31st of January, 1800. In the following month he exhibited all the symptoms of dropsy, which soon made a rapid progress. On April 25, about five in the afternoon, he expired so quietly that not one of his friends who were present perceived his departure, but from the awful stillness which succeeded.

Although, therefore, it be inconsistent with the common theories of mania, to ascribe his first attack to his aversion to the situation which was provided for him, or to the operation of delicacy or sensibility on a healthy mind, it is certain that at that time, and when, by his own account, he was an entire stranger to the religious system which he afterwards adopted, he was visited by the first attack of his disorder, which was so violent, and of such a length, as to put an end to all prospect of advancement in his profession. It is particularly incumbent on all who venerate the sound and amiable mind of Cowper, the clearness of his understanding, and his powers of reasoning, to notice the date and circumstances of this first attack, because it has been the practice with superficial observers, and professed infidels, who are now running down all the important doctrines of revealed religion, under the name of methodism, to ascribe Cowper' s malady to his religious principles, and his religious principles to the company he kept. But, important as it may be to repel insinuations of this kind, it is become less necessary since the publication of Mr. Hayley’s life, which affords the most complete vindication of Mr. Cowper’s friends, and decidedly proves that his religious system was no more connected with his malady than with his literary pursuits; that his malady continued to return without any impulse from either, and that no means of the most judicious kind were omitted by himself or his friends to have prevented the attack, if human means could have availed. With respect to his friends, there can be nothing conceived more consolatory to him who wishes to cherish a good opinion of mankind, than to contemplate Cowper in the midst of his friends, men and women exquisitely tender, kind, and disinterested, animated by the most pure benevolence towards the helpless and interesting sufferer, enduring cheerfully every species of fatigue and privation, to administer the least comfort to him, and sensible of no gratification but what arose from their success in prolonging and gladdening the life on which they set so high a value.

, an eminent benefactor to the taste, elegance, and literature of his time, was the son of col. Mordaunt Cracherode, who sailed with lord Anson, and in 1753 was appointed lieut. governor of Fort St. Philip, in Minorca. His mother was Mary, the daughter of Thomas Morice, esq. paymaster of the British forces in Portugal in queen Anne’s time, and brother to William Morice, esq. who married bishop Atterbury’s daughter. The colonel died June 20, 1773, and his widow Dec. 27, 1784, at their house in Queen’s-square, Westminster, which was afterwards inhabited by their son, the subject of the present article. Mr. Cracherode was born in 1729, and educated at Westminster school, where his contemporary the late Mr. Cumberland says, he was “as grave, studious, and reserved as he was through life; but correct in morals and elegant in manners, not courting a promiscuous acquaintance, but pleasant to those who knew him, beloved by many, and esteemed by all.” He was admitted a scholar at Westminster in 1742, and in 1746 was elected to Christ-church, Oxford, where he took his degree of B. A. and M.A. at the usual periods: the latter, April 5, 1753. He entered into holy orders, and atone time held the curacy of Binsey, a donative, near Oxford, but accepted no preferment afterwards. At the same time, he maintained that simplicity and purity in his appearance, manners, and sentiments, which belong to the character he professed. The tenor of Mr. Cracherode’s life, after he came to reside in London, that of a man of literary taste and research, was even and uniform: his principal object was the collection of a library and museum, and while his thoughts were confined to it, his associations were necessarily with men of similar pursuits. He employed a considerable part of a large revenue in making collections of what was best and most curious in literature, and certain branches of the arts. His library soon became unrivalled in its kind; and his cabinet of prints, drawings, and medals, was considered as among the most select and valuable in a country that possesses so many of them. He was an exquisite judge of art, both ancient and modern, particularly of sculpture, painting, and music, and collected the choicest'of early printed books, drawings, coins, and gems. Many of hisarticles were unique for their beauty, their preservation, or the rarity of their occurrence: such, for instance, as his cameo of a lion on a sardonyx, and intaglio of the discobolos; his Tyndale’s New Testament on vellum, that formerly belonged to Anne Boleyn; his lord Finch, with wings on his head, by Marshal; his Olbiopolis, and his Dichalcos, the first and smallest coin, being the fourth part of an obolus. Of these, and every other curiosity in his possession, he was, at all times, most obligingly communicative. His books, which he used modestly to call a specimen collection, particularly books of the fifteenth century, form perhaps the most perfect series ever brought together by one man. His passion for collecting was strong in death, and while he was at the last extremity, his agents were buying prints for him. In his farewell visit to Payne’s shop he put an Edinburgh Terence in one pocket, and a large paper Cebes in another, and expressed an earnest desire to carry away “Triveti Annales,” and Henry Stephens’s “Pindar” in old binding, both beautiful copies, and, as he thought, finer than his own, but which Mr. Payne had destined for lord Spencer.

The principal features of his face, which was a very fine one, were mildness, kindness, and goodness and though they could not well be described in one line, yet they might be expressed by the single epithet of // benevolo. He was an universal favourite, because he possessed those qualities of which mankind are seldom jealous, and which they are ever ready to commend. His judgment was sound, and his taste excellent: he was eager. to learn, and modest to decide. His general manner of life, though he occasionally mixed with the world, and lived with the first people, was quiet and recluse: and his excursions from Queen-square were, for the most part, terminated at Clapham. The greatest journey of his life was from London to Oxford, and he was never on horseback. He had an estate in Hertfordshire, on which grew a remarkable c-hcsnut-tree, which he never saw but in an etching. This property was the manor of great Wimondly, held of the crown in grand serjeantry by the service of presenting to the king the first cup he drinks at his coronation; the cup to be of silver gilt, and the king returns it as the fee of office. His father, colonel Cracherode, purchased this manor of the Grosvenor family, and officiated at the coronation of his present majesty. The apprehension of being called to perform this service occasioned no small uneasiness to his son. His fortune was large, which he received from his father. Possessing about 600l. a year in landed property, and nearly 100,000l. in three per cents, he was usually reckoned worth 5000l. a year, of which he made the best possible use, for his charities were as ample as his fortune, but secret.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Geneva, in 1704, and became a pupil of John Bernouilli, and a professor of mathematics at the age of nineteen. He was known all over Europe, and was of the academies of London, Berlin, Montpellier, Lyons, and Bologna. He died in 1752, worn out with study, at the baths of Languedoc, whither he had repaired for the recovery of his health. He made a most important and interesting collection of the works of James and John Bernouilli, which was published 1743, under his inspection, in 6 vols. 4to, and he had before bestowed no less pains on an edition of Christopher Wolf’s “Elementa universae matheseos,” Genev. 1732 1741, 5 vols. 4to. The only work he published of his own was an excellent “Introduction to the Theory of Curve lines,” 1750, 4to. L'Avocat says he was an universal genius, a living Encyclopedia, and a man of pious and exemplary conduct. His family appears to have been numerous and literary. There wap another Gabriel Cramer, probably his father, who was born at Geneva, 1641, rose to be senior of the faculty of medicine, died in 1724, and left a son, John Isaac, who took the degree of doctor in 1696, succeeded to his practice, and published an “Epitome of Anatomy,” and a “Dissertation on Diseases of the Liver,” left by his father. Also, “Thesaurus secretorum curiosorum, in quo curiosa, ad omnes corporis humani, turn internes turn externos, morbos curandos, &c. continentur,” 1709, 4to, He again was succeeded by his son, John Andrew Cramer, who rendered himself famed by his skill in mineralogy and chemistry; and published at Leyden, in 1739, 2 vols. 8vo, “Elementa Artis Docirnasticae.” It was reprinted in 1744, and again translated into French, in 1755. He wrote also a treatise on the management of forests and timber, and gave public lectures on Assaying, both in Holland and England. He died Dec. 6, 1777. Tn his person he was excessiyely slovenly, in his temper irritable, and when disputes occurred, not very delicate in his language.

the third, he submitted to the king and qii'vn, and to all their laws, as well concerning the pope’s supremacy, as others: and promised, that he would stir and move all others to live in quietness and obedience to their majesties. As for his book, he was content to submit to the judgment of the Catholic church, and the next general council. Tiiis was followed by a fourth, wherein be- professed firmly, stedfastly, and assnndly to believe in all articles and points of the Christian religion and Catholic faith, as the Catholic church doih believe. Moreover, as concerning the sacraments, he declared he believed uiiiVig-iiediy in all poinis as the said Catholic church did. In the fifth paper, which is that in Fox, and has been thought to be his only recantation, they required of him, to renounce and anathematize all Lutheran and Zumglian heresies and errors; to acknowledge the one only Catholic church, to be that whereof the pope is the head; and to declare him Christ’s vicar. Then followed an express acknowledgment of transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and of all the doctrines of the church of Rome in general. A sixth was still required of him, which was drawn up in so strong terms, that nothing was capable of being added to it. For it contained a large acknowledgment of all the popish errors and corruptions, and a most grievous accusation of himself as a blasphemer, enemy of Christ, and murderer of souls, on account of his being the author of king Henry’s divorce, and of all the calamities, schisms, and heresies of which that was the fountain. This was subscribed on the 18lh of March. These six papers were, soon after his death, sent to the press by Bonner, and published with the addition of another, which they had prepared for him to speak at St. Mary’s, before his execution: and though he then spoke to a quite contrary effect, and revoked his former recantations, Bonner had the confidence to publish this to the world, as if it had been approved and made use of by the archbishop. In 1736, William Whiston, M. A. published a little book, entitled “An Enquiry into the Evidence of Archbishop Cranmer’s Recantation: or reasons for a suspicion that the pretended copy of it is not genuine.” In this he supposes, that what Cranmer signed, was only the first part of the Recantation printed in Fox’s “Acts and Monuments,” as far as the words -“without which there is no Salvation,” that the rest was added by the papists, but that Cranmer never set his hand to it. the king and queen; to love each other; and to be charitable. After this he made a confession of his faith, beg nning with the Creed, and concluding with these words, “And I believe every word and sentence taught by our Saviour Jesus Christ, his apostles and prophets, in the Old and New Testament. And now,” added he, “I come to the great thing, that so much troubleth my conscience more than any thing I ever did or said in my whole life-; and that is the setting abroad a writing contrary to the truth, which 1 here now renounce as things written with my hand contrary to the truth which 1 thought in my heart, and written for fear of death, and to save my life if it might be; that is, all such bills and papers which I have written or signed with my hand since my degradation, wherein I have written many things untrue. And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished; for, may I come to the fire, it shall be first burned. As for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament, I believe as I have taught in my book against the bishop of Winchester.” Thunderstruck as it were with this unexpected declaration, the enraged popish crowd admonished him not to dissemble: “Ah,” replied he with tears, “since I lived hitherto, I have been a hater of falsehood, and a lover of simplicity, and never before this time have I dissembled.” On this, they pulled him off the stage with the utmost fury, and hurried him to the place of his martyrdom, over against Baliol-college; where he put off his clothes in haste, and standing in his shirt, and without shoes, was fastened with a chain to the stake. Some pressing him to agree to his former recantation, he answered, showing his hand, “This is the hand that wrote it, and therefore it shall first suffer punishment.” Fire being applied to him, he stretched out his right hand into the flame, and held it there unmoved (except that once with it he wiped his face) till it was consumed, crying with a loud voice, “This hand hath offended;” and often repeating, “This unworthy right hand.” At last, the fire getting up, he soon expired, never stirring or crying out all the while, only keeping his eyes fixed to heaven, and repeating more than once, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Such was the end of the renowned Thomas Cranmer, in the 67th year of his age, a man who deservedly ranks high among the most illustrious characters in ecclesiastical history, although his conduct was not in all respects free from blame. Of the two instances in which Cranmer has been accused of retaining the spirit of persecution, after he had got rid of every other attribute of popery, Mr. Gilpin gives the following account: “Joan Bocher and George Paris were accused, though at different times, one for denying the humanity of Christ the other for denying his divinity. They were both tried, and condemned to the stake: and the archbishop not only consented to these acts of blood; but even persuaded the aversion of the young king into a compliance.” Your majesty must distinguish (said he, informing his royal pupil’s conscience) between common opinions, and such as are the essential articles of faith. These latter we must on no account suffer to be opposed.“Mr. Gilpin justly observes, that” nothing even plausible can be suggested in defence of the archbishop on this occasion; except only that the spirit of popery was not yet wholly repressed." That he was not, however, a man of blood, and that in every case of personal injury he was the most placable of human beings, is amply confirmed by all authorities. The last act of Henry’s reign, says the same biographer, was an act of blood; and gave the archbishop a noble opportunity of shewing, how well he had learned that great Christian lesson of forgiving an enemy. Almost without the shadow of justice, Henry had given directions to have the duke of Norfolk attainted by an act of parliament. The king’s mandate stood in lieu of guilt; and the bill passed the house with great ease. No man, except the bishop of Winchester, had been so great an enemy to the archbishop as the duke of Norfolk. He had always thwarted the primate’s measures; and oftener than once had practised against his life. How many would have seen with secret pleasure the workings of Providence against so rancorous an enemy; satisfied in having themselves no hand in his unjust fate! But the archbishop saw the affair in another light; he saw it with horror: and although the king had in a particular manner interested himself in this business, the primate opposed the bill with all his might; and when his opposition was vain, he left the house with indignation, and retired to Croydon.

, a musician, was born at NetherEatington in Warwickshire, about 1657. He was educated in the royal chapel under Dr. Blow, and became organist at St. Anne’s, Westminster. In 1700 he was admitted a gentleman-extraordinary of the chapel royal, and in 1704organist of the same. In 1708 he succeeded Dr. Blow as master of the children, and composer to the chapel royal, and also as organist at Westminster-abbey. In 1712 he published, but without his name, “Divine Harmony, or a new collection of select anthems;” to which is prefixed, “A brief account of Church Music.” In 1715 he was created doctor in music at Oxford: his exercise for that degree was an English and also a Latin ode, written by Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Joseph Trapp, which, with the music, were published with the title of “Musicus apparatus Academicus.” In 1724 he published by subscription a noble work of his own, entitled “Musica Sacra, or Select Anthems in score,” in 2 vols, the first containing the burial service, which Purcell had begun, but lived not to complete. He died Aug. 1727, of an illness occasioned by attending upon his duty at the coronation of George II; and there is a monument erected for him in Westminsterabbey, by his friend Humphrey Wyrley Birch, esq. a gentleman of the bar, of a whimsical character, and extremely fond of funeral music. The character of Croft’s musical compositions is given in our authorities.

Cromwell was born in the parish of St. John, Huntingdon, where his father mostly lived, April 25, 1599, and baptized 29th of the same month; and educated in grammar-learning at the free-school in that town, under Dr. Beard, a severe disciplinarian. We have very different accounts of his behaviour while he remained at school: some say that he shewed very little propensity to learning; others, that he made a great proficiency in it. It is very probable that berth are wrong; and that he was not either incorrigibly dull, or wonderfully bright; but that he was an unlucky boy, and of an uneasy and turbulent temper, is reported by authors of unsuspected veracity. Many stories are told of his enthusiasm in this early part of his life; one of which we shall mention: lying melancholy upon his bed, in the day-time, he fancied he saw a spectre, which told him, that he should be the greatest man in the kingdom. His father, being informed of this, was very angry, and desired his master to correct him severely, which, however, had no great effect; for Oliver was still persuaded of the thing, and would sometimes mention it, notwithstanding his uncle Stewart told him, “it was too traitorous to repeat it.” Sir Philip Warwick tells us, that he was very well acquainted with one Dr. Simcot, Cromwell’s physician in the earlier part of his life, who assured him, that he was a very fanciful man, and subject to great disorders of imagination: and it is. certain, that he was not altogether free from these fits during his whole life, not even in the height of his prosperity.

, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant, was also a man of letters, and bestowed much pains on the education of his son, who answered his expectations by the proficiency he made in classical studies. He had, however, provided him with a private tutor, who happened to disgust him by the severity of his manners, and upon this account partly, at the age of fourteen, he desired to take a voyage to some of the West India islands, to which his father traded; but his principal inducement was what he had read in books of voyages, and the conversation of persons who had been in America, all which raised his curiosity to visit the new world. He embarked on board a French ship, with no other books than Erasmus’s Colloquies, and the Gradus ad Parnassum. His passage was not unpleasant, and during his residence at Guadeloupe he borrowed all the Latin books he could discover, and read them with avidity; but the chief advantage he seems to have derived here was an opportunity to learn the English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese San^uasres. To these he afterwards added an acquaintance with the German, Sclavonic, and AngloSaxon; and studied with much attention the ancient and modern Greek, the Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Chinese. On his return to Nantes in 1677, he found his father’s affairs somewhat deranged, and was obliged to take a part in the business. Medicine appears to have been first suggested to him as a profession, but he found little inclination for that study; and some conferences he happened to have with the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur determined him to enter their society. He accordingly made his noviciate in 1673, and applied himself to the study of theology. In 1682 he formally became a member of the congregation. His residence at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, the vast number of books within his reach, and particularly of manuscripts, increased his knowledge and his thirst for knowledge, and some of his earliest labours were bestowed in preparing materials, collecting Mss. &c. for new editions of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. But these were interrupted by certain differences which occurred in the abbey to which he belonged, and of which we have various accounts. The prior of St. Germain, father Loo, had a great aversion to the study of classical and polite literature, and was for confining the members to the strict religious duties of the house. This could not fail to be disgusting to a man of La Croze’s taste: but, according to other accounts, which seem more prohable, he began to entertain religious scruples about this time (lr.96), which induced him to withdraw himself. It is said that his superiors found among his papers a treatise against transubstantiation in his hand-writing, and which they believed to be his composition; but they discovered afterwards that it uas a translation from the English of Stillingfleet. Some other manuscripts, however, sufficiently proved that he had changed his opinion on religious matters; and the dread of persecution obliged him to make his escape to Basil, which he successfully accomplished in May 1696. Here he renounced the Roman catholic religion, and as his intention was to take up his residence, he was matriculated as a student of the college of Basil. He remained in this place, however, only till September, when he departed, provided with the most honourable testimonies of his learning and character from Buxtorf, the Hebrew professor, and Werenfels, dean of the faculty of theology. He then went to Berlin, where his object was to secure a iixed residence, devote himself to study, and endeavour to forget France. In order to introduce himself, he began with offering to educate young men, the sons of protestant parents, which appears to have answered his purpose, as in 1697 we find him appointed librarian to the king of Prussia; but his biographers are not agreed upon the terms. To this place a pension was attached, but not sufficient to enable him to live without continuing his school; and some assert that he was very poor at this time. The probability is, that his circumstances were improved as he became better known, and his reputation among the learned was already extensive. In June of 1697 he went to Francfort to visit the literati of that place, and their fine library, and visited also Brandenburgh for the same purpose. In November 1697 (or, as Chaufepie says, in 1702), he married Elizabeth Rose, a lady originally of Dauphiny, and thus, adds one of his Roman catholic biographers, completed the abjuration of the true religion. In 1698 he first commenced author, and from time to time published those works on which his fame rests. Soon after he became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, with whom he carried on an intimate correspondence. In 17 13 he went to Hamburgh, where he paid many visits to the learned Fabricius, and in his letters speaks with great warmth of the pleasure this journey afforded; but this year, 17 J 3, was not in other respects a vei'y fortunate one to La Croze, and he formed the design of quitting Germany. He had been appointed tutor to the margrave of Schwel, and this employment terminating in 1714, he lost the pension annexed to it, and was reduced to considerable difficulties, of which he wrote to Leibnitz, as to a friend in whom he could confide. Leibnitz, by way of answer, sent him a copy of a letter which he had written to M. BernsdorfT, prime minister to the elector of Hanover, in his behalf. The object likely to be attained by this interest was a professorship at Helmstadt; but as it required subscription to the articles of the Lutheran church, M. la Croze, notwithstanding the persuasions Leibnitz employed, declined accepting it. His affairs, however, soon after wore a more promising aspect, partly in consequence of a prize he gained in the Dutch lottery. In 1717 he had the honour to be engaged as private tutor to the princess royal of Prussia, afterwards margravine of Bareoth. In 1724, for several months his studies were interrupted by a violent fit of the gravel; and on his recovery, the queen of Prussia, who always patronized La Croze, obtained for him the professorship of philosophy in the French college at Berlin, vacant by the death of M. Chauvin. This imposed on him the necessity of drawing up a course of philosophy, but as he never intended to print it, it is said not to have been executed with the care he bestowed on his other works. In 1713 father Bernard Pez, the Benedictine, made him liberal offers if he would return to the church he had forsaken, but this he declined with politeness, offering the arguments which influenced his mind to remain in the protestant church. In 1739 an inflammation appeared on his leg, which inApril put on appearances of mortification, hut did not prove fatal until May 21. About a quarter of an bour before his death he desired his servant to read the 51st and 77th psalms, during which he expired, in the seventy -first year of his age. He was reckoned one of the most learned men of his time, and was frequently called a living library. So extensive was his reading, and so vast iiis memory, that no one ever consulted him without obtaining prompt information. In dates, facts, and references he was correct and ready. We have already noticed how many languages he had learned, but it appears that he made the least progress in the Chinese, to which Leihnitz, in his letters, is perpetuiiy iirging him. The greater part of his life was employed in study, and he had no other pleasures. There was scarcely a book in his library whicli he had not perused, and he wrote ms notes on most of them. His conversation could not fail to be acceptable to men of literary research, as his memory was stored with anecdotes, which he told in a very agreeable manner. He was conscientiously attached to the principles of the reformed religion. He had always on his table the Hebrew Psalter, the Greek Testament, and Thomas a Kempis in Latin: the latter he almost had by heart, as well as Buchanan’s Psalms. His consistent piety and charity are noticed by all his biographers.

Richard, the subject of this article, was born Feb. 19, 1732, under the roof of his grandfather Bentley, in the master’s lodge in Trinity college. When turned of six years of age, he was sent to the school at Bury St. Edmund’s, then under the mastership of the reverend Arthur Kinsman. For some time he made but little progress in his learning; till Kinsman, having observed his low station in the school, publicly reproved him; and thus roused in him a spirit of emulation. While he continued in this school, his grandfather Bentley died; and the affectionate manner in which Kinsman imparted the melancholy event to him, with the kind regard he evinced for his improvement, wrought so much upon his mind, that his task became his delight. In his exercises, however, he describes himself, in his “Memoirs,” as aiming at something like fancy and invention, and as being too frequently betrayed into grammatical errors, which did him no credit with his master, who commented on his blunders in one instance with great severity, producing so great an effect on his sensibility, that he never perfectly recovered it. It was about this time that he made his first attempt in English verse; the subject of which was an excursion he had made with his family in the summer holidays to visit a relation in Hampshire, which engaged him in a description of the docks at Portsmouth, and of the races at Winchester, where he had been present. This little poem he exhibited to his father, who received it with unreserved commendation, and persisted in reciting it to his intimates, when its author had gained experience enough to wish it had been consigned to oblivion. In the intervals from, school his mother began to form both his taste and his ear for poetry, of which art she was a very able mistress, by employing him every evening to read to her. Their readings were, with few exceptions, confined to Shakspeare, whom she both admired and understood in the true spirit and sense of the author. Under her instruction he became passionately fond of these evening entertainments, and the effect was several attempts on his part towards the drama. He was then head-boy of Bury school, though only in his 12th year. He fitted and compiled a kind of cento, eiititled “Shakspeare in the Shades,” in one act, in which the characters of Hamlet and Ophelia, Romeo and Juliet, Lear and Cordelia, were introduced, and Ariel as an attendant spirit on Shakspeare, who is present through the piece: some extracts from this juvenile production are printed in his “Memoirs.” Mr. Kinsman intimating his purpose of retiring from Bury school, young Cumberland was transplanted to Westminster, and admitted under Dr. Nichols, where he remained about a year and a half; and particularly profited there in point of composition. When only in his fourteenth year, he was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he had two tutors, who took little care of him; but the inconvenience of this being soon felt, the master of the college, Dr. Smith, in the last year of his being under-graduate, recommended him to lose no time in preparing for his degree, and to apply closely to his academical studies for the remainder of the year. During the year of trial, he determined to use every effort for redeeming lost time; he began a course of study so apportioned as to allow himself but six hours’ sleep, to which he strictly adhered, living almost entirely upon milk, and using the cold bath very frequently. In the several branches of mechanics, hydrostatics, optics, and astronomy, he made himself master of the best treatises; he worked all his propositions, and formed all his minutes, even his thoughts, in Latin, and thereby acquired advantages superior to some of the best of his contemporaries in public disputations; for, so long as his knowledge of a question could supply matter for argument, he never felt any want of terms for explanation. In consequence of this diligence, he was enabled to go through his scholastic exercises four times in the course of the year, keeping two acts and two first opponencies, and acquitted himself with great credit. On being cited to the senate -house for examination for the bachelor’s degree, he was kept perpetually at the table under the process of question and answer. His constitution, considerablv impaired by the intense application he had given, just held him up to the expiration of the scrutiny; and on hastening to his father’s, he soon fell ill of a rheumatic fever, from which, after six months’ care and attention, he was recovered. While in this state of extreme indisposition, a high station was adjudged to him amongst the wranglers of his year.

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

He was colonel of the Coldstream, or second regiment of guards, in 1701; when Steele, who was indebted to his interest for a captain’s commission in the lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, inscribed to him his first work, “The Christian Hero.” On the accession of queen Anne, he was made a lieutenant-general of the forces in Holland. February 13, 1702-3, he was appointed commander in chief of the English forces on the continent, during the absence of the duke of Marlborough; commander in chief of the forces in Ireland, under the duke of Ormond, March 23, 1704-5; and afterwards one of the lords justices of that kingdom, to keep him out of the way of action, a circumstance which broke his heart. He died at Dublin, Jan. 26, 1706-7, and was buried there on the 29th, in the cathedral of Christ-church. He was a person of eminent natural parts, well cultivated by study and conversation; of a free, unreserved temper; and of undaunted bravery and resolution. As he was a servant to queen Mary when princess of Orange, and learned the trade of war under her consort, he was early devoted to them both, and a warm supporter of the revolution. He was an absolute stranger to fear; and on all occasions gave distinguishing proofs of his intrepidity, particularly at the siege of Limerick in 1691, at the memorable attack of the castle of Namur in 1695, and at the siege of Venlo in 1702. Macky says of him, in 1703: “He hath abundance of wit, but too much seized with vanity and self-conceit; he is affable, familiar, and very brave. Few considerable actions happened in this as well as the last war, in which he was not, and hath been wounded in all the actions where he served; is esteemed to be a mighty vigilant officer, and for putting the military orders in execution; he is pretty tall, lusty, wellshaped, and an agreeable companion; hath great revenues, yet so very expensive, as always to be in debt; towards fifty years old.” Swift, in a ms note on the above passage, with his usual laconic cruelty, calls lord Cutts, “The vainest old fool alive.” He wrote a poem on the death of queen Mary; and published in 1687, “Poetical Exercises, written upon several occasions, and dedicated to her Royal Highness Mary Princess of Orange; licensed March 23, 1686-7, Roger L'Estrange.” It contains, besides the dedication signed “J. Cutts,” verses to that princess; a poem on Wisdom; another to Mr. Waller on his commending it; seven more copies of verses (one of them called “La Muse Cavalier,” which had been ascribed to lord Peterborough, and as such mentioned by Mr. Walpole in the list of that nobleman’s writings), and eleven songs; the whole composing a very thin volume, which is by no means so scarce as Mr. Walpole supposes it to be. The author speaks of having more pieces by him.

, of Jerusalem, was ordained a priest of that church by Maximus bishop of Jerusalem; and after Maximus’s death, which happened about the year 350, became his successor in that see, through the interest of Acacius bishop of Caesarea, and the bishops of his party. This made the orthodoxy of Cyril highly suspected, because Acacius was an Arian; aiul St. Jerome accuses Cyril, as if he was one too: but Theodoret assures us, that he was not. His connexions, however, with Acacius, were presently broken by a violent contest which arose between them about the prerogatives of their respective sees. The council of Nice had decreed to the bishop of Jerusalem the honour of precedency amongst the bishops of his province, without concerning himself at all with the right of the church of Cassarea, which was metropolitan to that of Jerusalem. This made Maximus, and after him Cyril, who were bishops of Jerusalem, to insist upon certain rights about consecrating bishops, and assembling councils, which Acacius considered as an encroachment upon the jurisdictions of his province. Hence a dispute ensued, and Acacius calling a synod, contrived to have Cyril deposed, under the pretence of a very great sin he had committed in the time of a late famine, by exposing to sale the treasures of the church, and applying the money to the support of the poor. This, however, might possibly have been passed over, as an offence at least of a pardonable nature, but for one circumstance that unluckily attended it; which was., that amongst these treasures that were sold there was a rich embroidered robe, which had been presented to the church by Constantine the Great; and this same robe was afterwards seen to have been worn by a common actress upon the stage: which, as soon as it was known, was considered as a horrible profanation of that sacred vestment.

, a learned French physician and indefatigable botanist, was born at Caen in 1513, studied medicine and botany at Montpelier, xvas admitted doctor in medicine in 1547, and died at Lyons, where he had long practised physic, in 1538. He published several elaborate translations, particularly of the fifteen books of Athenseus into Latin, in 1552, in 2 vols. fol. illustrated with notes and figures; and some of the works of Galen and Paul Egineta into French. In 1556 he published a translation of “Ccelius Aurelianus de Morbis acutis” and in 1569, “Chirurgie Franchise, avec plusieurs figures d'instrumens,” 8vo, which has been several times reprinted. He principally followed the practice of Paree, from whose work he borrowed the figures of the instruments; but he has added a translation into French of the seventh book ol' Paree, with annotations, and some curious cases occurring in his own practice. He was also the editor of an edition of Pliny with notes, published in 1537. His first work, according to Ilaller, was an 8vo edition of Iluellius’s Commentary on Dioscorides, which appeared at Lyons in 1552, enriched by Dalechamp with thirty small figures of plants, at that time but little known. But his principal performance in this branch was an universal history of plants, in Latin, with above two thousand five hundred wooden cuts, besides repetitions, published after his death in two folio volumes. The publisher, William Uouille, seems to take upon himself the chief credit of collecting and arranging the materials of this great work, though he allows that Dalechamp laid its first foundations. Haller says the latter was engaged in it for thirty years; his aim being to collect together all the botanical knowledge of his predecessors, and enrich it with his own discoveries. He employed John Bauhin, then a young man, and resident at Lyons, to assist him; but Bauhin being obliged on account of his religion to leave France for Switzerland, like many other good and great men of that and the following century, the work in question was undertaken by Des Moulins, and soon afterwards Dalechamp died. It is often quoted by the title of“Historia Lugdunensis,” and hence the merits of its original projector are overlooked, as well as the faults arising from its mode of compilation, which are in many instances so great as to render it useless. A French translation was published in 1615, and again in 1653. Besides these Dalechamp published, 1. “Caelius Aurelianus de morbis chronicis,” Lond. 1579, 8vo; and 2. An edition of the works of the two Senecas, the orator and the philosopher, with notes and various readings, Geneva, 1628, 2 vols. fol.

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

The erudition of lord Hailes, says his friend the late lord Woodhousiee, was not of a dry and scholastic nature; he felt the beauties of the composition of the ancients; he entered with taste and discernment into the merits of the Latin poets, and that peculiar vein of delicate and ingenious thought which characterises the Greek epigrammatists; and a few specimens which he has left of his own composition in that style, evince the hand of a master. It would not, adds his lordship, be easy to produce from the works of any modern Latin poet, a more delicate, tender, and pathetic effusion, or an idylliou of greater classical purity, than the iambics he wrote “On the death of his first wife, in child-bed of twins.” Lord Hailes was a man of wit, and possessed a strong feeling of the absurd and ridiculous in human conduct and character, which gave a keen edge of irony both to his conversation and writings. To his praise, however, it must be added, that that irony, if not always untinctured with prejudice, was never prompted by malignity, and was generally exerted in the cause of virtue and good morals. How much he excelled in painting the lighter weaknesses and absurdities of mankind, may be seen from the papers of his composition in the “World” and the “Mirror.” His private character was every thing that is praise-worthy and respectable. In a word, he was an honour to the station which he filled, and to the age in which he lived. That such a man should not yet have found a biographer worthy of his merits, cannot be ascribed either to the obscurity of his character and station, or to the incapacity of his contemporaries. But lord Hailes was a man of piety of the old stamp, and a strenuous advocate for revealed religion, and therefore did not share, as he uould not have been ambitious to share, the celebrity that has been conferred on some of his countrymen of a very opposite character.

, a French poet, was born at Jliom in Auvergne in 1671; and went to Paris, where he distinguished himself very early in the republic of letters. At the age of nineteen he was invited to Chartres, to be professor of rhetoric; which office he discharged with high repute for four years. Upon his return to Paris, he devoted his labours entirely to the service of the theatre, for which he continued to write songs, operas, and tragedies, to the end of his life. He was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions in 1706, and of the French academy in 1712. He had a place in the king’s library, and died at Paris Feb. 21, 1748. His works were collected and printed at Paris, 1751, in 4 vols. 12mo. As a man Danchet was highly esteemed for the qualities of his mind, and the mildness of his temper; he was sincere, upright, and disinterested, and was an enemy to every species of satire and calumny, weapons too frequently used by poets and men of genius. Of this a singular instance is on record. One of his rivals having insulted him in a published satire, Danchet sent him privately an epigrammatic answer of the severest cast, which he assured him no other person had seen, and begged him to observe, that it was as easy as shameful for men of letters to embark in such kind of warfare.

, an eminent painter, nephew to the preceding, was born at Florence in 1646, and received his first instruction in the art of painting from Valerio Spada, who excelled in small drawings with a pen. Whilst he was under the tuition of thrt artist he gave such evident proofs of genius, that he was then placed as a disciple with his uncle Vincent. He afterwards travelled through most of the cities of Italy, studying the works of those who were most distinguished; and resided for a long time at Venice, where he copied the paintings of Titian, Tintoretto, and Paolo Veronese. He next visited Parma and Modena, to study the works of Correggio; omitting no opportunity that might contribute to improve his hand or his judgment. When he returned to Florence, the grand duke Cosmo III. the grand duchess Victoria, and the prince Ferdinand, kept him perpetually employed, in fresco painting as well as in oil; his subjects being taken not only from sacred or fabulous history, but from his own invention and fancy, which frequently furnished him with such as were odd and singular, and especially with whimsical caricatures. He died in 1712. — This master had an extraordinary talent for imitating the style of even the most celebrated ancient painters of every school, particularly Titian, Veronese, and Tintoretto; and with a force and elegance, equal to his subjects of history, he painted portraits, landscapes, architecture, flowers, fruit, battles, animals of all kinds, and likewise sea-pieces; proving himself an universal artist, and excellent in even thing he undertook. Mr. Fuseli, however, says that the avidity of gain led him to dispatch and a general mediocrity, compensated by little more than the admirable freedom of his pencil. He exerted his powers according to the price he received for his work: they are seen to advantage in the cupolas of S. Maria Maddalena, in various frescos of the ducal palace and villas, and in the public hall of Pisa, where he represented the taking of Jerusalem. There are likewise altar-pieces which shew his merit: that of St. Francis in S. Maria Maggiore, and another of S. Piccolomini saying mass in the church a'Servi, a pleasing animated performance. He had a son, Octavio, who proved not inferior to him in any branch of his profession, and was an honour to his family and his country.

, a French abbe, and a man of family, was the son of Louis cle Courcillon, lord oi' Dangeau, &c. by a daughter of the celebrated Plessis-Mornay. He was born in January 1643, and educated in the protestant religion, which was that of his family, and which he professed in 1667, when envoy extraordinary in Poland but he was afterwards induced to become a Roman catholic, and entered into the church, in which he held some benefices, although none of such importance as might have been expected from his merits and family interest. In 1671 he purchased the office of reader to the king, which he sold again in 1685. In 1680 the king gave him the abbey of Fontaine-Daniel, and in 1710 that of Clermont, and he was also prior of Gournay and St. Arnoul. He devoted himself, however, principally to the belles lettres, the study of which he endeavoured to facilitate by various new modes of instruction, some of which were successful, and others rather whimsical. In the sme way, by some new expedients, he endeavoured to increase the knowledge of history, geography, heraldry, grammar, &c. and his services were so highly esteemed, that in 1682 he was admitted into the French academy, and in 1698 into that of the Ilicovrati of Padua. His own house, indeed, was a species of academy, where men of taste and learning were invited to assemble once a week for conversation. The abbe Dangeau was an accomplished scholar: besides the sciences we have mentioned, he knew Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, &c. Being admitted into the confidence of his sovereign, he took frequent opportunities to promote learning and learned men, and along with his brother the marquis Dangeau established a school for the education of voung men of family, the superintendance of which he took upon himself; but this did not last above ten years, the wars having obliged the king to withdraw the pecuniary assistance he had given^ a striking proof of the necessities to which Louis XIV. was sometimes driven by his ambition. He died Jan. 1, 1723, leaving the character of a man whose virtues were superior to his knowledge, extensive us the latter was. “His humanity towards the sons and daughters of misfortune was such, (says his eulogist M. d'Alembert), that, with but a moderate fortune, he was lavish of his bounty towards the poor, and added to his benefits the more uncommon benefit of Concealing them. He possessed that prudent œconomy, without which there can be no generosity; and which, never dissipating for the sake of giving continually, is always giving with propriety. His heart was formed for friendship, and for that reason he was not careless in bestowing it; but when once it was obtained, it was settled for ever. If he had any defect, it was perhaps too much indulgence for the faults and weaknesses of mankind; a defect, which by its scarceness is almost a virtue, and of which few persons have to reproach themselves, even in regard to their friends. He possessed in the highest degree that knowledge of the world and of man, which neither books nor genius ever gave the philosopher, while neglecting the commerce of his fellow creatures. Enjoying the esteem and the confidence of all the great men in the kingdom, no one had better advice to give in the most important affairs. He kept inviolably the secrets of others as well as his own. Yet his generous, delicate, and honest soul disdained dissimulation, and his prudence was too enlightened to be mistaken for artifice. Easy and affable in company, but preferring truth in all things, he never disputed except in its defence: accordingly the lively interest he shewed for truth on all such occasions gave him in the eyes of the generality an air of obstinacy, which truth is much less likely to find among mankind than a cold and criminal indifference.”

, a scholar and antiquary of the sixteenth century, was an advocate at Orleans, where he mostly resided, and assessor to the abbey of St. Benoitsur-Loire, which he was frequently obliged to visit, in the discharge of his office. His taste for polite literature, and general reputation for such learning as was not very common in his time, recommended him to the esteem of the cardinal de Chatillon, a liberal Maecenas of that age. The abbey of St. Benoit having been pillaged during the war in 1562, Daniel with great difficulty saved some manuscripts, and purchased others from the soldiers, and removed them to Orleans. Among these was the Commentary of Servius on Virgil, which he published in 1600 and the “Aulularia” of Plautus, which he had printed immediately after rescuing these Mss. in 1564. He prepared also an edition of Petronius, but it was not published until 1629, after his death. This event took place at Paris, in 1603, when his friends Paul Petau, and James Bongars, purchased his library for 15OO livres, and divided the Mss. between them. Among other eminent men, Daniel was particularly intimate with Buchanan, and has been highly praised by Scioppius, Scaliger, and Turnebus.

, of the same family, probably, with the preceding, and native also of Perugia, was an excellent mathematician, and is memorable for having fitted a pair of wings so exactly to his body, as to be able to fly with them. He made the experiment several times over the lake Trasimenus; and succeeded so well, that he had the courage to perform before the whole city of Perugia, during the solemnity of the marriage of Bartholomew d'Alviano with the sister of John Paul Baglioni. He shot himself from the highest part of the city, and directed his flight over the square, to the admiration of the spectators: but unfortunately the iron, with which he managed one of his wings, failed; and then, not being able to balance the weight of his body, he fell on a church, and broke his thigh. Bayle fancies, that the history of this Daedalus, for so he was called, will not generally be credited; yet he observes, that it is said to have been practised at other places, for which he refers us to the “Journal des Sgavans” of 1678. Dante was afterwards invited to be professor of the mathematics at Venice. He flourished towards the end of the fifteenth century, and died before he was forty years old.

, bishop of Salisbury in the seventeenth century, was born in Watling-street, London, where his father was an eminent merchant, but originally descended from the ancient family of the Davenants of Sible-Heningham, in Essex. What school he was educated in, we cannot find. But, on the 4th of July, 1587, he was admitted pensioner of Queen’s college, in Cambridge. He regularly took his degrees in arts; that of master in 1594. A fellowship was offered him about the same time; but his father would not permit him to accept of it, on account of his plentiful fortune: however, after his father’s decease he accepted of one, into which he was admitted September 2, 1597. Being thus settled in the college, he distinguished himself, as before, by his learning and other excellent qualifications. Tn 1601-he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1609. This same year last-mentioned he was elected lady Margaret’s professor, which place he enjoyed till 1621. He was also one of her preachers in 1609 and 1612. On the 20th of October 1614, he was admitted master of his college, and continued in that station till April 20, 1622. And so considerable did he become, that he was one of those eminent English divines sent by king James I. to the synod of Dovt, in 1618. He returned to England in May 1619, after having visited the principal cities in the Low Countries. Upon the death of his brother-in-law, Dr. Robert Townson, he was nominated bishop of Salisbury; and was elected June 11, 1621, confirmed November 17 following, and consecrated the 18th of the same month. He continued in favour during the remainder of king James the First’s reign; but in Lent 1630-1, he incurred the displeasure of the court Cor meddling (in a sermon preached before the king at Whitehall) with the predestinarian controversy “all curious search” into which his majesty had strictly enjoined “to be laid aside.” In a letter to Dr. Ward, bishop Davenant gives the following account of this unpleasant affair. As soon as his sermon was ended, it was signified to him that his majesty was much displeased that he had stirred this question, which his majesty had forbidden to be meddled withal, one way or other: the bishop’s answer was, that he had delivered nothing but the received doctrine of our church, established in the 17th article, and that he was ready to justify the truth of what he had then taught. He was told, the doctrine was not gainsaid, but his majesty had given command these questions should not be debated, and therefore he took it more offensively that any should be so bold as in his own hearing to break his royal commands. To this he replied, that he never understood his majesty had forbidden the handling of any doctrine comprised in the articles of our church, but only raising of new questions, or adding of new sense thereunto, which he had not done, nor ever should do. Two days after, when he appeared before the privy-council, Dr. Sam. Harsnet, archbishop of York, made a speech nearly half an hour long, aggravating the boldness of bishop Davenant’s offence, and shewing many inconveniencies that it was likely to draw after it. When the archbishop had finished his speech, the bishop desired, that since he was called thither as an offender, he might not be put to answer a long speech upon the sudden; but that his grace would be pleased to charge him point by point, and so to receive his answer; for he did not yet understand wherein he had broken any commandment of his majesty’s, which was taken for granted. After some pause, the archbishop told him he knew well enough the point which was urged against him, namely, the breach of the king’s declaration. Then he stood upon this defence, that the doctrine of predestination, which he taught, was not forbidden by the declaration; 1st, Because in the declaration all the articles are established, amongst which, the article of predestination is one. 2. Because all ministers are urged to subscribe unto the truth of the article, and all subjects to continue in the profession of that as well as of the rest. Upon these and such like grounds, he gathered that it could not be esteemed amongst forbidden, curious, or needless doctrines; and here he desired that out of any clause in the declaration it might be shewed him, that keeping himself within the bounds of the article, he had transgressed his majesty’s command; but the declaration was not produced, nor any particular words in it; only this was urged, that the king’s will was, that for the peace of the church these high questions should be forborne. He added, that he was sorry he understood not his majesty’s intention; which if he had done before, he should have made choice of some other matter to treat of, which might have given no offence; and that for the time to come, he should conform himself as readily as any other to his majesty’s command; whereupon he was dismissed. At his departure he entreated the lords of the council to let his majesty understand that he had not boldly, or wilfully and wittingly, against his declaration, meddled with the fore-named point; and that now, understanding fully his majesty’s mind and intention, he should humbly yield obedience thereunto. But although he was dismissed without farther censure, and was even admitted to kiss the king’s hand, yet he was never afterwards in favour at court. He died of a consumption April 20, 1641, to which a sense of the melancholy event approaching did not a little contribute. Among other benefactions, he gave to Queen’scollege, in Cambridge, the perpetual advowsons of the rectories of Cheverel Magna, and Newton Tony, in Wiltshire, and a rent-charge of 3 1l. 10s. per annum, for the founding of two Bible-clerks, and buying books for the library in the same college. His character was that of a man humble and hospitable; painful in preaching and writing; and behaving in every station with exemplary gravity and moderation. He was a man of great learning, and an eminent divine; but strictly attached to Calvinism in the article of unconditionate predestination, &c. Whilst he was at the synod of Dort, he inclined to the doctrine of universal redemption; and was for a middle way between the two extremes, maintaining the certainty of the salvation of a certain number of the elect; and that offers of pardon were sent not only to all that should believe and repent, but to all that heard the Gospel; that grace sufficient to convince and persuade the impenitent (so as to lay the blame of their condemnation upon themselves) went along with these offers; that the redemption of Christ and his merits were applicable to these; and consequently there was a possibility of their salvation. He was buried in Salisbury cathedral.

, a poet and dramatic writer of considerable note, was the son of John Davenant, who kept the Crown tavern or inn at Oxford, but owing to an obscure ins nuation in Wood’s accountof his birth, ithas been supposed that he was the natural son of Shakspeare; and to render this story probable, Mrs. Davenant is represented as a woman of beauty and gaiety, and a particular favourite of Shakspeare, who was accustomed to lodge at the Crown, on his journies between Warwickshire and London. Modern inquirers, particularly Mr. Steevens, are inclined to discredit this story, which indeed seems to rest upon no very sound foundation. Young Davenant, who was born Feb. 1605, very early betrayed a poetical bias, and one of Iris first attempts, when he was only ten years old, was an ode in remembrance of master William Shakspeare: this is a remarkable production for one so young, and one who lived, not only to see Shakspeare forgotten, but to contribute, with some degree of activity, to that instance of depraved taste. Davenant was educated at the grammarschool of All Saints, in his native city, under Mr. Edward Sylvester, a teacher of high reputation. In 1621, the year in which his father served the office of mayor, he entered of Lincoln-college, but being encouraged to try his success at court, he appeared there as page to Frances duchess of Richmond, a lady of great influence and fashion. He afterwards resided in the family of the celebrated sir Ftilke Greville, lord Brooke, who was himself a poet and a patron of poets. The murder of this nobleman in! 628 depriving him of what assistance he might expect from his friendship, Davenant had recourse to the stage, on which he produced his first dramatic piece, the tragedy of Albovine, king of the Lombards.

, the eldest son of sir William Davenant, was born in 1656, and was initiated in grammar-learning at Cheame in Surrey. Though he had the misfortune to lose his father when scarce twelve years of age, yet care was taken to send him to Oxford to finish his education, where he became a commoner of Baliol college in 1671. He took no degree, but went to London, where, at the age of nineteen, he distinguished himself by a dramatic performance, the only one he published, entitled, “Circe, a tragedy, acted at his royal highness the duke of York’s theatre with great applause.” This play was not printed till two years after it was acted; upon which occasion Dryden wrote a prologue, and the earl of Rochester an epilogue. In the former, there was an apology for the author’s youth and inexperience. He had a considerable share in the theatre in right of his father, which probably induced him to turn his thoughts so early to the stage; however, he was not long detained there either by that, or the success of his play, but applied himself to the civil law, in which, it is said, he had the degree of doctor conferred upon him by the university of Cambridge. He was elected to represent the borough of St. Ives in Cornwall, in the first parliament of James II. which was summoned to meet in May 1685; and, about the same time, jointly empowered, with the master of the revels, to inspect all plays, and to preserve the decorum of the stage. He was also appointed a commissioner of the excise, and continued in that employment for near six years, that is, from 1683 to 1689: however, he does not seem to have been advanced to this rank before he had gone through some lesser employments. In 1698 he was elected for the borough of Great Bedwin, as he was again in 1700. He was afterwards appointed inspector-general of the exports and imports; and this employment he held to the time of his death, which happened Nov. 6, 1714. Dr. Davenant’s thorough acquaintance with the laws and constitution of the kingdom, joined to his great skill in figures, and his happiness in applying that skill according to the principles advanced by sir William Petty in his Political Arithmetic, enabled him to enter deeply into the management of affairs, and procured him great success as a writer in politics; and it is remarkable, that though he was advanced and preferred under the reigns of Charles II. and James II. yet in all his pieces he reasons entirely upon revolution principles, and compliments in the highest manner the virtues and abilities of the prince then upon the throne.

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

, a learned Jesuit, was born at St. Omer’s in 1566, and became canon, of Tournay, where he died Jan. 17, 1644. He was an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, and a good critic, but wrote in an affected and obscure style. Some of his works are still valued, although their rarity prevents their being generally known. Among these are, 1. “Antiqui novique Latii Orthographies,” Tournay, 1632, fol. Of this there is a pretended Paris edition of 1677, which is precisely the same, with a new title-page and date. 2. “Terra et aqua, seu terrae fiuctuantes,” Tournay, 1633, 4to; of this there are also copies of Paris, 1677, with only a new title. The small floating isles near St. Omer’s furnished the idea of this work, in which there are many curious observations on marine productions. He also translated into Latin, the “Orations of St. Basil of Seleucia,” with notes, 1604, 8vo; and published an edition of Quintus Calaber, 1614, 8vo, and some other works, theological and critical, which are enumerated in our authorities.

, a poetical and miscellaneous writer, of an eccentric character, was born in Wellclose-square, London, June 22, 1748. His father was an officer in the custom-house, and had been twice married. This son was the issue of his second marriage to Miss Jane Bonham, the only daughter of Samuel Bonham, esq. a merchant in the city. His father died when he was little more than a year old, leaving him a fortune of 1200l. a year, including 300l. as a jointure to his mother, who in a few years married Thomas Phillips, esq. another officer in the customhouse. To this gentleman, who died in 1782, young Day behaved with decent respect, but felt no great attachment. His mother, however, chiefly superintended his education, and accustomed him early, we are told, to bodily exertions, on which he afterwards set so high a value. He was first put to a child’s school at Stoke Newington, and when admissible, was sent to the Charter-house, where he resided in the house and under the instructions of Dr. Crusius, until his sixteenth year. He now entered as a gentleman commoner of Corpus college, Oxford, where he remained three years, but left it without taking a degree.

The whole of their residence at Anningsley, however, was not passed in inflicting or tolerating caprice. Some of Mr. Day’s experiments were of a more praiseworthy kind. His neighbours of the lowest class, being as rough and as wild as the commons on which they dwelt, he tried if by mutual attrition he could not polish both and, though the event fell short of his expectation, he was not wholly unsuccessful. Many of the peasants he took to work on, his farm, and in his selection of them it was always his object to accommodate those who could not find employmerit elsewhere, until they could meet with some fresh job. But so fond were they of their new master, that they wanted frequently to be reminded that their stay was only intended to be temporary. During the winter season they were so numerous, that it was scarcely in the power of a farm of more than two hundred acres, of a family on the spot, and of the contiguous neighbourhood, to raise for them a shadow of employment from day to day. Mr. Day, whenever he walked out, usually conversed with them in the fields, and questioned them concerning their families. To most of them, in their turn, he sent blankets, corn, and butchers meat. He gave advice and medicines to the sick, and occasionally brought them into his kitchen to have their meals for a few weeks among the servants. Once or twice he took them into his service in the house, on the sole account of their bad health, a circumstance which by many persons would have been deemed an ample cause for dismission. When the cases of sickness which came before him were difficult and critical, he frequently applied to London for regular advice; but good diet was often found more salutary than all the materia medica. Mrs. Day aided the benevolent exertions of her husband by employing the neighbouring poor in knitting stockings, which were occasionally distributed amongst the labourers. Mr. Day’s modes and habits of life were such as the monotony of a rural retirement naturally brings upon a man of ingenuity and literary taste. To his farm he gave a personal attention, from the fondness which he had for agriculture, and from its being a source to him of health and amusement. It was an additional pleasure to him, that hence was derived employment for the poor. He had so high an opinion of the salutary effects of taking exercise on horseback, that he erected a riding-house for the purpose of using that exercise in the roughest weather. Though he commonly resided in the country during the whole of the winter season, and was fond of shooting as an art, he for many years totally abstained from field sports, apprehending them to be cruel; but, at last, from, the same motive of humanity, he resumed the gun. He rose about eight, and walked out into his grounds soon after breakfast. But much of the morning, and still more of the afternoon, were usually passed at his studies, or in literary conversations when he was visited by his friends.

, vicar of St. Alkmond’s parish, Shrewsbury, was a native of Ireland, and descended from a very ancient and respectable family in that country, being distantly related to the family of lord Kinsale, to whom he was ordained chaplain. He was educated at Trinity college, Dublin; and his acquaintance with several eminent clergymen brought him to England. In 1770 he accepted the curacy of Shawbury in Shropshire, of which the rev, Mr. Stillingfleet was rector. In January, 1774, he was presented by the lord chancellor to the vicarage of St. Alkmond, which was the subject of a satirical poem, entitled “St. Alkmond’s Ghost,” by an inhabitant of the parish. This was owing to a prejudice conceived against him, as being a methodist, which, however, he soon overcame by his general conduct and talents. To a fund of information derived from reading and reflection, he added a degree of sprightliness and humour, which always rendered his conversation agreeable on every subject. la principle, he was warmly attached to the doctrines of our excellent church, as set forth in her articles and homilies. In the pulpit he was a laborious servant, preaching generally twice, and for some time before his death, three times, every Sunday, and a lecture on Wednesday evening, besides reading the regular service. His sermons were extempore, but in language dignified, in reasoning perspicuous, embellished by apposite allusions, and ornamented with many of the graces of oratory, and he never appealed to the passions of his auditors, but through the medium of the understanding. To the dogmas of Socinus he was an able and unwearied adversary, both from the pulpit and the press, as may be seen by referring to his “Christ Crucified,” 2 vols. 12mo. He was particularly attached to our venerable constitution, and when those pernicious doctrines were broached, which, under the delusive and fascinating title of “Rights of Man,” hurled the monarch of France from his throne, and threatened to involve this country in the same dreadful scenes of ruin and devastation, he strenuously defended the cause of religion and social order. His natural constitution was good, and supported him under many painful fits of rheumatic gout, which weakened his knees so much, as to render it necessary sometimes to sit in the pulpit. Among many temporal losses, none seemed to affect him so much as the death of his youngest son in August, 1803, after serving some time as midshipman under his relation the hon. capt. De Courcy. In the close of his last sermon from Revelation, chap. vi. v. 2. on the evening of the fast day, an allusion to the memory of those whom “we had resigned into the rcy arms of Death,” so far affected him, as to cause an involuntary flow of tears, and obliged him abruptly to conclude. A slight cold taken on that day brought on a return of his disorder, from which he gradually recovered, until a few hours before his death, when a sudden attack in his stomach rendered medical aid useless. Having commended his soul into the hands of his Redeemer, he sunk back, and expired, Nov. 4, 1803. His memory will be long esteemed by his parishioners, and many others who attended his ministry, during a period of thirty years. His remains were interred at Shawbury, on the 9th, and on that occasion a great number of his friends voluntarily joined the funeral procession, and rendered to his memory their last tribute of respect and gratitude. His published works are “Jehu’s Eye-glass on True and False Zeal;” “Nathan’s Message to David, a Sermon;” two Fast Sermons, 1776; “A Letter to a Baptist Minister;” “A Reply to Parmenas,” 1776 “The Rejoinder,” on Baptism, 1777; “Hints respecting the Utility of some Parochial Plan for suppressing the Profanation of the Lord’s Day,” 1777; two Fast Sermons, 1778; “Seduction, or the Cause of injured Innocence pleaded, a Poem,” 1782; “The Seducer convicted on his own Evidence,” 1783; “Christ Crucified,” 1791, 2 vols.; and a Sermon preached at Hawkstone chapel, at the presentation of the standard to the two troops of North Shropshire yeomanry cavalry, in 1798. In 1810, a volume of his “Sermons” was published, with a biographical preface and portrait.

Dr. Deering shewed his attachment to botanical pursuits by his assiduity in collecting such ample materials for his “Catalogue,” in less than two years after settling at Nottingham. It was published under the title “A Catalogue of Plants naturally gruuiog and commonly cultivated in divers parts of England, more especially about Netting-­ham, &e.” 1738, 8vo. This useful work might have been greatly enlarged and improved by the author had he been endowed with some degree of prudence, or a happier temper; but owing to the want of these he very early lost the little interest which his character and success had at first gained. Yet he was a man of great learning, and master of nine languages, ancient and modern. He had also a knowledge of designing, and was an ingenious mechanic. After his failure in the practice of medicine, his friends attempted several schemes to alleviate his necessities. Among others, they procured him a commission in the regiment raised at Nottingham on account of the rebellion; but this proved more honourable than profitable. He was afterwards employed in a way more agreeable to his genius and talents; being furnished with materials, and enabled, with the assistance of John Plumtree, esq. and others, to write “The History of Nottingham,” which, however, he did not live to publish. He had been troubled with the gout at a very early period, and in the latter stage of his life he suffered long confinements in this disease, and became asthmatical. Being at length reduced to a degree of poverty and dependence, which his spirit could not sustain, oppressed with calamity and complicated disease, he died April 12, 1749, Two of his principal creditors administered to his effects, and buried him in St. Peter’s church-yard, opposite the house in which he lived. He left a Hortus Siccus of the plants in his “Catalogue,” a volume of paintings of the fungi, by his own hand, and some Mss. His “Nottinghamia Vetus et Nova,” or History of Nottingham, was published by his administrators, George Ayscough, printer, and Thomas Wellington, druggist, at Nottingham, in 1751, 4to, embellished with plates. One of the most remarkable articles in this volume is, a complete description of that curious machine, the stockingframe, invented upwards of two centuries ago by William Lee, M. A. of St. John’s college, Cambridge, a native of Woodborough, near Nottingham. All the parts are separately and minutely described in the technical terms, and illustrated by two views of the whole, and by a large table, delineating with great accuracy, every constituent part of the machine.

Dr. Delany, on the 9tti of June 1743, married a second time. The lady with whom he formed this connexion was Mrs. Pendarves, the relict of Alexander Pen Janes, esq a very ingenious and excellent woman; of whom some account will be given in the next article. The doctor had lost his first wife December 6, 1741. March 13, 1744, our author preached a sermon before the society for promoting protestant working schools in Ireland. In May 1744, he was raised to the highest preferment which he ever attained, the deanry of Down, in the room of Dr. Thomas Fletcher, appointed to be bishop of Dro no re. In the same year, previously to this promotion, our author published a volume of sermons upon social duties, fifteen in number, to which in a second edition, 1747, were added five more, on the opposite vices. This is the most useful of Dr. Delany’s performances; the objects to which rt relates being of very important and general concern. Dr. Delany’s next publication was not till 174-8, and that was only a sixpenny pamphlet. It was entitled “An Essay towards evidencing the divine original of Tythes,” and had at first been drawn up, and probably preached as a sermon. The text, rather a singular one, was the tenth commandment, which forbids us to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s; and it required some ingenuity to deduce the divine original of tithes from that particular prohibition. After an interval of six years, Dr. Delany again appeared in the world as an author, in answer to the earl of Orrery’s “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift.” Many of Su ill’s zealous admirers were not a little displeased with the representations which the noble lord had given of him in various respects. Of this number was Dr. Delany, who determined therefore to do justice to the memory of his old friend; for which few were better qualified, having been in the habits of intimacy with the dean of St. Patrick’s, from his first coming over to Ireland, and long before lord Orrery could have known any thing concerning him. On the whole, it was thought that this production of the doctor’s enabled the public to form a far more clear estimation of the real character of the dean of St. Patrick’s, than any account of him which had hitherto been given to the world; yet perhaps the fairest estimate must be made by a comparison of both. However zealous Dr. Delany might be for the honour of his friend, he did not satisfy Deane Swift, esq. who, in his Essay upon the life, writings, and character of his relation, treated our author with extreme ill manners and gross abuse; to which he thought proper to give an answer, in a letter to Mr. Swift, published in 1755. In this letter the doctor justified himself; and he did it with so much temper and ingenuity, so much candour, and yet with so much spirit, that the polite gentleman, and the worthy divine, were apparent in every page of his little pamphlet. The year 1754 also produced another volume of sermons; the larger part of them are practical, and these are entitled to great commendation, particularly two discourses on the folly, iniquity, ad absurdity of duelling. During this part of Dr. Delany’s life, he was involved in a law-suit of great consequence, and which, from its commencement to its final termination, lasted more than nine years. It related to the personal estate of his first lady; and although a shade was cast on his character by the decision of the Irish court of chancery, his conduct was completely vindicated by that decree being reversed in the house of lords in England. But he was not so deeply engaged in the prosecution of his law-suit as entirely to forget his disposition to be often appearing in. the world as an author. In 1757 he began a periodical paper called “The Humanist,” whicli was carried on through 15 numbers, and then dropped. In 1761 Dr. Delany published a tract, entitled “An humble apology for Christian Orthodoxy,” and several sermons. It was in 1763, after an interval of nearly thirty years from the publication of his former volumes, that he gave to the world the third and last volume of his “Revelation examined with candour.” In the preface the doctor has indulged himself in some peevish remarks upon Reviewers of works of literature; but from complaints of this kind few writers have ever derived any material advantage. With regard to the volume itself, it has been thought to exhibit more numerous instances of the prevalence of imagination, over judgment than had occurred in the former part of the undertaking. In 1766 Dr. Delany published a sermon against transubstantiation; which was succeeded in the same year by his last publication, which was a volume containing 18 discourses. Dr. Delany departed this life at Bath, in May 1763, in the 83d year of his age. Though in general he was an inhabitant of Ireland, it appears from several circumstances, and especially from his writings, almost all of which were published in London, that he frequently came over to England, and occasionally resided there for a considerable time. Of his literary character an estimate may be formed from what has been already said. With regard to two of his principal works, the “Revelation examined with candour,” and the “Life of David,” they contain so many fanciful ^ul doubtful positions, that all the ability and learning i.,i., played in them will scarcely suffice to hand them down, with any eminent degree of reputation, to future ages. It is on his sermons, and particularly on those which relate to social duties, that will principally depend the perpetuity of his fame. With respect to his personal character, he appears to have been a gentleman of unquestionable piety and goodness, and of an uncommon warmth of heart. This warmth of heart was, however, accompanied with some inequality, impetuosity, and irritability of temper. Few excelled him in charity, generosity, and hospitality. His income, which for the last twenty years of his life was 3006J. per annum, sunk under the exercise of these virtues, and he left little behind him besides books, plate, and furniture. Of a literary diligence, protracted to above fourscore years, Dr. Delany has afforded a striking example; though it may possibly be thought, that if, wben his body and mind grew enfeebled, he had remembered the solve senescentem equum, it would hate been of no disadvantage to his reputation.

At the commencement of the revolution, Deleyre proved himself warmly attached to the popular side of the question: he was elected a member of the National Convention and of the Committee of Public Instruction. In revolutionary politics he was a Girondist; and his natural taciturnity prevented him from falling a sacrifice to the tyranny of Robespierre. He made his will while in Italy, in 1772. At this period he seems to have anticipated the approaching misfortunes of his country: “France,” says he, in this curious paper, “the country in which I was born, has, from the corruption of her manners, fallen under the yoke of despotism. The nation is too blind or too indolent to desire or be able to free herself. The government is become odious, and will terminate in despotism.” He adds, that, in consequence hereof, he is tired of life, and that, as he is uncertain whether he shall have patience enough to wait for his decease, or courage sufficient to hasten it, he deems it a duty to be prepared with a testament, explicitly stating all his desires concerning himself and the little he has to bequeath. This sort of language was not uncommon to the Encyclopedists and their immediate friends; but with all their vaunting, they appear to have had more attachment to life, or more dread of dissolution, than the German sentimentalists. With the latter, suicide was common, even among many who seldom boasted of performing it: among the former it was more often threatened than executed. Our philosopher died in the beginning of 1797, in the seventy-first year of his age, of a natural decay. The three chief works in which he engaged during his life-time were, an “Analysis of the Philosophy of Bacon,” in whose general opinions he appears to have been profoundly versed a variety of articles introduced into the body of the Encyclopedic and a “General History of Voyages,” a voluminous publication, which extended to nineteen large octavos. He published also “Le Genie de Montesquieu,” 12mo, and “L'Esprit de St. Evremont,” 12mo. Upon his decease were discovered many inedited works, and among the rest a poetic translation of Lucretius. Of such a translation, France, as well as every other country in Europe, except Italy, is much in want; but, from what we have seen of M. Deleyre’s metrical ballads, we strongly doubt his capacity to do justice to the inimitable beauties of the Roman bard: several of these ballads have, nevertheless, obtained the honour of being set to music by his friend Jean-Jaques Rousseau. It is more to the praise of Deleyre, that he was an enemy to all persecution, and, when in the possession of power, acted with kindness towards many who were of different sentiments from his own, and by whom he had been been undeservedly ill-treated.

In 1647 he was entrusted by the queen with a message to the king, who was then in the hands of the army, and to whom he got admittance by the help of his acquaintance Hugh Peters; “which trust,” says he, in the dedication of his poems to Charles II. “I performed with great safety to the persons with whom we corresponded: but about nine months after, being discovered by their knowledge of Mr. Cowley’s hand, 1 happily escaped both for myself and them.” In April 1648 he conveyed away James duke of York into France, as Wood says; but Clarendon assures us, that the duke went off with colonel Bamfield only, who contrived the means of escape. Not long after, he was sent sent ambassador from Charles II. to the king of Poland; and William (afterwards lord) Crofts was joined in the embassy with him. Among his poems is one entitled, “On my lord Crofts’s and my journey into Poland, from whence we brought 10,000l. for his majesty, by the decimation (or tithing) of his Scottish subjects there.” About 1652 he returned to England; and, his paternal estate being greatly reduced by gaming and the civil wars, he was kindly entertained by lord Pembroke at Wilton; where, and sometimes at London, he continued with that nobleman above a year. At the restoration he entered upon the office of surveyor-general of all his majesty’s buildings; and at the coronation of the king, was created K. B. Wood pretends, that Charles I. had granted our poet the reversion of that place, after the decease of the famous Inigo Jones, who held it; but sir John himself, in the dedication of his poems, assures us, that Charles II. at his departure from St. Germain’s to Jersey, was pleased, freely, without his asking, to confer it upon him. After his promotion to tbis office, he gave over his poetical lines, and “made it his business,” he says, “to draw such others as might be more serviceable to his majesty, and, he hoped, more lasting.” Uponsome discontent arising from a second marriage, he had the misfortune to be deprived of his reason. Dr. Johnson notices a slight circumstance omitted by other writers, which is, that when our poet was thus afflicted, Butler lampooned him for his lunacy. “I know not,” adds the doctor, “whether the malignant lines were then made public; nor what provocation incited Butler to do what no provocation can excuse.” On his recovery, which was soon, he wrote his fine verses upon the death of Cowley; whom yet he survived but a few months; for he died at his office near Whitehall, which he had before built, March 1668, and was interred in Westminster-abbey, near Chaucer, Spenser, and Cowley. Sir John was an early member of the royal society.

, of Alexandria, was an ecclesiastical writer of the fourth century, who supplied a very important defect by dint of genius and application. Jerome and Ruffinus assure us that though he lost his eyes at five years of age, when he had scarcely learned to read, yet he applied himself so earnestly to study, that he not only attained in a high degree grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, and the other arts, but even was able to comprehend some of the most difficult theorems in mathematics. He was particularly attached to the study of the Scriptures; and was selected as the most proper person to fill the chair in the famous divinity-school at Alexandria. His high reputation drew a great number of scholars to him; among the principal of whom were Jerome, Ruffinus, Palladius, and Isidorus. He read lectures with wonderful facility, answered upon the spot all questions and difficulties relating to the Holy Scriptures, and refuted the objections which were raised against the orthodox faith. He was the author of a great number of works of which Jerome has preserved the titles in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers; and of many more whose titles are not known. We have yet remaining a Latin translation of his book upon the Holy Spirit, to be found in the works of Jerome, who was the translator; and which is perhaps the best treatise the Christian world ever saw upon the subject. Whatever has been said since that time, in defence of the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, seems, in substance, to be foand in this book. His other works extant are, a treatise against the Manichees, in the original Greek, and “Enarrations upon the seven catholic epistles in Latin,” and in the Greek Chains are fragments of some of his commentaries. J. C. Wolff, of Hamburgh, published a large collection of notes and observations of Didymus upon the Acts of the Apostles, taken from a manuscript Greek chain, at Oxford. See Wolfii Anecdot. Graec. 1724. Didymus also wrote commentaries upon Origen’s books of Principles, which he defended very strenuously against all opposers. He was a great admirer of Origen, used to consider him as his master, and adopted many of his sentiments; on which account he was condemned by the fifth general council. He died in the year 395, aged eightyfive years.

, another of the name, was an eminent musician of Alexandria, and, according to Suidas, cotemporary in the first century with the emperor Nero, by whom he was much honoured and esteemed. This proves him to have been younger than Aristoxenus, and more ancient than Ptolemy, though some have imagined him to have preceded Aristoxenus. He wrote upon grammar and medicine, as well as music; but his works are all lost, and every thing we know at present of his barmonical doctrines is from Ptolemy, who, by disputing, preserved them. However, this author confesses him to have been well versed in the canon and harmonic divisions; and if we may judge from the testimony, even of his antagonist, he must have been not only an able theorist in music, but a man of considerable learning. As this musician preceded Ptolemy, and was the first who introduced the minor tone into the scale, and, consequently, the practical major 3d -f, which harmonized the whole system, and pointed out the road to counterpoint; an honour that most critics have bestowed on Ptolemy, he seems to have a better title to the invention of modern harmony, or music in parts, than Guido, who appears to have adhered, both in theory and practice, to the old division of the scale into major tones and limmas. “The best species of diapason,” says Doni, “and that which is the most replete with fine harmony, and chiefly in use at present, was invented by Didymus. His method was this: after the major semitone E F T-f, he placed the minor tone in the ratio of V, between F G, and afterwards the major tone between G A; but Ptolemy, for the sake of innovation, placed the major tone where Didymus placed the minor.” Ptolemy, however, in speaking of Didymus and his arrangement, objects to it as contrary to the judgment of the ear, which requires the major tone below the minor. The ear certainly determines so with us, and it is therefore probable, that in Ptolemy’s time the major key was gaining ground. Upon the whole, however, it appears that these authors only differ in the order, not the quality of intervals.

was an ancient geometrician, whom some authors have erroneously represented as a disciple of Pythagoras, but who, according to Proclus, lived in the time of Plato, about 360 B. C. and was a disciple of the latter in philosophy. He was chiefly distinguished for his knowledge of geometry, and was the brother of Menechmus, who amplified the theory of the conic sections. Dinostrates also is said to have made many geometrical discoveries; but he is particularly distinguished as the inventor of the quadratrix, by which the quadrature of the circle is effected, though isot geometrically, but only mechanically. Montucla, howev-. T, observes that there is some reason for ascribing the original invention of this curve to Hippias of Elaea, an ingemous philosopher and geometer, contemporary with Socrates.

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

, so called from Laerta, or Laertes, a town of Cilicia, where he is supposed to have been born, is an ancient Greek author, who wrote ten books of the Lives of the Philosophers, still extant. In what age he flourished, is not easy to determine. The oldest writers who mention him are Sopater Alexandrinus, who lived in the time of Constantine the Great, and Hesychius Milesius, who lived under Justinian. Diogenes often speaks in terms of approbation of Plutarch and Phavorinus; and therefore, as Plutarch lived under Trajan, and Phavorinus under Hadrian, it is certain that he could not flourish before the reigns of those emperors. Menage has fixed him to the time of Severus; that is, about the year of Christ 200; and from certain expressions in his works, some have fancied him to have been a Christian; however, as Menage observes, the immoderate praises he bestows upon Epicurus will not suffer us to believe this, but incline us rather to suppose that he was an Epicurean. He divided his Lives into books, and inscribed them to a learned lady of the Platonic school, as he himself intimates in his life of Plato. Montaigne was so fond of this author, that, instead of one Laertius, he wishes we had a dozen; and Vossius says, that his work is as precious as old gold. Without doubt we are greatly obliged to him for what we know of the ancient philosophers; and if he had been as exact in the execution, as he was judicious in the choice of his subject, we had been more obliged to him still. Bishop Burnet, in the preface to his Life of sir Matthew Hale, justly speaks of him in the following manner: “There is no hook the ancients have left us,” says he, “which might have informed us more than Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers, if he had had the art of writing equal to that great subject which he undertook: for if he had given the world such an account of them, as Gassendus has done of Peiresc, how great a stock of knowledge might we have had, which by his unskilfulness is in a great measure lost! since we must now depend only on him, because we have no other and better author who has written on that argument.” He is no where observed to be a rigid affecter or favourer of any sect; which makes it somewhat probable, that he was a follower of Potomon of Alexandria, who, after all the rest, and a little before his time, established a sect which were called Eclectics, from their choosing out of every sect what they thought the best. His books shew him to have been a man of universal reading; but as a writer he is very exceptionable, both as to the disposal and the defect of his materials. Brucker, whose opinion must be of sterling value, in estimating the merits of Diogenes Laertius, says, that “he has collected from the ancients with little judgment, patched together contradictory accounts, relied upon doubtful authorities, admitted as facts many tales which were produced in the schools of the sophists, and has been inattentive to methodical arrangement.” Diogenes also composed a book of epigrams, to which he refers. The best edition is that of Meibomius, Amst. 1692, 2 vols. 4to; yet Rossius, in his “Commentationes Laertianae,” has convicted Meibomius of innumerable errors.

, was an ancient poet and geographer, concerning whom we have no certain information but what we derive from the elder Pliny. Pliny, speaking of the Persian Alexandria, afterwards called Antioch, and at last Charrax, could not miss the opportunity of paying his respects to a person who had so much obliged him, and whom he professes to follow above all men in the geographical part of his work. He tells us, that *' Dionysius was a native of this Alexandria, and that he had the honour to be sent by Augustus to survey the eastern part of the world, and to make reports and observations about its state and condition, for the use of the emperor’s eldest son, who was at that time preparing an expedition into Armenia, Parthia, and Arabia.“This passage, though seemingly explicit enough, has not been thought sufficient by the critics to determine the time when Dionysius lived, whether under the first Augustus Caesar, or under some of the later emperors, who assumed his name: Vossius and others are of opinion, that the former is the emperor meant by Pliny; but Scaliger and Salmasius think he lived under Severus, or Marcus Aurelias, about A. D. 130 or 150. Dionysius wrote a great number of pieces, enumerated by Suidas and his commentator Eustathius: but his” Periegesis," or survey of the world, is the only one we have remaining; and it would be superfluous to say, that this is one of the most exact systems of ancient geography, when it has been already observed, that Pliny himself proposed it for his pattern. It is written in Greek hexameters; but some think that Dionysius is no more to be reckoned a poet, than any of those authors who have included precepts in numbers, for the sake of assisting the memory. Yet, although his book is more valuable for matter than manner, it has been thought that he had a genius capable of more sublime undertakings, and that he constantly made the Muses the companions, though not the guides, of his travels. As proofs of this, we are referred to his descriptions of the island of Lucca, inhabited by departed heroes; of the monstrous and terrible whales in Taprobana; of the poor Scythians that dwelt by the Meotic lake; to the account of himself, when he comes to describe the Caspian sea, and of the swans and bacchanals on the banks of Cayster, which shew him to have possessed no small share of poetic spirit.

, usually styled the Decalogist, from his Commentary on the commandments, and called by Fuller, the “last of the Puritans,” was a native of Shotledge, in. Cheshire; in which county there were several ancient families of the Dods; but to which of them he belonged, we have not been able to ascertain. He was born, the youngest of seventeen children, in 1547, and sent to school at WestChester, but Mr. Cole says he was educated at Winchester, a name which he probably transcribed hastily for the other. In 1561, when he was fourteen years of age, he was entered of Jesus college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1585, according to a ms note of Mr. Baker; and Mr. Cole adds, that he was junior proctor in 1614; both which dates must belong to some other person, as it does not appear that he remained in all more than sixteen years at college. At what time he took his master’s degree is uncertain, but a few years after, being appointed to oppose in the philosophy act at the commencement, he exhibited such a display of talents, as highly gratified his hearers, and in consequence, he had liberal offers to remove to Oxford. These he declined, but was incorporated M. A. in that university in 1585. Associating much with Drs. Fulke, Chaclerton, and Whitaker, he imbibed the principles and strictness for which they were famous, and conceived an early dislike to some of the ceremonies or discipline of the church, but to what we are not told. After taking orders, he first preached a weekly lecture at Ely, until invited by sir Anthony Cope to be minister of Hanwell, in Oxfordshire, in 1577, where he became a constant and diligent preacher, and highly popular. Nor was his hospitality Jess conspicuous, as he kept an open table on Sundays and Wednesdays lecture days, generally entertaining on these occasions from eight to twelve persons at dinner. At Hanwell he remained twenty years, in the course cf which he married, and had a large family; but, owing to his nonconformity in some points, he was suspended by Dr. Bridges, bishop of Oxford. After this, he preached for some time at Fenny-Compton, in Warwickshire, and from thence was called to Cannons Ashby, in Northamptonshire, where he was patronized by sir Erasmus Dryden but here again he was silenced, in consequence of a complaint made by bishop Neale to king James, who commanded archbishop Abbot to pronounce that sentence. During this suspension of his public services, he appears to have written his Commentary on the Decalogue and Proverbs, which he published in conjunction with one Robert Cleaver, probably another silenced puritan, of whom we can find no account. At length, by the interest of the family of Knightley, of Northamptonshire, after the death of king James, he was presented in 1624, to the living of Fawesley, in that county. Here he recommended himself as before, not more by his earnest and affectionate services in the pulpit, than by his charity and hospitality, and particularly by his frequent visits and advice which last he delivered in a manner peculiarly striking. A great many of his sayings became almost proverbial, and remained so for above a century, being, as may yet be remembered, frequently printed in a small tract, or on a broad sheet, and suspended in every cottage. On the commencement of the rebellion he suffered considerably, his house being plundered, as the house of a puritan, although he was a decided enemy to the proceedings of the republicans. When they were about to abolish the order of bishops, &c. Dr. Brownrig sent to Mr. Dod, for his opinion, who answered, that “he had been scandalized with the proud and tyrannical practises of the Marian bishops; but now, after more than sixty years’ experience of many protestant bishops, that had been worthy preachers, learned and orthodox writers, great champions for the protestant cause, he wished all his friends not to be any impediment to them, and exhorted all men not to take up arms against the king; which was his doctrine, he said, upon the fifth commandment, and he would never depart from it.” He died in August, 1645, at the very advanced age of ninety-seven, and was buried on the I9th of that month, at Fawesley, in Northamptonshire. Fuller says, “with him the Old Puritan seemed to expire, and in his grave to be interred. Humble, meek, patient, charitable as in his censures of, so in his alms to others. Would I could truly say but half so much of the next generation!” “He was,” says the same author, “a passive nonconformist, not loving any one the worse for difference in judgment about ceremonies, but all the better for their unity of affections in grace and goodness. He used to retrench some hot spirits when inveighing against bishops, telling them how God under that government had given a marvellous increase to the gospel, and that godly men might comfortably comport therewith, under which learning and religion had so manifest an improvement.” He was an excellent scholar, particularly in the Hebrew language, which he taught to the celebrated John Gregory, of Christchurch, Oxford. The no less celebrated Dr. Wilkins was his grandson, and born in his house at Fawesley, in 1614, a date which seems to interfere with that given above as the date of Mr. Dod’s presentation to Fawesley, which we have taken from the register in Bridges’s Northamptonshire, but he might probably have resided there previous to the living becoming vacant. Of his works we know only that which conferred on him the name of the Decalogist, “A plain and familiar Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” London, 1606, 4to; and “A plain and familiar Exposition” of certain chapters of the Book of Proverbs, 1606, 4to, published at different times; and the prefaces signed by Dod and Cleaver. There are some original letters by Dod in the British Museum, (Ayscough, No. 4275), addressed to lady Vere. They consist chiefly of pious exhortations respecting the confused state of public affairs. In one of them, dated Dec. 20, 1642, he says, he is “not far off ninety-five years old,” which has enabled us to ascertain his age, hitherto incorrectly given by his biographers.

His son, Claude- John- Baptiste Dodart, following in the steps of his father, was made M. D. in 1688, and in 1718 was appointed first physician to Louis XV. The only work in which he was concerned, was an edition of “Pomet’s History of Drugs,” with some useful notes. He died at Paris, in 1730.

, an eminent dissenting divine, great-grand-nephew to the preceding, was the son of the nonconformist rector of Shepperton in Middlesex, and was born in London, June 26th, 1702. At his birth he was so weakly that he was regarded as dead; but by attention and care he recovered some degree of strength. His constitution, however, was always feeble, and probably rendered more so by the assiduity with which he prosecuted his studies and public services. To his pious parents he was indebted for early instruction in religion, and for those salutary impressions which were never erased from his mind. His classical education commenced in London, but being left an orphan in his thirteenth year, he was removed to a private school at St. Alban’s, where he had the happiness of commencing an acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Clark, the dissenting minister of the place; and having lost his whole patrimony after his father’s death, the protection of this friend enabled him to pursue the course of his studies. In 1715 he left St. Alban’s, and retired to the house of his sister, the wife of Mr. John Nettleton, a dissenting minister at Ongar, in Essex, and while deliberating on the course of life which he should pursue, he received offers of encouragement and support from the duchess of Bedford, if he chose to be educated in one of the universities for the church of England; but could not conscientiously comply with the terms of conformity. Others advised him to devote himself to the profession of the law; but before he had finally determined, he received a letter from Mr. Clark, with generous offers of assistance, if he chose the ministry among the dissenters. These offers he thankfully accepted; and after continuing for some months at St. Alban’s in the house of his benefactor, he was placed, in October 1719, under the tuition of the reverend John Jennings, who kept an academy for the education of nonconformist ministers at Kibworth in Leicestershire. Here he paid particular attention to classical literature, and cultivated an acquaintance with the Greek writers, and also with the best authors of his own country. In 1722, having obtained an ample testimonial from a committee of ministers, by whom he was examined, he became a preacher at Kibworth, which he preferred, because it was an obscure village, and the congregation was small, so that he could pursue his studies with little interruption. During his residence at this place, from June 1723 to October 1725, he is said to have excelled as a preacher. At first he paid particular attention to his compositions, and thus acquired a habit of delivering his sentiments usually with judgment, and always with ease and freedom of language, when he was afterwards, by a multiplicity of engagements, reduced to the necessity of extempore speaking. In 1725, he removed to Market-Harborough, to enjoy the conversation and advice of Mr. Some, the pastor of the congregation in that place and after the year 1727, when he was chosen assistant to Mr. Some, he preached alternately at Kibworth and MarketHarborough. He received several invitations from congregations much more numerous than these; but he determined to adhere to the plan, which he had adopted, of pursuing his schemes of improvement in a more private residence. When he left the academy, his tutor, Mr. Jennings, not long before his death, which happened in 1723, advised him to keep in view the improvement of the course of lectures on which he had attended; and this advice he assiduously regarded during his retirement at Kibworth. Mr. Jennings foresaw, that, in case of his own death, Mr. Doddridge was the most likely of any of his pupils to complete the schemes which he had formed, and to undertake the conduct of a theological academy. Mr. Doddridge’s qualifications for the office of tutor were generally known and approved, in consequence of a plan for conducting the preparatory studies of young persons intended for the ministry, which he had drawn up at the desire of a friend, whose death prevented his carrying it into effect. This plan was shewn to Dr. Watts, who had then no personal acquaintance with the author; but he was so much pleased with it, that he concurred with others in the opinion, that the person who had drawn it up was best qualified for executing it. Accordingly he was unanimously solicited to undertake the arduous office; and after some hesitation, and with a very great degree of diffidence, he consented to undertake it. Availing himself of all the information and assistance which he could obtain from conversation and correspondence with his numerous friends, he opened his academy at Midsummer, in 1729, at Market- Harborongh. Having continued in this situation for a few months, he was invited by a congregation at Northampton; and he removed thither in December 1729; and in March of the following year, he was ordained according to the mode usually practised among dissenters. In this place he engaged, in a very high degree, the love and attachment of his congregation; and he observes, in his last will, “that he had spent the most delightful hours of his life in assisting the devotions of as seuious, as grateful, and as deserving a people, as perhaps any minister had ever the happiness to serve.”

From the course of Dr. Doddridge’s life, and the multiplicity of his labours, his application must have been incessant, and with little time for exercise and recreation. His constitution was always feeble, and his friends deprecated the injurious effects of his unintermitting assiduity and exertion. By degrees, however, his delicate frame was so impaired, that it could not bear the attack of disease. In December 1750, he went to St. Alban’s to preach the funeral sermon of his friend Dr. Clark, and in the course of his journey he caught a cold, which brought on a pulmonary complaint, that resisted every remedy. But notwithstanding the advice and remonstrances of those who apprehended his death, and wished to prolong his usefulness, he would not decline or diminish the employments in the academy, and with his congregation, in which he* took great delight. At length he was obliged to submit; and to withdraw from all public services to the house of his friend Mr. Orton, at Shrewsbury. Notwithstanding some relief which his recess from business afforded him, his disorder gained ground; and his medical friends advised him to make trial of the Bristol waters. The physicians of this place afforded him little hope of lasting benefit; and he received their report of his case with Christian fortitude and resignation. As the last resort in his case, he was advised to pass the winter in a warmer climate; and at length he was prevailed upon to go to Lisbon, where he met with every attention which friendship and medical skill could afford him. But his case was hopeless. Arriving at Lisbon on the 13th of October, the rainy season came on, and prevented his deriving any benefit from air and exercise, and in a few days he was seized with a colliquative diarrhoea, which rapidly exhausted his remaining strength. He preserved, however, to the last the same calmness, vigour, and joy of mind, which he had felt and expressed through the whole of his disease. The only anxiety he seemed to feel was occasioned by the situation in which Mrs. Doddridge would be left upon his removal. To his children, his congregation, and his friends in general, he desired to be remembered in the most affectionate manner; nor did he forget a single person, not even his servant, in the effusions of his benevolence. Many devout sentiments and aspirations were uttered by him on the last day but one preceding that of his death. At length, his release took place on the 26th of October, O. S. about 3 o'clock in the morning; and though he died in a foreign land, and in a certain sense among strangers, his decease was embalmed with many tears, nor was he molested, in his last moments, by the officious zeal of any of the priests of the church of Rome. His body was opened, and his lungs were found to be in a very ulcerated state. His remains were deposited in the most respectful manner in the burying-ground belonging to the British factory at Lisbon. His congregation erected in his meeting-house a handsome monument to his memory, on which is an inscription drawn up by his much esteemed and ingenious friend, Gilbert West, esq. Dr. Doddridge left four children, one son and three daughters, and his widow survived him more than forty years. His funeral sermon was preached by Mr. Orton from I Cor. xv. 54; and it was extensively circulated under the title of “The Christian’s triumph over death.” His character stands high among the dissenters, no man with equal powers and equal popularity having appeared among them in the course of last century, Dr. Watts excepied. Dr. Doddridge was an indefatigable student, and his mind was furnished with a rich stock of various learning. His acquaintance with books, ancient and modern, was very extensive and if not a profound scholar, he was sufficiently acquainted with the learned languages to make a considerable figure as a critic and commentator. To history, ecclesiastical as well as civil, he had paid no small degree of attention; and while from his disposition he was led to cultivate a taste for polite literature in general, more than for the abstruser parts of science, he was far from being a stranger to mathematical and philosophical studies. But the favourite object of his pursuit, and that in which his chief excellence lay, was divinity, taking that word in its largest sense. As a preacher. Dr. Doddridge was much esteemed and very popular. But his biographers have had some difficulty in vindicating him from the charge of being what is called a trimmer^ that is, accommodating his discourses to congregations of different sentiments nor do we think they have succeeded in proving him exempt from the appearance at least of inconsistency, or obsequious timidity. We are informed, however, that his piety was ardent, unaffected, and cheerful, and particularly displayed in the resignation and serenity with which he bore his affliction. His moral conduct was not only irreproachable, but in every respect exemplary. To his piety he joined the warmest benevolence towards his fellow- creatures, which was manifested in the most active exertions for their welfare within the compass of his abilities or influence. His private manners were polite, affable, and engaging; which rendered him the delight of those who had the happii. of his acquaintance. No man exercised more candour and moderation towards those who differed from him in religious opinions. Of these qualities there are abundant proofs in the extensive correspondence he carried on with many eminent divines in the establishment, and of other persuasions.

This was an important year (176S) to our author in another respect. He now published the first volume of the *' Annual Register," projected in concert with the illustrious Edmund Burke, who is supposed to have contributed very liberally to its success. This work was in all its departments so ably conducted, that although he printed a large impression, he and his successor were frequently obliged to reprint the early volumes. Its value as an useful and convenient record of public affairs was so universally felt, that every inquirer into the history of his country must wish it had been begun sooner. Dodsley, however, did not live to enjoy its highest state of popularity; but some years after his death it became irregular in i,ts times of publication, and the general disappointment which such neglect occasioned, gave rise, in 17 Ho, to another work of the same kind, under the name of the New Annual Register. This for many years was a powerful rival, until the unhappy sera of the French revolution, when the principles adopted in the New Register gave disgust to those who had been accustomed to the Old, and the mind, if not the hand of Burke appearing again in the latter, it resumed and still maintains its former reputation, under the managemerit of Messrs. Rivington, who succeeded the late James Dodsley in the property.

Of Mr. Dodwell’s ten children, six survived him; four daughters, and two sons, Henry and William. Heniiy was brought up to the law, and became sceptical in his principles. In 1742, he published a pamphlet, entitled “Christianity not founded upon Argument,” which, under the cover of zeal for religion, was an attack upon revelation. It was written with ingenuity and subtlety; excited great attention for a time; and was answered effectually by Dr. Doddridge, Leland, and other able and learned men. This Mr. Henry Dodwell took a very active part in the society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, during the early period of that society; and is said to have been a polite, humane, and benevolent man. Mr, Dodwell’s son William will require a separate article.

But the fullest account of his person, talents, and character, was drawn up by his friend sir William Trumbull, and is still extant in his own hand-writing; which, as it proceeds from a person who had the fullest knowledge of him, and is certainly authentic, we shall preserve in the original words. " He was an extraordinary comely person, though grown too fat; of an open countenance, a lively piercing eye, and a majestic presence. He hated flattery, and guarded himself with all possible care against the least insinuation of any thing of that nature, how well soever he deserved: he had admirable natural parts, and great acquired ones; for whatever he read he made his own, and improved it. He had such an happy genius, and such an admirable elocution, that his extempore preaching was beyond not only most of other men’s elaborate performances, but (I was going to say) even his own. I have been credibly informed, that in Westminsterabbey a preacher falling ill after he had named his text, and proposed the heads of his intended discourse, the bishop went up into the pulpit, took the same text, followed the same method, and, I believe, discoursed much better on each head than the other would have done.

After residing for some time at Lyons, Dolet came to Paris in October 1534, and published some new works; and was about to have returned to Lyons in 1536, but was obliged to abscond for a time, having killed a person who had attacked him. He then came to Paris, and presented himself to Francis L who received him graciously, and granted him a pardon, by which he was enabled to return to Lyons. All these incidents he has introduced in his poems. It appears to have been on his return to Lyons at this time that he commenced the business of printer, and the first work which came from his press in 1538, was the four books of his Latin poems. He also married about the same time, and had a son, Claude, born to him in 1539. whose birth he celebrates in a Latin poem printed the same year. From some parts of his poems in his “Second Enfer,” it would appear that the imprisonment we have mentioned, was not all he suffered, and that he was imprisoned twice at Lyons, and once at Paris, before that final imprisonment which ended in his death. For all these we are unable to account; his being confined at Paris appears to have been for his religious opinions, but after fifteen months he was released by the interest of Peter Castellanus, or Du Chatel, then bishop of Tulles. He was not, however, long at large, being arrested at Lyons, Jan. 1, 1544, from which he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in Piemont, when he wrote the nine epistles which form his “Deuxieme Enfer.” We are not told whether he ever returned to Lyons publicly, but only that he was again apprehended in 1545, and condemned to be burnt as a heretic, or rather as an atheist, which sentence was executed at Paris, Aug. 3, 1516. On this occasion it is said by some that he made profession of the catholic faith by invoking the saints but others doubt this fact. Whether pursuant to his sentence, or as a remission of the most horrible part of it, we know not, but he was first strangled, and then burnt. Authors diii'er much as to the real cause of his death; some attributing it to the frequent attacks he had made on the superstitions and licentious lives of the ecclesiastics; others to his being a heretic, or Lutheran; and others to his impiety, or atheism. Jortin, in his Life of Erasmus, and in his “Tracts,” contends for the latter, and seems disinclined to do justice to Dolec in any respect. Dolet certainly had the art of making enemies; he was presumptuous, indiscreet, and violent in his resentments, but we have no direct proof of the cause for which he suffered. On one occasion a solemn censure was pronounced against him by the assembly of divines at Paris, for having inserted the following words in a translation of Plato VAxiochus, from the Latin version into I'Yench “Apres la mort tu tie seras rien clu tout,” and this is said to have produced his condemnation but, barbarous as the times then were, we should be inclined to doubt whether the persecutors would have condemned a man of acknowledged learning and genius for a single expression, and that merely a translation. On the other hand, we know not how to admit Dolet among the protestant martyrs, as Calvin, and others who lived at the time, and must have known his character, represent him as a man of no religion. Dolet contributed not a little to the restoration of classical literature in France, and particularly to the reformation of the Latin style, to which he, had applied most of his attention. He appears to have known little of Greek literature but through the medium of translations, and his own Latin style is by some thought very laboured, and composed of expressions and half sentences, a sort of cento, borrowed from his favourite Cicero and otber authors. He wrote much, considering that his life was short, and much of it spent in vexatious removals and in active employments. His works are: l.“S. Doleti orationes diue in Tholosam; ejusdem epistolarum hbri duo; ejusdem canninum libri duo; ad eundem epistolarum amicorum liber,” 8vo, without date, but most probably in 1534, when he had been driven from Toulouse and was at Lyons, as mentioned above. 2. “Dialogus de imitutione Ciceroniana, adversus Desiderium Erasmum pro Christophoro Longolio,” Lyons, 1535, 4to. This was an attack on Erasmus in defence of Longolius, in which he had been partly anticipated by Scaliger in his “O ratio pro Cicerone contra Erasmum.” 3. “Commentariorum linguce Latinse tomi duo,” Lyons, 1536 and 1588, fol. This is a kind of Latin dictionary, in the manner of a common-place book, and evidently a work of great labour. He began it in his sixteenth year. An abridgment of it was published at Basil in 1537, 8vo. 4. “De re navali liber ad Lazarum Bayfium,” Lyons, 1537, 4to, and inserted by Gronovius in vol. XL of his Greek antiquities. 5. “S. Doleti Galli Aurelii Carminum libri quatuor,” printed by himself at Lyons, 1538, 4to. Dolet’s Latin verses have been too much undervalued by Jortin and others. 6. “Genethliacon Claudii Doleti, Stephani Doleti nlii; liber vitae communi in primis utilis et necessarius; autore patre, Lugduni, apud eundem Doletum,” 1539, 4to. A French translation was printed by the author in the same year. 7. “Formulas Latinarum locutionum illustriorum in tres partes divisae,” Lyons, 1539, folio, and with additions by Sturmius and Susannasus, Strasburgh, 1596, 4to. 8. “Francisci Valesii, Gallorum regis, fata, ubi rein omnem celebriorem a Gallis gestam noscas, ab anno 1513 ad annum 1539,” Lyons, 1539, 4to. This which is in Latin verse, was translated by the author into French prose, and printed in 1540, 4to, 1543, 8vo, and Paris, 1546, 8vo. 9. “Observationes in Terentii Andriam et Eunuchum,” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 10. “La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en une autre de la ponctuation Francoise, &c.” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 11. “Liber de imitatione Ciceroniana adversus Floridum Sabinum Responsio ad convitia ejusdem Sabini; Epigrammata in eundem,” Lyons, 1540, 4to. Dolet was unfortunately not content with arguing with his antagonists, but more frequently exasperated them by his sarcastic attacks. 12. “Libri tres de legato, de immunitate legatorum, et de Joannis Langiachi Lemovicensis episcopi Legationibus,” Lyons, 1541, 4to. 13. “Les epitres et evangiles des cinquante-deux dimanches, &,c. avec brieve exposition,” Lyons, 1541, 8vo. 14. A translation of Erasmus’s “Miles Christianus,” Lyons, 1542, 16mo. 15, “Claudii Cotersei Turonensis de jure et privilegiismilitum libri tres, et de officio imperatoris liber unus,” Lyons, 1539, folio. 16. “On Confession,” translated from Erasmus, ibid. 1542, 16mo. 17. “Discotirs contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorise et constitue” au service d'un prince, peut conserver sa felicite eternelle et temporelle, &c.“Lyons, 1542, 8vo. 18.” Exhortation, a la lecture des saintes lettres,“ibid. 1542, 16rno. 19.” La paraphrase de Jean Campensis sur les psalmes de David, &c. faite Frangoise,“ibid. 1542. 20.” Bref discours de la republique Fran^oise, desirant la lecture des livres de la sainte ecriture lui etre loisible en sa langue vulgaire,“in verse, Lyons, 1544, 16mo. 21. A translation of Plato’s Axiochus and Hipparchus, Lyons, 1544, I6mo. This was addressed to Francis I. in a prose epistle, in which the author promises a translation of all the works of Plato, accuses his country of ingratitude, and supplicates the king to permit him to return to Lyons, being now imprisoned. 22.” Second Enfer d'Etienne Dolet,“in French verse, Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This consists of nine poetical letters addressed to Francis I. the duke of Orleans, the duchess d'Estampes, the queen of Navarre, the cardinal Lorraine, cardinal Tournon, the parliament of Paris, the judges of Lyons, and his friends. The whole is a defence of the conduct for which he was imprisoned at Lyons in the beginning of 1544. He had written a first” Enfer," consisting of memorials respecting his imprisonment at Paris, and was about to have published it when he was arrested at Lyons, but it never appeared. Besides these, he published translations into French of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions and his Familiar Epistles, which went through several editions. Almost all Dolet’s works are scarce, owing to

, a very able mineralogist, was born in Dauphiny, June 24, 1750. Of his early history our authorities give but a confused account. He was inspector of the mines, and commander of the order of Malta. He first went to sea at the age of eighteen, when being insulted by one of his companions, who was on board the same ship, he fought and killed him; for which, on his return to Malta, he was sentenced to death by the chapter of the order. The grand-master, however, granted him his pardon, but as it was necessary that it should be confirmed by the pope, and as his holiness was at that time out of humour with the knights, he remained inflexible, and Dolomieu was confined for nine months in a dungeon in the island. He afterwards resumed his studies, and accompanied the regiment of carabineers in which he was an officer. At Metz he took his first lessons in chemistry and natural history, and his progress became so rapid, that the academy of sciences granted him the title of corresponding member, which favour attached him entirely to natural philosophy. He then quitted the service, and almost immediately began his travels through Sicily, which produced “Voyage aux Isles de Lipari,” 1783, 8vo; a very interesting account of these volcanic isles, and forming very useful materials for a history of volcanoes. In the same year he published “Memoire sur le tremblemens de terre de la Calabre in 1783,” 8vo, which the following year was translated into Italian; and in 1788, “Memoire sur les isles Ponces, et Catalogue raisonne de PEtna,” 8vo.

Butler observes that St. Dominic hau no hand in the origin of the inquisition, though he owns, that the project of this court was first formed in a council of Toulouse in 1229, and that in 1233, two Dominican friars were the first inquisitors. Modern protestant historians seem inclined to concede that, although St. Dominic was an inquisitor, it was not in the most offensive sense of the word. Tins, however, will not excuse his tyranny towards the Albigenses, and if he did not invent the inquisition, he at least must be allowed the honour of inventing the rosary, a species of mechanical devotion which has done infinite mischief.

, the late learned bishop of Salisbury, was born in Scotland, in 1721, the son of Mr. Archibald Douglas, a merchant of Fittenween, in Fifeshire. His grandfather (who was a younger brother of the family of Douglas of Tulliquilly, one of the oldest branches of the house of Douglas now in existence), was an eminent clergyman of the episcopal church of Scotland, and the immediate successor of bishop Burnet in the living of Salten, in East Lothian, from which preferment he was ejected at the revolution, when presbyterianism was established in Scotland. The subject of this memoir was educated for some years at the school of Dunbar, but in 1736 was entered a commoner of St. Mary hall, Oxford, where he remained till 1738, and then removed to Baliolcollege, on being elected an exhibitioner on bishop Warner’s foundation. In 1741 he took his bachelor’s degree; and in 1742, in order to acquire a facility of speaking French, he went abroad, and remained for some time at Montreal, in Picardy, and afterwards at Ghent, in Flanders. On his return to college, in 1743, he took his master’s degree, and having been ordained deacon, in 1744, he was appointed to officiate as chaplain to the third regiment of foot-guards, which he joined when serving with the combined army in Flanders. During the time he tilled this situation, he employed himself chiefly in the study of modern languages. He was not an inactive spectator of the battle of Fontenoy, April 29, 1745, on which occasion he was employed in carrying orders from general Campbell to the English who guarded the village in which he and the other generals were stationed.

, bishop of Derry in Ireland, the son of William Downham, bishop of Chester, was born there. He was educated at Cambridge, was elected a fellow of Christ college in 1585, and was afterwards professor of logic. Fuller says that no man was better skilled in Aristotle and Ramus, and terms him “the top-twig of that branch.” He was esteemed a man of learning, and was chaplain to James I. by whom he was advanced to the see of Derry, by letters dated Sept. 6, 1616, and was consecrated Oct. 6, of the same year. During the government of the lord chancellor Loftus, and the earl of Cork, he obtained a commission, by an immediate warrant from himself to arrest, apprehend, and attach the bodies of all people within his jurisdiction, who should decline the same, or should refuse to appear upon lawful citation, or appearing should refuse to obey the sentence given against them, and authority to bind them in recognizances, with sureties or without, to appear at the council-table to answer such contempts. The like commission was renewed to him by the lord deputy Wentworth, Oct. 3, 1633. Both were obtained upon his information, that his diocese abounded with all manner of delinquents, who refused obedience to all spiritual processes. He died at Londonderry April 17, 1634, and was buried there in the cathedral. He had a brother named John, who was an eminent divine and a writer. His own works are very numerous, and evince his theological abilities and piety. 1. “A treatise concerning Antichrist, in two books,” Lond. 1603, 4to. 2. “The Christian’s Sanctuary,” ibid. 1604, 4to. 3. “Lectures upon the Fifteenth Psalm,” ibid. 1604, -4to. 4. “Sermon at the consecration of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, upon Apocalypse i. 20,” ibid. 160S, 4to. 5. “Defence of the same Sermon against a nameless author,” ibid. 1611,4to. 6. “Two Sermons, the one commending the ministry in general, the other, the office of bishops in particular,” ibid. 1608. The latter of these, but enlarged, is the consecration sermon above mentioned. 7. “Papa Antichristus, sen Diatriba de Antichristo,” ibid. 1620, a different treatise from the former against Antichrist. 8. “The Covenant of Grace, or an Exposition upon Luke i. 73, 74, 75,” Dublin, 1631, 8vo. 9. “A treatise on Justification,” Lond. 1633, folio. 10. “The Christian’s Freedom, or the doctrine of Christian Liberty,” Oxford, 1635, 8vo. 11. “An Abstract of the Duties commanded, and sins forbidden in the Law of God,” Lond. 1635, 8vo. 12. “A godly and learned Treatise of Prayer,” Lond. 1640, 4to. These three last were posthumous. His brother John, above mentioned, was likewise educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. D. He exercised his ministry in different parts of London, and was the first who preached the Tuesday’s lecture in St. Bartholomew Exchange, which he did with great reputation. His principal work is entitled “The Christian Warfare.” He died in 1644.

His translations of Virgil, Juvenal, and Persius, and his Fables, were more successful, as we have observed already. But his poetical reputation is built chiefly upon his original poems, among which his Ode on Saint Caecilia’s Day is justly esteemed one of the most perfect pieces in any language. It has been set to music more than once, particularly in the winter of 1735, by Handel; and was publicly performed with the utmost applause, on the theatre in Covent-garden. Congreve, in the dedication of our author’s dramatic works to the duke of Newcastle, has drawn his character to great advantage. He represented him, in regard to his moral character, in every respect not only blameless, but amiable; and, “as to his writings,” says he, “no man hath written in our language so much and so various matter, and in so various manners, so well. Another thing I may say was very peculiar to him; which is, that his parts did not decline with his years, but that he was an improving writer to the last, even to near se* venty years of age; improving even in fire and imagination, as well as in judgment; witness his Ode on St. Caecilia’s Day, and his Fables, his latest performances. He was equally excellent in verse and in prose. His prose had all the clearness imaginable, together with all the nobleness of expression; all the graces and ornaments proper and peculiar to it, without deviating into the language or diction of poetry. I have heard him frequently own with pleasure, that if he had any talent for English prose, it was owing to his having often read the writings of the great archbishop Tillotson. His versification and his numbers he could learn of nobody; for he first possessed those talents in perfection in our tongue. In his poems, his diction is, wherever his subject requires it, so sublimely and so truly poetical, that its essence, like that of pure gold, cannot be destroyed. What he has done in any one species or distinct kind of writing, would have been sufficient to have acquired him a great name. If he had written nothing but his prefaces, or nothing but his songs or his prologues, each of them would have entitled him to the preference and distinction of excelling in his kind.” It may be proper to observe, that Congreve, in drawing this character of Dryden, discharged an obligation laid on him by our poet, in these lines:

He had appointed his old and intimate friends Mr. Fountaine and Mr. Tutet, executors to his will; but both these gentlemen declining the trust, it devolved upon his nephew and heir, Gerard Gustavus Ducarel, esq. Dr. Ducarel had the happiness of enjoying the esteem of five successive primates, and lived to be the oldest officer in the palace of Lambeth. His official attendance to the duties of Doctors-commons was unremitting, and his attachment to the study of English antiquities formed his principal amusement. His collection of books and Mss. was valuable; and his indexes and catalogues so exact as to render them highly convenient to himself and the friends he was desirous to oblige. All these, with a good collection of coins and medals, he gave by his last will, to his nephew Gerard Gustavus, in the fond hopes of their being preserved as heir-looms in his family. But they were all afterwards consigned to the hammer of the auctioneer, and the greater part of the Mss. passed into the hands of Mr. Gough, many of which are now in Mr. Nichols’s possession. In the latter part of life he was too much immersed in professional engagements to enter into new attachments of friendship, but with his old friends he associated on the most liberal terms. Though he never ate meat till he was fourteen, nor drank wine till he was eighteen, as he was frequently heard to declare; yet it was a maxim which he punctually observed, that “he was an old Oxonian, and therefore never knew a man till he had drunk a bottle of wine with him.”' His entertainments were in the true style of the old English hospitality and he was remarkably happy in assorting the company he not un frequently invited to his table.

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

, was an artist who flourished in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but in what school he was educated is uncertain. Sigismondo Tizio, of Castiglione, who lived at Siena from 1482 to 1528, in his histories, speaks of him as the first artist of his time, (1311), and makes him a pupil of Segna, a name as celebrated once as now obscure. The works of Duccio are from 1275, the year in which he received a commission for S. Maria Novella at Florence, to 1311, the period at which he was employed in the cathedral of Siena, to paint the principal altar-piece, a work that still exists, which marks probably an epoch of art, at which he laboured three years, and for which he was paid upward of 3000 scudi d'oro, the expence of gilding and ultramarine included. That part of it which faced the audience, represented in large figures the Madonna and various saints; that which fronted the choir, divided into many compartments, exhibited numerous compositions of gospel subjects in figures of small proportions: it cannot be denied, that with all its copiousness, the whole savours strongly of the Greek manner. Duccio is celebrated as the restorer of that inlaid kind of Mosaic, called “lavoro di commesso,” which composes the floor of the dome of Siena.

, an English civilian, was born at Heavy-Tree, near Exeter in Devonshire, 1580, of a considerable family, and was the younger brother of Nicholas Duck, recorder of Exeter. At the age of fifteen he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, took his degree of B. A. and became a fellow-commoner in 1599. From thence he removed to Hart-hall, took his master’s degree, and afterwards was elected fellow of All-souls but his genius leading him to the study of the civil law, he took his degree of doctor in that faculty.* He travelled into France, Italy, and Germany; and, after his return, was made chancellor of the diocese of Bath and Wells. He was afterwards made chancellor of London, and at length master of the requests: but the confusions, which were then beginning, probably hindered him from rising higher. In 1640 he was elected burgess for Minehead in Somersetshire, and soon after siding with king Charles in the time of the rebellion, became a great sufferer in the fortunes of his family, being stripped by the usurpers of 2000l. In 1648 he was sent for by his majesty to Newport in the Isle of Wight, to assist in his treaty with the commissioners from the parliament; but, that treaty not succeeding, he retired to his habitation at Chiswick near London, where he died in May 1649, but in Smith’s obituary he is said to have died in December preceding. He was an excellent civilian, a man of piety, a tolerable poet, especially in his younger days, and very well versed in history, ecclesiastical as well as civil. His only defect was a harshness of voice in pleading. He left behind him, “Vita Henrici Chichele,” &c. Oxon. 1617, 4to, added to Bates’s Lives, and translated into English, 1699, and “De usu & authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum in dominiisprincipmn Christianorum:” a very useful and entertaining work, which has been printed several times at home and abroad, and is added to De Ferriere’s “History of Civil Law,” 1724, 8vo. He was greatly assisted in this work by the learned Dr. Gerard Langbaine.

Mr. Duke, in his character as a divine, published three sermons in his life-time. The first was on the imitation of Christ, preached before the queen in 1703, from 1 John, ii. 6. The second was from Psalm xxv. 14, and was likewise preached before the queen in 1704. The third was an assize sermon, on Christ’s kingdom, from John xviii. 36, and published in the same year. In 1714, fifteen of his sermons on several occasions, were printed in one vol. 8vo, which were held in good reputation, and are spoken of in strong terms of commendation by Dr. Henry Felton, who, in his Dissertation on reading the Classics, says, “Mr. Duke may be mentioned under the double capacity of a poet and a divine. He is a bright example in the several parts of writing, whether we consider the originals, his translations, paraphrases, or imitations. But here I can only mention him as a divine, with this peculiar commendation, that in his sermons, besides liveliness of wit, purity and correctness of style, and justness of argument, we see many fine allusions to the ancients, several beautiful passages handsomely incorporated in the train of his own thoughts; and, to say all in a word, classic learning and a Christian spirit.”

pains to conquer his native pronunciation, which, as it frequently provoked a smile from his hearers, would have proved of the greatest disadvantage in the heat and acrimony of debate, had he not evinced by the fluency and acuteness of his arguments that he was deserving of serious attention, and was an opponent not to be despised. For declamatory speaking, and addresses to the passions, he had neither taste nor talent; his mind was intent on the practical part of every measure, and in every debate that concerned what maybe termed business, he had few equals, and his speeches were perhaps the more attended to, as he made it a point to reserve them for such occasions. During lord North’s administration he was introduced to no ostensible station; but when that nobleman and his colleagues were obliged to retire in 1782, and a few months after, by the death of the marquis of Rockingham, their successors were obliged to resign, Mr. Dundas joined the young minister, Mr. Pitt, and was sworn into the privy council, and appointed treasurer of the navy. During Mr. Pitt’s first administration the general peace was concluded, which, however necessary, did not add much popularity to the ministry, and lord North and Mr. Fox, with their respective friends, or the greater part of them, having formed what was termed the coalition, Mr. Pitt’s administration was obliged to give way to a host of opponents, which was considered as invincible. On this occasion, in 1783, Mr. Dundas was deprived of his offices as treasurer of the navy, and lord advocate for Scotland.

was born at Glasgow, where his father was principal of the university, 1692. In 1712 he took the degree of A. M. and afterwards spent two years in the university of Utrecht, having at that time some thoughts of applying himself to the study of the law; but he was diverted from that resolution by the persuasions of Mr. Wishart, then principal of the college of Edinburgh, by whose interest he was promoted to be regius professor of divinity and church history, 1716. In the discharge of his duty, Mr. Dunlop procured great honour: but his labours were not confined to the professional chair; he preached frequently in the parish churches in Edinburgh, and his sermons were delivered with such elegance and justness of thought, that multitudes flocked after him. Increasing daily in promoting useful knowledge, and acquiring the approbation of the virtuous of every denomination, he adorned his profession by the most exalted piety, and lived equal to the doctrines he taught. In the arduous discharge of these important duties, he contracted a disorder which brought on a dropsy; and after a lingering illness, he died at Edinburgh 1720, aged twenty -eight. His works are: Sermons in 2 vols. 12mo, and an “Essay on Confessions of Faith.” He was an ornament to learning, and esteemed as a man of great piety and worth.

, surnamed Sgotus, an eminent scholastic divine, who flourished in the latter end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century, was born at Dunstance, in the parish of Emildun or Embleton, near Alnwick in Northumberland. Some writers have contended that he was a Scotsman, and that the place of his birth was Duns, a village eight miles from England, and others have asserted that he was an Irishman. He is, however, treated as an Englishman by all the early authors who speak of him; and the conclusion of the ms copy of his works in Merton college, gives his name, country, and the place where he was born, as stated above. When a youth, he joined himself to the minorite friars of Newcastle; and, being sent by them to Oxford, he was admitted into Merton college, of which, in due time, he became fellow. Here, besides the character he attained in scholastic theology, he is said to have been very eminent for his knowledge in the civil and canon law, in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics, and astronomy. Upon the removal of William Varron from Oxford to Paris, in 1301, Duns Scotus was chosen to supply his place in the theological chair; which office he sustained with such reputation, that more than thirty-thousand scholars came to the university to be his hearers, a number which, though confidently asserted by several writers, we admit with great hesitation. After John Duns had lectured three years at Oxford, he was called, in 1304, to Paris, where he was honoured with the degrees, first of bachelor, and then of doctor in divinity. At a meeting of the monks of his order at Tholouse, in 1307, he was created regent; and about the same time he was placed at the head of the theological schools at Paris. Here he is affirmed to have first broached the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and to have supported his position by two hundred arguments, which appeared so conclusive, that the members of the university of Paris embraced the opinion; instituted the feast of the immaculate conception; and issued an edict, that no one, who did not embrace the same opinion, should be admitted to academical degrees. In 1308, Duns Scotus was ordered by Gonsalvo, the general of the Minorites, to remove to Cologn, on the road to which he was met in solemn pomp, and conducted thither by the whole body of the citizens. Not long after his arrival in this city, he was seized with an apoplexy, which carried him off, on the eighth of November, 1308, in the forty-third, or, as others say, in the thirty-fourth, year of his age. Paul Jovius’s account of the mode of his death is, that when he fell down of his apoplexy he was immediately interred as dead; but that, afterwards coming to his senses, he languished in a most miserable manner in his coffin, beating his head and hands against its sides, till he died. This story, though generally treated as a fable, is hinted at by Mr. Whavton, who says, “Apoplexia correptus, et festinato nimis, ut volunt, funere elatus,” and whether true or not, gave occasion to the following epitaph:

In addition to Dupin’s other literary labours, he was commissary in most of the affairs of the faculty of theology, was professor of divinity in the royal college, and for many years editor of the “Journal des Scavans,” carried on an extensive correspondence with learned men, and was often requested to prepare editions of works for the press, and to write prefaces. Yet notwithstanding all this, and his more urgent labours in preparing his own works, we are told that he divided his time judiciously, and had leisure to visit and receive the visits of his friends or strangers, whom he entertained with as much apparent ease as if his time was wholly unoccupied. His openness of temper, however, and the general impartiality of his works, procured him many enemies, whom the celebrated “Case of Conscience” afforded an opportunity of bringing him into fresh trouble. This “Case of Conscience” was a paper signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne, in 1702, the purport of which allows some latitude of opinion with respect to the sentiments of the Jansenists. It occasioned a controversy of some length in France, and most of those who signed it were censured or punished. Dupin, in particular, was not only deprived of his professorship, but banished to Chatellerault, which last gave him most uneasiness, as it removed him from the seat of learning, and the company of learned men, always so delightful to him, and so necessary to the pursuit of his studies. At length he was induced to withdraw his subscription, and by the interest of some friends, was permitted to return; but his professorship was not restored to him. After he resumed his studies at Paris, he published many of those works of which we are about to give a catalogue, all of which had a. quick and extensive sale, although many of them prove that his accuracy was not equal to his diligence, and that by confining himself to fewer subjects, he would have better consuited his reputation. It must, however, be acknowledged that he possessed considerable taste, great freedom from common prejudices, a clear and methodical head, and most extensive reading. He corresponded with eminent men of different communions, and was much censured and threatened for a correspondence he carried on with archbishop Wake, respecting the union of the churches of Rome and England. Dupin and some other doctors of the Sorbonne were the first movers of this plan, although Mosheim, in his first edition, has represented Dr. Wake as offering the first proposals. This matter, however, is placed in a more clear light in the last edition of Mosheim, edited by Dr. Coote (1811) in the Appendix to which (No. IV.) the reader will find the whole correspondence, and probably be of opinion that while we admire the archbishop’s firmness and caution in stipulating for an emancipation from the papal yoke as a sine qua non, we have equal reason to admire the candour of Dupin in his review of the XXXIX Articles, and in the advances he endeavours to make to protestant sentiments. The czar of Muscovy, we are also told, consulted Dupin on an union with the Greek church. Dupin was an eager opponent of the constitution styled Unigenitus, and was the great leader of the opposition to it in the Sorbonne, the deputations, commissions, and memorials, all passing through his hands. At length, exhausted by his uninterrupted labours, and by a regimen too strict for health, he died June 6, 1719, in his sixtysecond year. It is said that, while he was in his last sickness, father Courayer of St. Genevieve came to see him with another of his brethren. Dupin began the conversation at first with mentioning the criticism, which had been published in the “Europe Savante,” upon the first volume of his “Bibliotheque des Auteurs separez de la Communion Romaine,” and spoke of it with great severity, not knowing that Courayer was the author of it. These fathers then went up to the chamber of Le Cointe, who had written in conjunction with Dupin, and was author of the answer to that criticism, which had been erroneously ascribed to Dupin himself. Le Cointe, who likewise knew not that Courayer was their antagonist, began upon the same subject, and told them, that if he lived, he would never desist from writing against those who had attacked Dupin, whom he styled his dear master; and though he had but a very small estate, would at his death leave money for a foundation to support those who should defend his memory; but Le Cointe died about fifteen days after, without performing his promise.

Being at Francfort in April 1662, he declared to some gentlemen of Metz, that he longed extremely to see M. Ferri, an enthusiast, like himself, for uniting discordancies. He resolved at length to go to Metz, but met with two difficulties: the first was, that he must consent to dress after the French fashion, like a countryman: the second, to have his great white and square beard shaved. He got over these difficulties: and, upon his arrival, monsieur Ferri was so surprised, so overjoyed, and so very eager to salute this good doctor and fellow-labourer immediately, that he went out to meet him in a complete undress. They conferred much; and their subject was an universal coalition of religions. In 1674, however, Dury began to be much discouraged; nor had he any longer hopes of serving the church by the methods he had hitherto taken. He had therefore recourse to another expedient, as a sure means of uniting not only Lutherans and Calvinists, but all Christians; and this was, by giving a new explication of the Apocalypse. Accordingly he published it in a little treatise in French, at Francfort in 1674, He now enjoyed a quiet retreat in the country of Hesse: where Hedwig Sophia, princess of Hesse, who had the regency of the country, had assigned him a very commodious lodging, with a table well furnished, and had given him free postage for his letters. He returns her thanks for this in the epistle dedicatory to the book above mentioned. It is not known in what year he died. He was an honest man, full of zeal and piety,but somewhat fanatical. Among his publications, the titles of some of which shew his cast of opinions, in which he was by no means steady, we find, 1. “Consultatio theologica super negocio Pacis Ecclesiast.” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “A summary discourse concerning the work of Peace Ecclesiastical,” Camb. 1641, 4to, which was presented in 1639 to sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador at Hamburgh. 3. “Petition to the house of commons for the preservation of true Religion,” Lond. 1642, 4to. 4. “Certain considerations, shewing the necessity of a correspondency in spiritual matters betwixt all professed Churches,” ibid. 1642, 4to. 5. “Epistolary Discourse to Thomas Godwin, Ph. Nye, and Sam. Hartlib,” ibid. 1644, 4to, a discourse against toleration, which was answered by H. Robinson. 6. “Of Presbytery, and Independency, &c.” 1646, 4to. 7. “Model of the Church Government,” 1647, 4to. 8. “Peace makes the Gospel way,” 164*, 4to. 9. “Seasonable discourse for Reformation,” 1649, 4to, published by Sam. Hartlib. 10. “An epistolical Discourse to Mr. Thos. Thorowgood, concerning his conjecture that the Americans are descended from the Israelites, &c.” 1649, 4to. 11. “Considerations concerning the Engagement,” 1650, with two other pamphlets on the same subject, in answer to an antagonist. 12. “The Reformed School,” 1650, 12mo, published by Hartlib, with a supplement in 1651. 13. “The reformed Library Keeper,” 1650, 12mo, to which is added “Bibliotheca ducis Brunovicensis et Lunenburgi,” at Wolfenbuttle. 14. “Conscience eased, &c.” 165J, 4to. 15. “Earnest plea for Gospel Communion,” 1654. 16. “Summary platform of Divinity,” 1654. Hartlib wrote a defence of Dury against the presbyterians, Lond. 1650. In this we are told that he obtained an estate of 60l. per ann. in the marshes of Kent, which came into the possession of Henry Oldenburg, who married his daughter.

Before he quitted Turin, Mr. M'Kenzie’s interest with the duke of Northumberland, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, procured him the promise of a deanery in that kingdom, which he declined accepting; but soon after received from the same noble patron a presentation to the rectory of Elsdon in Northumberland, then worth 800l. a year; which induced him, in 1766, to return to England, where he received a present of 1000l. from the king, and was highly delighted with the reception he met with at Northumberland-house. In 1768 he performed an extensive tour through the continent with lord Algernon Percy, the duke of Northumberland’s son. In the course of this tour, some conversation at Genoa with the marchioness of Babbi, gave rise to a work which Mr. Dutens afterwards published at Rome under the title of “The Tocsin,” and afterwards at Paris, under the title of “Appel au bons sens.” After this tour was finished, he resided for some time at Paris, where he published several works, and lived in a perpetual round of splendid amusements. In 1776 he returned to London, and lived much with the Northumberland family, and with his early patron Mr. M'Kenzie, until lord Montstuart was appointed envoy-extraordinary to the court of Turin, whom he accompanied as his friend, but without any official situation, except that when lord Montstuart was called to England upon private business, he again acted for a short time as charge des affaires. After this, according to his memoirs, his time was divided for many years between a residence in London, and occasional tours to the continent, with the political affairs of which he seems always anxious to keep up an intimate acquaintance. At length the death of his first friend and patron placed him in easy if not opulent circumstances, as that gentleman left him executor and residuary legatee with his two nephews, lord Bute and the primate of Ireland. The value of this legacy has been estimated at 15,000l. which enabled Mr. Dutens to pass the remainder of his life in literary retirement and social intercourse, for which he was admirably qualified, not only by an extensive knowledge, but by manners easy and accommodating. In the complimentary strain of a courtier few men exceeded him, although his profuse liberality in this article was sometimes thought to lessen its value. He died at his house in Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, May 23, 1812, in his eighty-third year. Not many days before his death, he called, in a coach, on many persons of eminence with whom he had corresponded, for the sole purpose of returning the letters he had received from them. His publications, not already noticed were, 1 “Explications des quelques Medailles de peuple, de villes, et des rois Grecques et Pheniciennes,” 1773, 4to. 2. The same translated. 3. “Itineraire des Routes les plus frequentées; ou Journal d‘un Voyage aux Villes principales de l’Europe,” often reprinted. 4. “Histoire de ce qui s’est passe” pour establissement d'une Regence en Angleterre. Par M. L. D. Ne D. R. D. L. Ge. Be.“1789, 8vo; in which he adopted the sentiments of Mr. Pitt’s administration on the important question of the regency, which, he says, lost him the favour of a great personage. 5.” Recherches sur le terns le plus recule de l'usage des Voutes chez les Anciens,“1795. He wrote also the French text of the second volume of the Marlborough gems, a task for which he was well qualified, as he was an excellent classical antiquary and medallist. In 1771 he translated” The manner of securing all sorts of brick buildings from fire,“&c. from the French of count d'Espie. His last publication, in 1805, was his own history, in” Memoires d'un Voyageur," &c. of which we have availed ourselves in this sketch but, although this work may often amuse the reader, and add something to the knowledge of human nature, it will not perhaps create an unmixed regard for the character of the writer.

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

, an eminent English divine and voluminous writer, the son of the preceding Thomas Edwards, was born at Hertford, February 26, 1637. His father, as we have already noticed, died in 1647, and by his wife, who was an heiress of a very considerable fortune, he left one daughter and four sons, the second of whom was John, the subject of the present narrative. After having received his grammatical education at Merchanttaylors’ school, in London, he was removed in 1653 to the university of Cambridge, and was admitted of St. John’s college, then under the government of Dr. Anthony Tuckney, a presbyterian divine of acknowledged character and learning, and particularly distinguished for the wise and exact discipline of his college. Mr. Edwards, soon after his admission, was chosen scholar of the house, and was quickly taken notice of for his exercises, both in his tutor’s chamber, and in his college-hall. Towards the close of his undergraduateship, the senior proctor being then of the college, he was appointed one of the moderators for the year. Whe: he was middle bachelor, he was elected a fellow of his college, for which he was principally indebted to the exertions of Dr. Tuckney in his behalf. During the time of his senior bachelorship he was again chosen moderator in the schools, and his performances were long remembered with esteem and praise. In 1661 he was admitted to the degree of M. A.; and soon after sir Robert Carr presented him to Dr. Sanderson, bishop cf Lincoln, who conferred upon him the order of deacon. That learned prelate engaged him, at the same time, to preach a sermon at the next ordination, when with the other candidates, he was ordained priest. In 1664, he undertook the duty of Trinity-church, in Cambridge, and went through the whole both parts of the day. In his preaching, without affecting eloquence, he studied to be plain, intelligible, and practical; and his church was much frequented by the gown, and by persons of considerable standing in the university. Dr. Sparrow, master of Queen’s, Dr. Beaumont, master of Peterhouse, and Dr. Pearson, master of Trinity-college, were often heard to applaud his pulpit performances. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he quitted his residence in the college, and dwelt all that year, and part of the next, in the town, that he might devote himself entirely to the edification and comfort of the parishioners of Trinity church, in that season of calamity. A little after this, sir Edward Atkins offered him a good living near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire, but he chose to continue in his station at Cambridge. In 1668 he was admitted to the degree of B. D. About the same time, through the interest of sir Robert Carr with sir Thomas Harvey, Mr. Edwards was unanimously chosen lecturer at St. Edmund’s Bury, with a salary of loo/, a year. This office he discharged with great reputation and acceptance, notwithstanding which, after a period of twelve months, he resigned it, and returned to his college, where, however, his situation was uneasy to him. He had not been upon the best terms with Dr. Peter Gunning, the former master of St. John’s, and being still more dissatisfied with Dr. Francis Turner, Gunning’s successor, who had somehow offended him, he determined to resign his fellowship. On quitting his college, he was presented by the fellows with a testimonial of his worthy and laudable behaviour among them. From St. John’s he removed to Trinity-hall, where he entered himself as a fellow-commoner, and performed the regular exercises in the civil Jaw. Being willing to be employed in the offices of jits clerical function, he accepted of the invitation of the parishioners of St. Sepulchre, in Cambridge, to be their minister; and his sermons there were as much attended by persons of consequence in the university as they had formerly been at Trinity church. In 1676 Mr. Edwards married Mrs. Lane, the widow of Mr. Lane, who had been ati alderman, a justice of peace, and an eminent attomey in the town. “This gentlewoman,” says his biographer, “was an extraordinary person, of unusual accomplishments and singular graces but had the unhappiness (as some others of that sex) to be misrepresented to the world. She being naturally of a high and generous spirit, and not framed to low observances and vulgar compliances, incurred thereby the imputation of pride and superciliousness among vulgar minds. But those who were no strangers to good breeding, and knew how to make distinction of persons, admired the agreeableness of her conversation, and saw those excellent and worthy things in her deportment which they could find but in very few of her sex. She understood herself and her duty, and all the rules of civil and religious behaviour.”

, a Jewish rabbi in high repute among them, wrote a book called the “Chapters of Eliezer,” which was partly historical, and partly allegorical. The Jews, who consider it as one of their most ancient books, would refer the time of this author to the first century; but father Worin has very ably proved that he lived in the seventh, and that he was an impostor who assumed the ancient name of Eliezer to give currency to his work, which is a collection of fables from the Talmud, &c. Vorstius translated this work into Latin, and published it in 1644, 4to, with notes, &c. and although he allows that it contains much fabulous matter, yet thinks it may be useful in explaining some parts of the history and traditions of the Jews.

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

, a French physician and biographer, was born at Mons, Sept. 20, 1714, and was educated to the practice of physic, in which he acquired great reputation both for skill and humanity. He was a man of extensive learning, and notwithstanding the time he devoted to study, and that which was necessary in his practice, he found leisure to write several valuable works. His first, which was published in 1750, was a small treatise, entitled “Reflexions sur l'Usage du The.” His next publication was an attempt at a history of medicine, arranged in the form of a dictionary, and entitled “Essai du Dictionnaire Historique de la Medicine ancienne et moderne,” in two volumes octavo, which appeared in 1755: this work was afterwards greatly enlarged, by extending the different articles which it contained, and was published in 1778, in four volumes quarto, with the title of “Dictionnaire Historique de la. Medicine ancienne et moderne;” a work in many respects more useful than Haller’s Bibliotheca. Eloy likewise published, in 1755, a small volume, entitled “Cours elementaire des Accouchemens;” and, a few years previous to his death, viz. in 17 So and 1781, he committed to the press two other essays, the first of which was entitled “Memoire sur la marche, la nature, les causes, et le traitement de la Dysenteric” and the other, “Question Medico-politique si l'usage du cafe” est avantageux a la sante, et s’il peut se concilier avec le bien de Petat dans les Provinces Belgiques“As a slight reward for the patriotic zeal manifested in this tract, the estates of Hainault presented him with a superb snuffbox, with this inscription,” Ex Dono Patria?;" the Gift of his Country. He held the honourable office of physician, to prince Charles of Lorraine until his death, March 10, 1788.

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

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

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

, an illustrious philosopher of the school of the stoics, flourished in the first century of the Christian aera. He was born at Hieropolis in Phrygia, and was sold as a slave to Epaphroditus, one of Nero’s domestics. He was lame, which has been variously accounted for. Suidas says, that he lost one of his legs when he was young, in consequence of a defluxion; Simplicius asserts that he was born lame; Celsus relates, that when his master, in order to torture him, bended his leg, Epictetus, without discovering any sign of fear, said to him, “You will break it:” and when his tormentor had broken the leg, he only said, “Did I not tell you, you would break it?” Others ascribe his lameness to the heavy chains with which his master loaded him. Having, at length, by some means obtained his freedom, he retired to a small hut within the city of Rome, where, with the bare necessaries of life, he devoted himself to the study of philosophy, and passed his days entirely alone, till his humanity led him to take the charge of a child, whom a friend of his had through poverty exposed, and to provide it with a nurse. Having furnished himself, by diligent study, with the principles of the stoic philosophy, and been instructed in rhetoric by Rufus, who was himself a bold and successlul corrector of public manners, Epictetus, notwithstanding his poverty, became a popular moral preceptor, for which he was admirably qualified, being an acute and judicious observer of manners. His eloquence was simple, majestic, nervous, and penetrating, and while his doctrine inculcated the purest morals, his life was an admirable pattern of sobriety, magnanimity, and the most rigid virtue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, was an Athenian comic poet, who flourished about the year 435 before Christ, in the time of the old comedy. (See Cratinus). His play of “Numeniae” was acted in this year, and his “Flatterers,” about the year 420. Many others of his pieces are known by name, of which only fragments now remain. Of his death various accounts are given. Some say that he was thrown into the sea, by order of Alcibiades, for writing the “Baptae” against him; others, that he was shipwrecked in a military expedition in the Hellespont, which produced, says Suidas, a decree, that no poet should perform military service. He obtained seven prizes in the theatres of Athens. His first drama was produced at the age of seventeen. There are some remarks on this poet in Cumberland’s “Observer,” but which are now known to have been Bentley’s.

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

What Mr. Evanson meant by the authentic scriptures, he explained very freely in a volume published in 1792, which amply justifies our classing him among the most determined enemies of revealed religion, nor are we ashamed to class ourselves among “the superficial readers” (if that epithet must be applied) who “on the appearance of this publication, concluded that the author himself was an unbeliever, and that he was taking this method to undermine the principles of Christianity.” This work was entitled “The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, and the evidence of their authenticity examined.” In this work the author undertakes to shew that a considerable part of the New Testament is a forgery, and has no claims whatever to the title of inspired writing. He therefore discards, as destitute of all authority, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John the Epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Hebrews the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and in the Book of Revelation, the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia. His very moderate desires are satisfied with one Gospel, and part of the Epistles, and he maintains that St. Luke’s history implies that neither Matthew nor any other apostle could have published any history previously to his own. But even St. Luke’s gospel is not entirely to his taste, for in it, as well as in the Acts, he is persuaded that there are manifest interpolations. This strange performance involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley, although of no long duration, and brought, we are told, “a considerable share of obloquy and persecution from persons of all parties.” Two instances, however, are all that are specified of this persecution first, he was expelled from a book-club in Suffolk, for which there was no remedy and secondly, he was pestered by anonymous letters, from the expence of which the post-office relieved him; and what is of more importance, we are told that “notwithstanding the apparent liberties this gentleman took with the scriptures, no man living was a firmer believer in the divine mission of Christ”

Before concluding our article, it may be necessary to advert to some particulars of Mr. Evelyn’s history, which are interspersed in his “Sylva,” and could not well be incorporated in our sketch. From that work we learn, that the true signification of his surname, Evelyn, written anciently Avelan or Evelin, was filberd, or rather hazel, which gives him occasion to remark, that these trees are commonly produced where quarries of free-stone lie underneath, as at Hazelbury in Wiltshire, Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire, and Haslemere in Surrey. He more than once remarks, that his grandfather was a great planter and preserver of timber, as it seems were the ancient possessors of the place where he lived, whence it acquired its name of Wotton (i. e.) Woodtown, from the groves and plantations that were about it. He farther remarks, that there was an oak felled by his grandfather’s order, out of which there was a table made, measured by himself more than once, of five feet in breadth, nine and a half in length, and six inches thick, all entire and clear. It was set up in brick-work for a pastry-board; and, to fit it for that use, it was shortened by a foot, being originally ten feet and a half, as appeared from an inscription cut in one of its sides, whence it appeared to have lain there above one hundred years, when pur author wrote this description. When his grandfather’s woods were cut down, which consisted entirely of cak, they sprang up again, not oaks but beeches; and when these too in their turn felt the axe, there arose spontaneously a third plantation, not of oak or beech, but of birch, which he does not set down as a thing singular in itself, but because it happened under his own eye. He is a declared enemy to iron works, on account of their destroying woods; yet he observes, from the prudential maxims prevailing in his own family, they had quite a contrary effect, as being one principal cause of their making such large plantations, and taking so much pains about them. It was a relation of his that sold Richmond new park to kiug Charles I. after planting many fine trees there. Our author carried this disposition with him to Sayes-court, where he must have shewn it very early, since be assures us that the marquis of Argyle presented him with the cones of a peculiar kind of fir, which he takes to be the Spanish pinaster, or wild pine, and gives a very particular account of the manner in which they grew in the marquis’s county in Scotland. He informs us, that it was the lord chancellor Bacon who introduced the true plane tree, which he planted originally about Verulam, whence he had his title. Mr. Evelyn takes to himself the honour of having propagated the alaternus from Cheshire to Cumberland, which was before reputed an inhabitant only of the green-house, but is found very capable not only of living without doors, but of standing unhurt by the rigour of our severest winters. He mentions a most glorious and impenetrable holly-hedge which he had at Sayes-court^ four hundred feet in length, nine feet high, and five in diameter, which occasions his dropping a hint, that the fine gardens he had raised there were wholly ruined by the tzar of Muscovy, who it seems lived there for the sake of being near the yard. He recommended Mr. Gibbons, the carver, to king Charles II. by whom some exquisite works were performed in St. Paul’s cathedral. He was likewise consulted by the Bedford family about preserving their fine trees, so long as the gardens were kept up about Bedford-house, which, before the last edition of his book, were demolished, to make way for the new buildings about Bloomsbury. He takes notice of an admirable remedy for a dysentery, which had been otherwise, in all probability, buried in oblivion; and this is the fungous substance separated from the lobes of walnut kernels, powdered and given in a glass of wine, which, he affirms, relieved the English soldiers in the famous Dundalk campaign in Ireland, soon after the revolution, when all other remedies failed. He was acquainted with the conde Mellor, a Portuguese nobleman, who resided some time at the court of king Charles II. when an exile from his own, by whom he was informed, that his father, when prime-minister, as himself had likewise been, received in a case a collection of plants of china oranges, of which only one escaped, and was with difficulty recovered; and yet from this plant came all the china oranges that ever were seen in Europe, which, our author observes, is a most noble and wonderful instance of what industry may do from the slightest and least promising beginnings. One instance of the vast advantages derived from woods we shall borrow, because the facts are notorious and indisputable. “Upon the estate of George Pitt, esq. of Stratfield-Say, in the county of Southampton, a survey of timber being taken in 1659, it came to ten thousand three hundred pounds, besides near ten thousand samplers not valued, and growing up naturally. Since this there hath been made by several sales, five thousand six hundred pounds, and there has been felled for repairs, building, and necessary uses, to the value, at the least, of twelve hundred pounds; so as the whole falls of timber amount to six thousand eight hundred pounds. The timber upon the same ground being again surveyed anno 1677, appears to be worth above twenty-one thousand pounds, besides eight or nine thousand samplers and young trees to be left standing, and not reckoned in the survey. But, what is yet to be observed, most of this timber abovementioned being oak, grows in hedge-rows, and so as that the standing of it does very little prejudice to the plough or pasture.” To conclude: this worthy person, who was born in a town famous for wood, who derived from his ancestors an affection for plantations, who wrote the most correct treatise of forest-trees extant in our own, or perhaps in any language, and who was himself a most eminent planter, had a strong desire, after the example of sir William Temple, who directed his heart to be deposited in his garden, to have his corpse also interred in the like manner; but very probably he was prevailed upon to alter his mind afterwards, notwithstanding what he had expressed upon that subject in his book; which shews how warm and lasting that passion for improvement was in his own breast, which, with so much learning, eloquence, and success, he laboured to excite in the bosoms of his countrymen.

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

, a very learned antiquary of Italy, was born at Urbino, of a noble family, in 1619. After he had passed through his first studies at Cagli, he returned to Urbino to finish himself in the law, in which he was admitted doctor at eighteen. Having an elder brother at Rome, who was an eminent advocate, he also went thither, and applied himself to the bar; where he soon distinguished himself to such advantage, that he was likely to advance his fortune. Cardinal Imperiali entertained so great an esteem for him, that he sent him into Spain, to negociate several important and difficult affairs; which he did with such success, that the office of the procurator fiscal of that kingdom falling vacant, the cardinal procured it for him. Fabretti continued thirteen years in Spain, where he was for some time auditor general of the Nunciature. These employments, however, did not engage him so much, but that he found time to read the ancients, and apply himself to polite literature. He returned to Rome with cardinal Bonelli, who had been nuncio in Spain; and from his domestic became his most intimate friend. He was appointed judge of the appeals to the Capitol; which post he afterwards quitted for that of auditor of the legation of Urbino, under the cardinal legate Cerri. His residence in his own country gave him an opportunity of settling his own private affairs, which had been greatly disordered during his absence. He continued there three years, which appeared very long to him, because his inclination to study and antiquities made him wish to settle at Rome, where he might easily gratify those desires to the utmost. He readily accepted, therefore, the invitation of cardinal Corpegna, the pope’s vicar, who employed him in drawing up the apostolical briefs, and other dispatches belonging to his office, and gave him the inspection of the reliques found at Rome and parts adjacent. Alexander VIII. whom Fabretti had served as auditor when cardinal, made him secretary of the memorials, when he was advanced to the pontificate; and had so great a value and affection for him, that he would certainly have raised him to higher dignities, if he had lived a little longer.

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

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

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

Sir Richard was preparing for his return to England; when, June 4, 1666, he was seized at Madrid with a violent fever, which put an end to his life the 16th of the same month, the very day he had designed to set out on his return home. Hfts body, being embalmed, was conveyed by his lady, with all his children then living, by land to Calais, and afterwards to All Saints church in Hertford, where it was deposited in the vault of his father-in-law, sir John Harrison, till May 18, 1671, and then was removed into a new vault, made on purpose for him and his family in thl parish-church of Ware. Near the vault there is a handsome monument erected to his memory. He was remarkable for his meekness, sincerity, humanity, and piety; and also was an able statesman and a great scholar, being in particular a complete master of several modern languages, especially Spanish, which was perfectly familiar to him.

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

, a learned grammarian, was born in London about 1575. His father was a carpenter in that city his grandfather had been mayor of Truro in Cornwall and his great-grandfather was an Italian musician, who had settled in England. After having received a proper grammatical education, he was admitted of Merton-college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1590, where he became servitor to Mr. Thomas French, fellow of that college, and soon distinguished himself as a youth of lively parts and great hopes. Being, however, of an unsettled disposition, he abruptly quitted the university, and, abandoning both his religion and his country, passed over to Spain, and was for some time educated there in a college belonging to the Jesuits. At length, growing weary of the severe discipline of the institution, he found a way to leave it, and went with sir Francis Drake and sir John Hawkins in their last voyage, in 15^5. By the former of these great naval commanders he is said to have been held in some esteem. Mr. Farnabie is afterwards reported to have served as a soldier in the Low Countries. No advantage was gained by him in these expeditions; for, having been reduced to much distress, he landed in Cornwall, and from the urgency of his necessities was obliged to descend to the humble employment of teaching children their horn-book. Whilst he was in this low situation he did not cbuse to go by his own name, but changed it to Thomas Baimafe, the anagram of Farnabie. By degrees he rose to those higher occupations of a school-master for which he was so well qualified, and after some lime, he fixed at Martock in Somersetshire, where he taught a grammarschool with great success. In 1646, when Mr. Charles Darby was called to teach the same school, he found in that town, and the neighbourhood, many persons who had been Mr. Farnahie’s scholars, and who, in their grey hairs, were ingenious men and good grammarians. From Martock Mr. Farnabie removed to London, and opened a school in Goldsmiths’-rents, behind Red-Cross-street, near Cripplegate, where were large gardens and handsome houses, together with all the accommodations proper for the young noblemen and gentlemen committed to his care. So established was his reputation, that at one time the number of his scholars amounted to more than three hundred. Whilst he was at the head of this school, he was created master of arts in the university of Cambridge, and on the 24th of April, 1616, was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford.

, knt. an English antiquary, was born at Norwich, Nov. 26, 1739, and educated partly at Scarning, in Norfolk, and partly at Boresdale, in Suffolk, after which he was admitted of Gonville and Caius college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1761, M. A. 1764, and was an honorary fellow till Jan. 1, 1766, when he married Ellenor, daughter of Sheppard Frere, esq. of Roydon, in Suffolk, by whom he had no issue. He was afterwards in the commission of the peace, and a deputy-­lieutenant, and served the office of sheriff for the county of Norfolk in 1791, with that propriety and decorum that distinguished all his actions; and he left a history of the duties of the office of sheriff, which might be serviceable to his successors. Among other things, he revived the painful duty of attending in person the execution of criminals, as adding to the solemnity and impressive awe of the scene; and he was the first to admit Roman catholics on juries, under the new statute for that purpose enacted. He died at East Dereham, Norfolk, Feb. 14, 1794.

, surnamed Fulgentius, who flourished in the sixth century, was an African by birth, and a disciple of St. Fulgentius. When that prelate was banished by the Arians to Sardinia, Ferrandus accompanied him; but on his return he was chosen deacon of the church of Carthage, and entered with much zeal into the question which was the subject of warm discussion at that day, “whether it could be said that one of the persons of the Trinity suffered on the cross.” Ferrandus died about the year 530, leaving behind him many works that were highly esteemed by his contemporaries. The most considerable, “A Collection of Ecclesiastical Canons,” for restoring discipline in the churches of Africa, is one of the most ancient collections of canons among the Latins. It consists of between two and three hundred abridged from the councils of Africa, Ancyra, Laodicea, Nice, Antioch, &c. A life of Fulgentius has also been ascribed to Ferrandus, but by some authors it has been ascribed to another of the prelate’s pupils.

, an English gentleman of considerable learning and ingenuity, of great personal worth, and at the same time an enthusiast of a singular description, was the third son of Nicholas Ferrar, a merchant in London, and was born Feb. 22, 1592, in the parish of St. Mary Stayning, in Mark-lane, London. His lather traded very extensively to the East and West Indies, and to all the celebrated seats of commerce. He* lived in high repute in the city, where he joined in commercial matters with sir Thomas and sir Hugh Middleton, and Mr. Bateman. He was a man of liberal hospitality, but governed his house with great order. He kept a good table, at which he frequently received persons of the greatest eminence, sir John Hawkins, sir Francis Drake, sir Walter Raleigh, and others with whom he was an adventurer; and in all their expeditions he was ever in the highest degree attentive to the planting the Christian Religion in the New World. At home also he was a zealous friend to the established church, and always ready to supply his prince with what was required of him. He lent 300l. at once upon a privy-seal a sum at that time notinconsiderable. He had the honour of being written Esq. by queen Elizabeth.

His wife was Mary, daughter of Laurence Wodenoth, esq. of an ancient family in Cheshire. By her he had a numerous family, to whom he gave a pious education. Their daily practice was to read, and to speak by memory, some portion of the Scriptures, and parts of the Book of Martyrs; they were also made acquainted with such passages of history as were suited to their tender years. They were all instructed in music in performing on the organ, viol, and lute, and in the theory and practice; of singing in the learned and modern languages in curious needleworks, and all the accomplishments of thai time. The young men, when arrived at years of discretion, had permission each to choose his profession, and then no expence was spared to bring him to a distinguished excellence in it. For, this was an invariable maxim with the parents, that, having laid a firm foundation in religion and virtue, they would rather give them a good education without wealth, than wealth without a good education.

, the martyred bishop of St. David’s in the sixteenth century, was an ancestor of the preceding, and born in Halifax parish, Yorkshire, probably at Ewood. He became, when a young man, a canon regular of the order of St. Austin, but in what priory or abbey is uncertain. Having partly received his academical education in Cambridge, he retired to a nursery for the canons of St. Austin, i.t Oxford, called St. Mary’s-college (where Erasmus had before studied), and here we find him in 1526, and also in Oct. 1533, when as a member of the said college, he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, having a little before been opponent in divinity. About the same time he became chaplain to archbishop Cranmer, after whose example he married, a practice at that time disallowed among the popish clergy, and in the time of queen Mary, made the ground of a criminal charge. Dodd, who treats him with more respect than some protestant biographers, adopts from Wood the account, that he was among the first of the university of Oxford that received a tincture of Lutheranism, in which he was confirmed by Thomas Garret, curate of Honey-lane in London, who provided him with books for that purpose, and that in the year above-mentioned he was chosen prior of a monastery of his order, called Nostel, or St. Oswald’s, in Yorkshire, which he surrendered to the commissioners upon the dissolution in 1540, being gratified with a pension of 100l. per annum.

, inventor of the first method of resolving biquadratic equations, was born at Bologna about 1520. He studied mathematics under the celebrated Cardan, who, having had a problem given him lor solution, gave it his pupil as an exercise of his ingenuity; and this led to the discovery of a new method of analysis, which is precisely that of biquadratics. Cardan published this method, and assigned the invention to its real author, who, had it not been for this liberal conduct of the master, would have been unknown to posterity. At the age of eighteen he was appointed a tutor in arithmetic, and was equal to the task of disputing with the most distinguished mathematicians of his own age. He was afterwards appointed professor of mathematics at Bologna, where he died in 1565. Ferrari, although, like many other learned men of his age, addicted to astrology, was an excellent classical scholar, a good geographer, and well versed in the principles of architecture.

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

, a French lawyer, was born in 1515, and was a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux. He was an elegant writer in Latin, an imitator of the style of Terence, admired by Scaliger, and honoured by him with the name of Atticus. --He continued the history of France in Latin (which Paulus Æmilius, a writer of Verona, had given from the reign of Pharamond to 1488) as far as the end of the reign of Francis I. This work was published at Paris, by Vascosan, in 1554, fol. and 1555, 8vo. It is copious, but not too long, and abounds with curious anecdotes and very exact details. He wrote also “Observations sur la Coutume de Bourdeaux,” Lyons, 1565, fol. He had considerable employments. His death happened in 1563, when he was no more than forty-eight.

, son of Isaac, and grandson of the preceding Manasses de Pas, was born in 1648, but did not greatly signalize himself by his military talents till he was forty years old, when, in Germany, he performed so extraordinary services, at the head of only 1000 horse, that in the ensuing year, 1689, he was advanced to the rank of mareschal-de-camp. He then distinguished himself greatly in Italy, and was promoted to be a lieutenant-general in 1693, in which capacity he served till his death in 1711. Before his death he wrote to solicit the protection of Louis XIV. for his only son, and was successful in his application. The marquis of Feuquieres was an excellent officer, of great theoretical knowledge, but of a severe and censorious turn, and rendered not the less so by being disappointed of the mareschal*s staff. It was said by the wits, “that he was evidently the boldest man in Europe, since he slept among 100,000 of his enemies,” meaning his soldiers, with whom he was no favourite. His “Memoirs,” are extant in 4to, and in four volumes 12mo. They contain the history of the generals of Louis XIV. and except that the author sometimes misrepresents, for the sake of censuring, are esteemed as among the best books on the art military. The clearness of the style, the variety of the facts, the freedom of the reflections, and the sagacity of the observations, render these Memoirs well worthy of the attention, not only of officers, but of all enlightened students and politicians.

, or Tanaquil Faber, a very learned man, father of madame Dacier, was born at Caen in Normandy in 1615. His father determined to educate him to learning, at the desire of one of his brothers, who was an ecclesiastic, and who promised to take him into his Jiouse under his own care. He had a genius for music, and early became accomplished in it but his uncle proved too severe a preceptor in languages he therefore studied Latin with a tutor at home, and acquired the knowledge of Greek by his own efforts. The Jesuits at the college of La Fleche were desirous to detain him among them, and his father would have persuaded him to take orders, but he resisted both. Having continued some years in Normandy, he went to Paris; where, by his abilities, learning, and address, he gained the friendship of persons of the highest distinction. M. de Noyers recommended him to cardinal Ue Richelieu, who settled on him a pension of 2000 livres, to inspect all the works printed at the Louvre. The cardinal designed to have made him principal of the college which he was about to erect at Richelieu, and to settle on him a farther stipend: but he died, and Mazarine, who succeeded, not giving the same encouragement to learning, the Louvre press became almost useless, and Faber’s pension was very ill paid. His hopes being thus at an end, he quitted his employment; yet continued some years at Pans, -pursuing his studies, and publishing various works. Some years after he declared himself a protestant, and became a professor in the university of Saumur; which place he accepted, preferably to the professorship of Greek at Nimeguen, to which he was invited at the same time. His great merit and character soon drew to him from all parts of the kingdom, and even from foreign countries, numbers of scholars, some of whom boarded at his house. He had afterwards a contest with the university and consistory of Saumur, on account of having, unguardedly and absurdly, asserted in one of his works, that he could pardon Sappho’s passion for those of her own sex, since it had inspired her with so beautiful an ode upon that subject. Upon this dispute he would have resigned his place, if he could have procured one elsewhere: and at last, in 1672, he was invited upon advantageous terms to the university of Heidelberg, to which he was preparing to remove, when he was seized with a fever, of which he died Sept. 12, 1672. He left a son of his own name, author of a small tract “De futilitate Poetices,” printed 1697 in 12mo, who was a minister in Holland, and afterwards lived in London, then went to Paris, where he embraced the Romish religion; and two daughters, one of whom was the celebrated madam Dacier, and another married to Paul Bauldri, professor at Utrecht. Huet tells, that “he had almost persuaded Faber to reconcile himself to the church of Rome,” from which he had formerly deserted; “and that Faber signified to him his resolution to do so, in a letter written a few months before his death, which prevented him from executing his design.” Voltaire,' if he may be credited, which requires no small degree of caution, says he was a philosopher rather than a Hugonot, and despised the Calvinists though he lived among them.

, was an eminent prior, and doctor of the Sorbonne in 1454, and rector of the university of Paris in 1467, who taught rhetoric, philosophy, and divinity, with great reputation. He opposed the plan formed by Louis XI. of arming the scholars, and was entrusted with several commissions of importance. Fichet went to Rome with cardinal Bessarion, who dedicated his orations to him in 1470, and he was well received by pope Sixtus IV. and appointed his chamberlain. We have a work of his on “Rhetoric,” and some “Epistles,” written in very elegant language for that age, printed at the Sorbonne., 1471, 4to, and which has been sold as high as 50l. It was Fichet, who with his friend John de la Pierre, brought Martin Crantz, Ulric Gering, and Michael Friburger, from Germany to the Sorbonne, in order to introduce printing in France; and Fichet’s works above mentioned were among the first they produced.

Causes, have compassion on me." Dr. Fiddes was an ingenious, but not a very learned man. He had so happy a memory, that he retained every thinghe read, and never made use of notes in preaching. He was far from being a nervous writer, abounding in matter, but was prolix and tedious, for which it has been offered as an apology that his necessities did not allow him time to contract his thoughts into a narrower compass. It is reasonable to suppose, that he was sincere in his professions concerning the hierarchy; and as reasonable to suppose, that he had no affection for popery. In his Life in the General Dictionary, is a letter from him to a protestant lady, to dissuade her from turning Roman catholic, which sets this question at rest. His misfortunes, in the latter part of his life, were chiefly owing to his strong attachment to a party. His application to his studies was so intense, that he would frequently pass whole nights in writing, which, together with his misfortunes, is supposed not a little to have hastened his death . He was reckoned, upon the whole, a good man, but rather wanting in point of prudence, and by no means a manager of his money.

, beyond all comparison the first novel-writer of this country, was born at Sharpham Park in Somersetshire, April 22, 1707. His father, Edmund Fielding, esq. was the third son of John Fielding, D. D. canon of Salisbury, who was the fifth son of George earl of Desmond, and brother to William third earl of Denbigh, nephew to Basil the second earl, and grandson to William, who was first raised to the peerage. Edmund Fielding served under the duke of Maryborough, and towards the close of king George the First’s reign, or the accession of George II. was promoted to the rank of a lieutenant-general. His mother was daughter to the first judge Gould, and aunt to sir Henry Gould, lately one of the judges of the common pleas. This lady, besides Henry, who seems to have been the eldest, had four daughters, and another son named Edmund, who was an officer in the sea-service. Afterwards, in consequence of his father’s second marriage, Fielding had six half-brothers, George, James, Charles, John, William, and Basil. Of these nothing memorable is recorded, except of John, who will be the subject of a subsequent article as will also Sarah, the sister of Henry Fielding. His father died in 1740. Henry Fielding received the first rudiments of his education at home, under the care of the rev. Mr. Oliver, for whom he seems to have had no great regard, as he is said to have designed a portrait of him in the very humorous yet unfavourable character of parson Tralliber, in his “Joseph Andrews.” From this situation he was removed to Eton school, where he had an opportunity of cultivating a very early intimacy and friendship with several young men who afterwards became conspicuous personages in the kingdom, such as lord Lyttelton, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, sir Charles Hanbury Williams, &c. who ever through life retained a warm regard for him. But these were not the only advantages he reaped at that great seminary of education; for, by an assiduous application to study, and the possession of strong and peculiar talents, he became, before he left that school, uncommonly versed in Greek authors, and a master of the Latin classics. Thus accomplished, at about eighteen years of age he left Eton, and went to Leyden, where he studied under the most celebrated civilians for about two years, when, the remittances from England not coming so regularly as at first, he was obliged to return to London.

, son of sir Edward Filmer, of East Sutton, in Kent, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Richard Argall, esq. was born in the end of the sixteenth, century, and educated in Trinity-college, in Cambridge, of which he was matriculated July 5, 1604. His works are, 1 “The Anarchy of a limited and mixed Monarchy,” 1646, which was an answer to Hunton’s “Treatise on Monarchy,” printed in 1C43. Sir Robert’s work was reprinted in 1652 and 1679, 8vo. 2. “Patriarcha,” in which he endeavours to prove, that all government was monarchical at first, and that all legal titles to govern are originally derived from the heads of families, or from such upon whom their right was transferred, either by cession or failure of the line. He also wrote, “The Freeholders’ Grand Inquest, &c.” On the trial of the celebrated Sidney, it was made a charge that they found in his possession a manuscript answer to Filmer’s “Patriarcha,” but this was afterwards more completely answered by Locke, in his “Two Treatises on Government,” published in 1689 Filnrer died in 1647.

, was an ancient Christian writer, and author of a piece entitled “De Er-> rore Profanarum Religionum;” which he addressed to the emperors Constantius and Constans, the sons of Constantine. It is supposed to have been written after the death of Constantine, the eldest son of Constantine the Great, which happened in the year 340, and before that of Constans, who was slain by Magnentius in the year 350: being addressed to Constantius and Constans, there is reason to believe that Constantine their eldest brother was dead, and it is evident that Constans was then alive. It is remarkable, that no ancient writers have made any mention of Firmicus; so that we do not know what he was, of what country, or of what profession. Some moderns conjecture that he was by birth a Sicilian, and in the former part of his life an heathen. His treatise “Of the Errors of the Prophane Religions,” discovers great parts, great learning, and great zeal for Christianity, and has been often printed, sometimes separately, sometimes with other fathers. Among the separate editions are one printed at Strasbourg, in 1562, another at Heidelberg, 1599, and a third at Paris, 1610, all in 8vo; afterwards it was joined with Minucius Felix, and printed at Amsterdam, 1645, at Leyden, 1652, and again at Ley den, at the end of the same father, by James Gronovius, in 1709, 8vo. It is likewise to be found in the “Bibliotheca Patrum;” and at the end of Cyprian, printed at Paris in 1666.

, a person memorable for public benefactions and charities, was born at Ipswich in Sutfolk, in June 1633. His parents, whowere puritans, and very reputable and substantial people, at a proper age put out their son to an apprenticeship in London. His master was an Arminian, a hearer of Mr. John Goodwin; to whose sermons young Firmin resorting, “exchanged, 77 as we are told,” the harsh opinions of Calvin, in which he had been educated, for those more reasonable ones of Arminius and the remonstrants.“But here he did not stop: being what is called a free inquirer into religious matters, he was afterwards carried by this spirit and temper to espouse some opinions totally at variance with the orthodox faith: he became persuaded, for instance,” that “the unity of God is an unity of person as well as of nature; and that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, but not God.” He adopted these principles first from the noted Biddle, who was imprisoned for his opinions in 1645, and Firmin was so zealous in his cause, that when he was only an apprentice, he delivered a petition for his release to Oliver Cromwell, who gave him this laconic answer: “You curl-pated boy, do you think I'll show any favour to a man that denies his Saviour, and disturbs the government?”

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

, an eminent physician of Montpellier, the son of Nicholas Fizes, professor of mathematics in that university, was born in 1690, and at first educated by his father, who hoped that he would succeed him in the mathematical chair; but his disposition being more to the study of medicine, his father sent him to complete his medical education at Paris, under the tuition of Du Verney, Lemery, and the two messrs. De Jussieu. On his return to Montpellier, he employed himself in observing diseases in the hospital de la Charite, and in public teaching. On the death of his father, he was appointed joint professor of mathematics with M. de Clapiers, and soon became his sole successor. In 1732, the medical professorship in the university being vacant by the resignation of M. Deidier, Fizes was elected his successor. He fulfilled the duties of this chair with great propriety, but was more highly distinguished as a practitioner. He appreciated at once the character of the most complicated disease; and was above all admired for the accuracy of his prognostics. These qualifications placed him at the head of his profession at Montpellier; his fame extended to the metropolis, and he was invited to the office of physician to the duke of Orleans. His age was now, however, advanced; and the fear of the jealousy which this high appointment might produce among his brethren, led him to make some efforts to be permitted to decline this honour. He removed to Paris, nevertheless; but, unused to the intrigues and railJeries and cabals of a court, he was unhappy in his situation; his health began to fail, and he was induced to request permission to resign his office, and returned to Montpellier, after residing fourteen months at Paris, honoured with the protection of the prince, and the friendship of M. Senac, Astruc, Bordeu, &c. He was accused of a little misanthropy on this occasion; but he was an enemy to adulation and selfishness, and seemed to revolt from very species of artificial politeness. He resumed the functions of his professorship at Montpellier but for a short period; for he was carried off by a malignant fever in the course of three days, and died on August 14, 1765, aged about seventy-five years. His works were principally essays on different points of theory and practice. 1. “De Hominis Liene sano,” Montpellier^ 1716; 2. “De naturali Secretione Bilis in Jecore,” ibid.' 1719 3. “Specimen de Suppuratione in Partibus mollibus,” ibid. 1722 4. “Partium Corporis himiani Solidarum Conspectus Anatomico-Mechanicus,” ibid. 1729; 5. “De Cataracta” 6. “Universae Physiologiae Conspectus,” ibid. 1737; 7. “De Tumoribus in Genere,” ibid. 1738; 8. “Tractatus de Febribus,” ibid. 1749. The greater part of the writings of Fizes were collected in one 4to volume, and were published at Montpellier in 1742.

, was an ancient Latin poet, of whom our accounts are very imperfect. There are many places that claim him, but Setia, now Sezzo, a town of Campania, seems to have the best title; and it is from thence that he bears the surname Setinus. Martial, who was his contemporary and friend, intimates that he lived at Padua, or at least was born there, as may be collected from" an epigram in which he advises him to quit the beggarly study of poetry, and to apply himself to the bar, as the more profitable profession of the two. He died when he was about thirty years of age, in the year 93 or 94, and before he had put the finishing hand to the poem which he left.

This master had a lively imagination, and a noble taste for historical compositions. He was singularly skilled in antiquities, and in all his designs strictly observant of the costume. His pictures usually are enriched with porticos and colonnades, as he was an accomplished architect; his choice of nature was elegant, his expression animated, and his pencil delicate. His colouring was exceedingly good; and his taste of design was entirely of the Roman school, as well in regard to correctness, as to the objects which he chose to represent. In the cupola of the barefooted Carmelites at Paris, he painted, in fresco, Elijah ascending to Heaven in a Chariot of Fire, and Elisha below, with his arms extended, to catch the mantle of the Prophet. At Liege are several grand altar-pieces, among which one in St. Paul’s church describes the Conversion of that saint and in the cathedral there is another by this master, representing the Resurrection of Lazarus.

. If a man deserves to be celebrated who employs fifty years on one work, the name of Flaust should not be omitted. He was an advocate in the parliament of Rouen, and his great work was entitled “Explication de la Jurisprudence et de la coutume de Normandie, dans une ordre simple et facile.” “Explication of the Jurisprudence and Usage of Normandy, in an easy and simple order.” In 2 vols. folio. He died in 1783, at the age of seventy-two.

In 1589, queen Elizabeth, with whom he was in high favour, promoted him to the bishopric of Bristol, and about the same time made him her almoner. Sir John Harrington says that he took this see on condition to lease out the revenues to courtiers, an accusation to which Browne Willis seems inclined to give credit. He was, however, translated to Worcester in 1592, and about two years after that to London, in consequence of his particular solicitation to the lord treasurer. Soon after he was promoted to the see of London, he gave out twenty-seven articles of inquiry to the churchwardens upon his primary visitation; and by these means, according to Neal, many of the nonconformists, or rather puritans, as they were at this time called, suffered imprisonment. But he was soon interrupted in these proceedings, by marrying, for his second wife, the widow of sir John Baker, of Sisingherst in Kent, a very handsome woman. Queen Elizabeth, who had an extreme aversion to the clergy’s marrying, was highly offended at the bishop. She thought it very indecent for an elderly clergyman, a bishop, and one that had already had one wife, to marry a second: and gave such a loose to her indignation, that, not content with forbidding him her presence, she ordered archbishop Whitgift to suspend him from the exercise of his episcopal function, which was accordingly done. He was afterwards restored to his bishopric, and in some measure to the queen’s favour: yet the disgrace sat so heavy on his mind, that it is thought to have hastened his end. He died suddenly in his chair, at his house in London, June 15, 1596; being, to all appearance, well, sick, and dead, in a quarter of an hour. He was an immoderate taker of tobacco; the qualities of which being then not well known, and supposed to have something poisonous in them, occasioned Camden to impute his death to it, as he does in his Annals of Elizabeth’s reign. He was buried in his cathedral, near bishop Aylmer, but without any monument. Of his character it is not easy to form a very favourable judgment, nor does it appear that he is censurable for any great errors, except that he was perhaps too compliant with some of the caprices of his royal mUiress His appearance and person wr re stately, which made him be called Prcsul spttndidus, hut this did not arise from pride, as those who were most intimate with him commended his modesty and humility. There are no works ascribed to his pen, except some regulations for the better government or his diocese, and the reformation of his spiritual courts, which are printed among the records in Collier’s “Ecclesiastical History.” By his first wife, whose name is not known, he had the more celebrated subject of the following article.

, an Italian prelate and poet, was born at Foligno, in the fourteenth century, but the year is not known. He became a Dominican, and after some inferior preferments, was in 1403 appointed bishop of Foligno. He was afterwards called, both as a theologian and a bishop, to the council of Pisa, and was also made one of the fathers of the grand council of Constance, where he died in 1416. No other work of his is fcnown but his great poem entitled “Quadriregio,” in which he describes the four reigns of Love, Satan, the Vices and the Virtues. The morality of this poem was probably its greatest recommendation; but the author, who was an admirer of Dante, has endeavoured to imitate him, and in some respects, not unsuccessfully. The first edition of the “Quadriregio” was published at Perugia, in 1481, fol. and the second at Bologna, in 1494; but the best is that published by the academicians of Foligno, 2 vols. 4to, 1725.

, professor of philosophy in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, and author of several valuable works, was born in that city, in 1711, probably in March, as we find he was baptized on April 1. His father was an eminent merchant, who had a family of twenty children by his wife, a sister to Dr. Thomas Blackwell, of whom we have already given an account. This, their second son, after being educated at the grammar school of his native city, was entered of Marischal college in 1724, where he went through a course of philosophy under professor Daniel Garden, and of mathematics under Mr. John Stewart. He took his degree of M. A. in 1728, when he was but little more than seventeen years old. Being intended for the church, his next application was to the study of divinity, under the professor of that branch, Mr. James Chalmers, a man of great learning and piety, whom the editor of this Dictionary is proud to record as his grandfather. Mr. Fordyce studied divinity with great ardour, the utmost of his ambition being ordination in a church that affords her sons but a moderate emolument. Circumstances with which we are unacquainted, appear to have prevented his full intention, as he never became a settled minister in the establishment of his native country. He was admitted, however, to what may be termed the first degree of orders in the church of Scotland, that is, he was licensed to preach, and continued to preach occasionally for some time. He is said, indeed, to have been once domestic chaplain to John Hopkins, esq. of Bretons, near Rumford, in Essex, who had a regular service every Sunday in the chapel of the house; but there is reason to think he did not continue long in this situation, and that he returned home, as in Sept. 1742 he was appointed one of the professors of philosophy in the Marischal college. The duties of the philosophic professorship at that time included natural history, chronology, Greek and Roman antiquities, mechanics, optics, and astronomy, which were taught during three sessions, or years, to the same pupils. This system is now altered, but that My. Fordyce was well qualified for the above-mentioned laborious task was universally acknowledged.

, an English mathematician, and professor of astronomy at Gresham college, was born in Northamptonshire or as Aubrey says, at Coventry, where he adds that he was some time usher of the school and was sent to Emanuel college, Cambridge, in 1616. He took the degree of B. A. in 1619, and of master in 1623. He applied early to the mathematics, and attained to great proficiency in that kind of knowledge, of which he gave the first specimen in 1624. He had an elder brother at the same college with himself, which precluded him from a fellowship; in consequence of which, he offered himself a candidate for the professorship of astronomy in Gresham college, Feb. 1636, and was elected the 2 d of March. He quitted it again, it does not appear for what reason, Nov. 25, the same year, and was succeeded therein by Mr. Mungo Murray, professor of philosophy at St. Andrew’s in Scotland. Murray marrying in 1641, his professorship was thereby vacated; and as Foster bad before made way for him, so he in his turn made way for Foster, who was re-elected May 22, the same year. The civil war breaking out soon after, he became one of that society of gentlemen, who had stated meetings for cultivating philosophy, and afterwards were established by charter, under the name of the royal society, in the reign of Charles II. In 1646, Dr. Wallis, another member of that society, received from Foster a mathematical theorem, which he afterwards published in his “Mechanics.” Neither was it only in this branch of science that he excelled, but he was likewise well versed in the ancient languages; as appear! from his revising and correcting the “Lemmata” of Archimedes, which had been translated from an Arabic manuscript into Latin, but not published, by Mr. John Greaves. He made also several curious observations upon eclipses, both of the sun and moon, as well at Gresham college, as in Northamptonshire, at Coventry, and in other places; and was particularly famous for inventing, as well as improving, astronomical and other mathematical instruments. After being long in a declining state of health, he died in July 1652, at his own apartment at Gresham college, and, according to Aubrey, was buried in the church of St. Peter le poor. His works are, 1. “The Description and use of -a small portable Quadrant, for the more easy finding of the hour of azimuth/' 1624, 4to, This treatise, which has been reprinted several times, is divided into two parts, and was originally published at the end of Gunter’s” Description of the Cross Staffe in three hooks,“to which it was intended as an appendix. 2.” The Art of Dialling,“1638, 4to. Reprinted in 1675, with several additions and variations from the author’s own manuscript, as also a supplement by the editor William Leybourne. Our author himself published no more, yet left many other treatises, which, though not finished in the manner he intended, were published by his friends after his death as, 3.” Posthuinu Fosteri containing the description of a Ruler, upon which are inscribed divers scales, &c.“1652, 4to. This was published by Edmund Wingate, esq. 4.” Four Treatises of Dialling,“1654, 4to. 5.” The Sector altered, and other scales added, with the description and use thereof, invented and written by Mr. Foster, and now published by William Leybourne, 1661,“4to. This was an improvement of Gunter’s Sector, and therefore published among his works. 6.” Miscellanies, or Mathematical Lucubrations of Mr. Samuel Foster, published, and many of them translated into English, by the care and industry of John Twysden, C. L. M. D. whereunto he hath annexed some things of his own." The treatises in this collection are of different kinds, some of them written in Latin, some in English.

, an eminent physician, son of John and Margaret Fothergill, quakers, was born March 8, 6r, according to Dr. Thompson’s account, Oct. 12, 1712, at Carr End in Yorkshire, where his father, who had been a brewer at Knaresborough (after having travelled from one end of America to the other), lived retired on a small estate which he cultivated. The eldest son Alexander, who studied the law, inherited that estate. John was the second son. Joseph, the third son, was an ironmonger at Stockport, in Cheshire, where he died a few years ago. Samuel, the fourth son, went to America, and became a celebrated preacher among the quakers. There was also a sister, Anne, who lived with the doctor, and survived him. John received his education under the kind care of his grandfather Thomas Hough, a person of fortune in Cheshire (which gave him a predilection for that county), and at Sedburg in Yorkshire. About 1718 he was put apprentice to Benjamin Bartlett, apothecary, at Bradford, whence he removed to London, Oct. 20, 1736, and studied two years as a pupil of doctor (afterwards sir Edward) Wilmot, at St. Thomas’s hospital. He then went to the university of Edinburgh, to study physic, and there took his doctor’s degree. His Thesis was entitled, “De emeticorum usu in variis morbis tractandis;” and it has been republished in a collection of theses by Smellie. From Edinburgh he went to Leyden, whence, after a short stay, he travelled through some parts of France and Germany, and, returning to England, began his practice in London about 1740, in a house in Whitehart-court, Lombard-street (where he resided till his removal to Harpur-street in 1767), and acquired both reputation and fortune. He was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians of London, 1746, and in 1754, fellow of Edinburgh, to which he was a considerable benefactor. In 1753, he became a member both of the royal and antiquarian societies; and was at his death a member of the royal medical society at Paris. He continued his practice with uninterrupted success till within the last two years of his life, when an illness, which he had brought on himself by his unremitted attention, obliged him greatly to contract it. Besides his occupation in medical science, he had imbibed an early taste for natural history, improved by his -friend Peter Collinson, and employed himself particularly on the study of shells, and of botany. He was for many years a valuable contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; which in return considerably assisted his rising fame. His observations on the weather and diseases were begun there in April 1751, and discontinued in the beginning of 1756, as he was disappointed in his views of exciting other experienced physicians in different parts to imitate the example. Though, his practice was very extensive, he did not add to his art any great or various improvements. His pamphlet on the ulcerous sore throat is, on every account, the best of his publications, and that owes much of its merit to the information of the late doctors Letherland or Sylvester. It was first printed in 1748, on the re-appearance of that fatal disorder whick in 1739 had carried off the two only sons of Mr. Pelham. It may be here added, that 0r. Wilmot preserved lady Catherine Pelham, after her sons had died of it, by lancing her throat; a method which, he said, he had once before pursued with the same success. In 1762, Dr. Fothergill purchased an estate at Upton in Essex, and formed an excellent botanic garden, with hot-houses and green-houses, to the extent of 260 feet. In 1766, he began regularly to withdraw, from Midsummer to Michaelmas, from the excessive fatigue of his profession, to Lee Hall, near Middlewich in Cheshire; which, though he only rented it by the year, he had spared no expence to improve. During this recess he took no fees, but attended, to prescribe gratis at an inn at Middlewich once a week. Some time before his death he had been industrious to contrive a method of generating and preserving ice in the West Indies. He was the patron of Sidney Parkinson, and drew up the preface prefixed to his account of the voyage to the South Seas. At his expence also was made and printed an entire new translation of the whole Bible, from the Hebrew and Greek originals, by Anthony Purver , a quaker, in two volumes, 1764, folio, and also, in 1780, an edition of bishop Percy’s “Key to the New Testament,” adapted to the use of a seminary of young quakers, at Acworth, near Leeds, which the doctor first projected, and afterwards endowed handsomely by his will. It now contains above 300 children of both sexes, who are clothed and instructed. Among the other beneficent schemes suggested by Dr. Fothergill, was that of bringing fish to London by land carriage, which, though it did not in every respect succeed, was supposed to defeat a monopoly; and, that of rendering bread much cheaper, though equally wholesome, by making it with one part of potatoes, and three parts of household flour. But his public benefactions, his encouragements ef science, the instances of his attention to the health, the police, the convenience of the metropolis, &c. are too numerous to specify . The fortune which Dr. Fothergill acquired, was computed at 80,000l. His business when he was in "full practice, was calculated at near 7000l. per annum. In the Influenza of 1775 and 1776*, he is said to have had sixty patients on his list daily, and his profits were then estimated at 8000l. The disorder which hastened his death was an obstruction in the bladder, occasioned by a delicacy which made him unwilling to alight from his carriage for relief. He died at his house in Harpur-street, Dec. 26, 1780; and his remains were interred, Jan. 5, in the quakers burying-ground at Winchmore-hill. The executors, who were his lister, and Mr. Ghorley, linen-draper, in Gracechurch-street, who married one of his nieces, intended the burial to be private; but the desire of the quakers to attend the funeral rendered it impossible. Only ten coaches were ordered to convey his relations and friends, but there were more than seventy coaches and post-chaises attending; and many of the friends came above 100 miles, to pay their last tribute of respect. The doctor by his will appointed, that his shells, and other pieces of natural history, should be offered to the late Dr. Hunter at 500l. under the valuation he ordered to be taken of them. Accordingly, Dr. Hunter bought them for 1200l. The drawings and collections in natural history, which he had spared no expence to augment, were also to be offered to Mr. (now sir Joseph) Banks, at a valution. His English portraits and prints, which had been collected by Mr. John Nickolls of Ware, and purchased by him for 80 guineas, were bought for 200 guineas by Mr. Thane. His books were sold by auction, April 30, 1731, and the eight following days. His house and garden, at Upton, were valued at 10,000l. The person of Dr. Fothergill was of a delicate rather than an extenuate4 make. His features were all expressive, and his eye had a peculiar brilliancy. His understanding was comprehensive and quick, and rarely embarrassed on the most sudden occasions. There was a charm in his conversation and address that conciliated the regard and confidence of all who employed him; and so discreet and uniform was his conduct, that he was not apt to forfeit the esteem which he had once acquired. At his meals he was uncommonly abstemious, eating sparingly, and rarely exceeding two glasses of wine at dinner or supper. By this uniform and steady temperance, he preserved his mind vigorous and active, and his constitution equal to all his engagements.

, born at Paris Jan. 8, 1643, was a man of some political rank, advocate-general to the grand council, a celebrated intendant, and chief of the council to ber royal highness madame, duchess of Orleans, and in the literary world was an eminent antiquary, and an honorary member of the academy of belles-lettres; He was successively intendant of Montauban, of Pau, and of Caen, and within six miles of the latter place, discovered in 1704 the ancient town of the Vinducassians. An exact account of this discovery is inserted in the first volume of the history of the academy of inscriptions, with an enumeration of the coins, marbles, and other antiquities there found. His museum, formed from this and other sources, was of the most magnificent kind. Some time before this, he had made a literary discovery also, having found, in the abbey of Moissac in Querci, a ms. of “Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum,” then only known by a citation of St. Jerom from it. From this ms. Baluce published the work. He died Feb. 7, 1721. He was of gentle manners, though austere virtue; and pleasing, though deeply learned.

, an eminent French chemist, was born at Paris June 15, 1755, where his father was an apothecary, of the same family with the subject of the succeeding article. In his ninth year he was sent to the college of Harcourt, and at fourteen he completed the studies which were at that time thought necessary. Having an early attachment to music and lively poetry, he attempted to write for the theatre, and had no higher ambition than to become a player, but the bad success of one of his friends who had encouraged this taste, cured him of it, and for two years he directed his attention to commerce. At the end of this time an intimate friend of his father persuaded him to study medicine, and accordingly he devoted his talents to anatomy, botany, chemistry, and natural history. About two years after, in. 1776, he published a translation of Ramazzini, “on the diseases of artisans,” which he enriched with notes and illustrations derived from chemical theories which were then quite new. In 1780, he received the degree of M. D. and regent of that faculty, in spite of a very considerable opposition from his brethren, and from this time his chemical opinions and discoveries rendered him universally known and respected. The fertility of his imagination, joined to a style equally easy and elegant, with great precision, attracted the attention of a numerous school. In 1784, on the death of Macquer, he obtained the professorship of chemistry in the Royal Gardens, and the year following he was admitted into the academy of sciences, of the section of anatomy, but was afterwards admitted to that of chemistry, for which he was more eminently qualified. In 1787, he in conjunction with his countrymen De Morveau, Lavoisier, and Berthollet, proposed the new chemical nomenclature, which after some opposition, effected a revolution in chemical studies. (See Lavoisier.) Although constantly occupied in scientific experiments, and in publishing various works on subjects of medicine, chemistry, and natural history, he fell into the popular delusion about the time of the revolution, and in 1792 was appointed elector of the city of Paris, and afterwards provisional deputy to the national convention, which, however, he did not enter until after the death of the king.

His most considerable works are, 1. “The Roots of the Latin tongue in metre.” 2. “Critical Reflections upon Ancient History, to the time of Cyrus,” 2 vois. 4to. 3. “Meditationes Sinicae,” fol. 4. “A Chinese Grammar, in Latin,” fol. 5. “Several Dissertations, printed in the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” &c. He left several works in manuscript. In 1731 he published in 12mo, a catalogue of all his works, printed and manuscript, with notes, some particulars of his life, and some letters pretended to be addressed to him requesting him to publish such a work, and others which were so in reality. Fouriront appears to have been a scholar of vast industry and merit, but perfectly conscious of the rank he held. He had a younger brother, Michael Fourmont, who was an ecclesiastic, a professor of the Syriac tongue in the royal college, and a member also of the academy of inscriptions, who died in 1746.

, Lord Holland, the first nobleman of that title, was the second and youngest son of the second marriage, of sir Stephen Fox, and brother of Stephen first earl of Ilchester. He was born in 1705, and was chosen one of the members for Hendon, in Wiltshire, on a vacancy, in March 1735, to that parliament which met Jan. 23, 1734; and being constituted surveyor-general of his majesty’s board of works, a writ was ordered June 17, 1737, and he was re-elected. In the next parliament, summoned to meet June 25, 1741, he served for Windsor; and in 1743, being constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, in the administration formed by the Pelhams, a writ was issued Dec. 21st of that year, for a new election, and he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and sworn one his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. On tbis occasion, and until he was advanced to the peerage, he continued to represent Windsor in parliament. In 1754, the death of Mr. Pelham produced a vacancy in the treasury, which was filled up by his broker the duke of Newcastle, who, though a nobleman of high honour, unblemished integrity, and considerable abilities, yet was of too jealous and unstable a temper to manage the house of commons with equal address and activity, and to guide the reins of government without a coadjutor at so arduous a conjuncture. The seals of chancellor of the exchequer and secretary of state, vacant by the death of Mr. Pelham, and by the promotion of the duke of Newcastle, became therefore the objects of contention. The persons who now aspired to the management of the house of commons, were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt (afterwards earl of Chatham) whose parliamentary abilities had for some time divided the suffrages of the nation; who had so long fosterod reciprocal jealousy, and who now became public rivals for power. Both these rival statesmen were younger brothers, nearly of the same age; both were educated at Eton, both distinguished for classical knowledge, both commenced their parliamentary career at the same period, and both raised themselves to eminence by their superior talents, yet no two characters were ever more contrasted. Mr. Fox inherited a strong and vigorous constitution, was profuse and dissipated in his youth, and after squandering his private patrimony, went abroad to extricate himself from his embarrassment*. On his return he obtained a seat in parliament, and warmly attached himself to sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; and to whose patronage he was indebted for the place of surveyor-general of the board of works. His marriage in 1744 with lady Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of Richmond, though at first displeasiug to the family, yet finally strengthened his political connections. He was equally a man of pleasure and business, formed for social and convivial intercourse; of an unruffled temper, and frank disposition. No statesman acquired more adherents, not merely from political motives, but swayed by his agreeable manners, and attached to him by personal friendship, which he fully merited by his zeal in promoting their interests. He is justly characterized, even by Lord Chesterfield, “as having no fixed principles of religion or morality, and as too unwary in ridiculing and exposing them.” As a parliamentary orator, he was occasionally hesitating and perplexed; but, when warmed with his subject, he spoke with an animation and rapidity which appeared more striking from his former hesitation. His speeches were not crowded with flowers of rhetoric, or distinguished by brilliancy of diction; but were replete with sterling sense and sound argument. He was quick in reply, keen in repartee, and skilful in discerning the temper of the house. He wrote without effort or affectation; his public dispatches were manly and perspicuous, and his private letters easy and animated. Though of an ambitious spirit, he regarded money as a principal object, and power only as a secondary concern. He was an excellent husband, a most indulgent father, a kind master, a courteous neighbour, and one whose charities demonstrated that he possessed in abundance the milk of human kindness. Such is said to have been the character of lord Holland, which is here introduced as a prelude to some account of his more illustrious son. It may therefore suffice to add, that in 1756 he resigned the office of secretary at war to Mr. Pitt, and in the following year was appointed paymaster of the forces, which he retained until the commencement of the present reign; his conduct in this office was attended with some degree of obloquy; in one instance, at least, grossly overcharged. For having accumulated a considerable fortune by the perquisites of office, and the interest of money in hand, he was styled in one of the addresses of the city of London, “the defaulter of unaccounted millions.” On May 6, 1762, his lady was created baroness Holland; and on April 16, 1763, he himself was created a peer by the title of lord Holland, baron Holland, of Foxley, in the county of Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused himself by building, at a vast expence, a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, near Margate, His lordship was also a lord of the privy-council, and clerk of the Pells, in Ireland, granted him for his own life and that of his two sons. Lord Holland died at Holland-house, near Kensington, July 1, 1774, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, leaving three sons, Stephen, his successor; Charles James, the subject of the next article; and Henry Edward, a general in the army. Stephen, second lord Holland, survived his father but a few months, dying Dec. 26, 1774, and was succeeded by Henry Richard, the present peer.

, one of the most illustrious statesmen of modern times, the second son of the preceding lord Holland, was born Jan. 13, O. S. 1748. We have already noticed that lord Holland was an indulgent father, and it has been said that his partiality to this son was carried to an unwarrantable length. That his father might have been incited by parental affection, a feeling of which few men can judge but for themselves, by the early discovery he made of his son’s talents, to indulge him in the caprices of youth, is not improbable; but that this indulgence was not excessive, may with equal probability be inferred from the future conduct of Mr. Fox, which retained no traces of the “spoiled child,” and none of the haughty insolence of one to whom inferiors and servants have been ordered to pay obsequious obedience. Nor was his education neglected. At Eton, where he had Dr. Barnard for his master, he distinguished himself by some elegant exercises, which are to be found in the *' Musce Etonenses,“and at Hertford college, Oxford, where he studied under the tutorage of Dr. Newcome, afterwards primate of Ireland, his proficiency in classical and polite literature must have been equal to that of any of his contemporaries. The fund indeed of classical learning which he accumulated both at Eton and Oxford was such as to remain inexhausted during the whole of his busy and eventful political career; and while it proved to the last a source of elegant amusement in his leisure hours, it enabled him to rank with some of the most eminent scholars of his time. This we may affirm on the authority of Dr. Warton, with whom he frequently and keenly contested at the literary club, and on that of a recent publication of his letters to Gilbert Wakefield, with whom he corresponded on subjects of classical taste and criticism. From Oxford, where, as was the custom with young men intended for public life, he did not remain long enough to accumulate degrees, he repaired to the continent. In his travels it is said that he acquired more of the polish of foreign intercourse than those who knew him only in his latter days could have believed, and returned a fashionable young man, noted for a foppish gaiety of dress and manner, from which he soon passed into the opposite extreme. As his father intended him to rise in the political world, he procured him a seat for the borough of Midhurst, in 1768, before he had attained the legal age; a circumstance which, if known, appears to have been then overlooked. Two years afterwards, his father’s interest procured him the office of one of the lords commissioners of the admiralty; but in May 1772, he resigned that situation, and in January 1773, was nominated a commissioner of the treasury. At this time it cannot be denied that his political opinions were in unison with those of his father, who was accounted a tory, and were adverse to the turbulent proceedings of the city of London, which at this time was deluded by the specious pretences to patriotism displayed by the celebrated Wilkes. It was in particular Mr. Fox’s opinion, in allusion to the public meetings held by the supporters of” Wilkes and liberty,“that” the voice of the people was only to be heard in the house of commons." That he held, however, some of the opinions by which his future life was guided, appears from his speech in favour of religious liberty, when sir William Meredith introduced a bill to give relief from subscription to the thirty-nine articles; and perhaps other instances may be found in which his natural ingenuousness of mind, and openness of character, burst through the trammels of party; and although it must be allowed that the cause he now supported was not that which he afterwards espoused, it may be doubted whether he was not even at this time, when a mere subaltern in the ministerial ranks, more unresirained in his sentiments than at some memorable periods of his subsequent life.

, or Fiuncia Bigio, was an historical painter, born in 1483. He studied for a short time under Albertinelli, but is chiefly known as the competitor, and in some works the partner of Andrea del Sarto. Similar in principle, but inferior to him in power, he strove to supply by diligence the defects of nature; with what success, will appear on comparison of his work in the cloister of the Nunziata at Florence, with those of Andrea at the same place. On its being uncovered by the monks, the painter in a fit of shame or rage gave it some blows with a hammer, nor ever after could be induced to finish it. He appears to have succeeded better in two histories which he inserted among the frescos of Andrea at the Scalzo, nor is he there much inferior. He likewise emulated him at Poggio a Cajano, where he represented the return of M. Tullius from exile, a work, which though it remained unfinished, shews him to great advantage. This artist died in 1524, in the prime of life.

Some time after the publication of Horace, he appears to have come over to England, where, in 1753, he published a translation of part of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” intending to comprise the whole in two quarto volumes. It was a matter of some importance at that time to risk a large work of this kind, and the author had the precaution therefore to secure a copious list of subscribers. Unfortunately, however, it had to contend with the acknowledged merit of Leland’s translation, and, allowing their respective merits to have been nearly equal, Leland’s had at least the priority in point of time, and upon comparison, was preferred by the critics, as being more free and eloquent, and less literally exact. This, however, did not arise from any defect in our author’s skill, but was merely an error, if an error at all, in judgment; for he conceived, that as few liberties as possible ought to be taken with the style of his author, and that there was an essential difference between a literal translation, which only he considered as faithful, and an imitation, in which we can never be certain that we have the author’s words or precise meaning. Jn 1755 he completed his purpose in a second volume, which was applauded as a difficult work well executed, and acceptable to every friend of genius and literature; but its success was by no means correspondent to the wishes of the author or of his friends. The year before the first volume of his “Demosthenes” appeared, he determined to attempt the drama, and his first essay was a tragedy entitled “Eugenia.” This is profesedly an adaptation of the French “Cenie” to English feelings and habits, hut it had not much success on the stage. Lord Chesterfield, in one of his letters to his Son, observes that he did not think it would have succeeded so well, considering how long our British audiences had been accustomed to murder, racks, and poison in every tragedy; yet it affected the heart so much, that it triumphed over habit and prejudice. In a subsequent letter, he says that the boxes were crowded till the sixth night, when the pit and gallery were totally deserted, and it was dropped. Distress without death, he repeats, was not sufficient to arlect a true British audience, so long accustomed to daggers, racks, and bowls of poison; contrary to Horace’s rule, they desire to see Medea murder her children on the stage. The sentiments were too delicate to move them; and their hearts were to be taken by storm, not by parley. In 1754, Mr. Francis brought out another tragedy at Cuvent-garden theatre, entitled “Constantino,” which was equilly unsuccessful, but appears to have suffered principally by the improper distribution of the parts among the actors. This he alludes to, in the dedication to lord Chesterfield, with whom he appears to have been acquainted, and intimates at the same time that these disappointments bad induced him to take leave of the stage.

, or Franciscus Francken, but more generally called Old Francks, was an artist of the sixteenth century. Very few circumstances relative to him are handed down, although his works are as generally known in these kingdoms as they are in the Netherlands: nor are the dates of his birth, death, or age, thoroughly ascertained; for Dcscamps supposes him to be born in 1544, to be admitted into the society of painters at Antwerp in 1561, which was at seventeen years of age; and fixes his death in 1666, by which computation Francks must have been a hundred and twenty-two years old when he died, which appears utterly improbable; though others fix his birth in 1544, and his death in 1616, aged seventy-two, which seems to be nearest the truth. He painted historical subjects taken froni the Old orNewTestameut, and was remarkable for introducing a great number of figures into his compositions, which he had the skill to express very distinctly. He had a fruitful invention, and composed readily; but he wanted grace and elegance in his figures, and was apt to crowd too many histories into one scene. His touch was free, and the colouring of his pictures generally transparent; yet a predominant brown or yellowish tinge appeared over them, neither natural nor agreeable. But, in several of his best performances, the colouring is clear and lively, the design good, the figures tolerably correct, and the whole together very pleasing. -At Wilton is his “Belshazzar’s Feast,” a very curious composition.

His “Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg” are distinguished by his correctness in facts, the liveliness of his portraits, the justness of his reflections, and the vigour of his style. The “Frederician Code” displays him in the light of an able legislator, copying the Roman law, but adapting it with skill to the nature and circumstances of his own dominions. In his lighter productions he was an imitator of Voltaire,* whose friendship he long cultivated, and whose irreligious opinions unhappily he too completely imbibed. The activity of his mind was easily discerned in the vivacity of his eyes and countenance: and he was one of those extraordinary men who by an adroit and regular partition of their time, accompanied with strong spirits and perseverance, can pursue a variety of occupations which common mortals must contemplate with astonishment. Had he not been a king, he would in any situation have been a very distinguished man: being a king, he displayed those talents which usually require the retirement of private life for their cultivation, in a degree of excellence which his situation and mode of life rendered not less extraordinary than those qualities which he possessed in the highest perfection.

, a celebrated French poet and painter, was born at Paris in 1611. His father, who was an eminent apothecary in that city, intended him for the medical profession, and during the first year which he spent at college, he made very considerable progress in his studies; but as soon as he was raised to the highest classes, and began to contract a taste for poetry, his genius for it appeared, and he carried all the prizes of it, which were proposed to excite the emulation of his fellow-students. His inclination for poetry was heightened by exercise; and his earliest performances shewed that he was capable of attaining very considerable fame in this pursuit, if his love of painting, which equally possessed him, had not divided his time and application. At last he laid aside all thoughts of the study of physic, and declared absolutely for that of painting, notwithstanding the opposition of his parents, who by all kinds of severity endeavoured to divert him from pursuing that art, the profession of which they unjustly considered in a very contemptible light. But the strength of his inclination defeating all the measures taken to suppress it, he took the first opportunity of cultivating his favourite study.

After passing some years in the quiet prosecution of his studies, he encountered some opposition in consequence of the five propositions condemned by the popes Innocent X. and Alexander VII. He was now suspected of favouring the Jansenists, and of asserting that no one could sign the formulary without distinguishing the fact from the right. This induced him to quit his office of regent in 1654, and accept of the conventual priory of Betiay, in the diocese of Angers. Here, however, he did not constantly reside, but preached frequently in some cathedrals, and performed the duties of his office as chancellor of the university, until 1661, when happening to be at Benay, he received an order from the court to remain there until farther orders. This was occasioned by the approbation he had given to a French translation of the Missal of M. Voisin, which at first he did not choose to revoke. It does not appear, however, that while he ventured to express liberal notions, he had the courage to maintain them against the authority of his superiors, for he soon conceded every point, and offered to sign the formulary abovementioned, which he had hitherto refused, and accordingly was permitted to return to Paris in 1662, where the archbishop of Sens bestowed on him the office of priorcur6 of St. Mary Magdalen of Montargis; but this he enjoyed but a very few days, being seized with a disorder which carried him off, April 17, 1662, when only fortyeight years of age. He was a man of extensive reading in ecclesiastical and profane history; and as a preacher was lively and eloquent. He obtained much reputation for his discourses when bestowing the degree of master of arts, which was his province for fifteen years. He was an able linguist, not only in the modern, but ancient, and particularly the Eastern languages. Dupin, who gives him in other respects a very high character, observes, that he never attached himself so closely to any subject as to handle it thoroughly, but was always making discoveries, starting conjectures, and forming new ideas, and giving his subject a turn altogether uncommon.

, a celebrated English divine, and master of Pembroke-hal in Cambridge, wns born in London, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1564. He was a youth of great parts, and of a very high spirit. When a boy at school, he is said to have betrayed great anger and mortification on losing a literary contest for a silver pen, with the celebrated Edmund Campian, and as the latter was educated at Christ’s hospital, this incident seems to prove that t'ulke was of the same school. Before he became fellow of his college, he complied with the wishes of his father, by studying law at Clirtbrd’s-inn, but on his return to the university, his inclinations became averse to that pursuit, and he was unable to conquer them, although his father refused to support him any longer. Young Fulke, however, trusted to his industry and endowments, and soon became a distinguished scholar in mathematics, languages, and divinity. Having taken orders, his early intimacy with some of the puritan divines induced him t< preach in favour of some of their sentiments respecting the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. This occurred about 1565, and brought upon him the censure of the chancellor of the university, which, it is said, proceeded to expulsion. On this he took lodgings in the town of Cambridge, and subsisted for some time by reading lectures. His expulsion, however, if it really took place, which seems doubtful, did not lessen his general reputation, as in 1561) there was an intention to choose him master of St. John’s college, had not archbishop Parker interfered but about the same time he found a patron in the earl of Leicester, who was more indulgent to the puritans, and who received Mr. luilke into his house, as his chaplain. It was now also that he fell under the charge of being concerned in some unlawful marriages, and in such circumstances thought it his duty to resign his fellowship, but being honourably acquitted in an examination before the bishop of Ely, he was immediately re-elected by the college.

, was an English painter of some note in the reign of Charles II. but of his family or masters we have no account, except that he studied many years in France under Perrier, who engraved the antique statues. In his historical compositions he has left little to admire, his colouring being raw and unnatural, and not compensated by disposition or invention, but in portraits his pencil was bold, strong, and masterly. In the latter he was much employed, particularly at Oxford. His own portrait in the gallery there is touched with great force and character. The altar-piece of Magdalen was also by him, but has not been much approved. As an imitation of Michel Angelo, it falls far short of the sublime, although sometimes wild imagination of that great artist; nor is the colouring harmonious. Some of the figures, however, are correctly drawn; and he has at least imitated the temper of Michel Angelo with success, in introducing among the damned, the portrait of an hostler at the Greyhound-inn, near the college, who had offended him. The picture, it is well known, was honoured by Addison in an elegant Latin poem. At Wadham college is an altar-cloth by Fuller in a singular manner, and of merit; which is just brushed over for the lights and shades, and the colours melted in with a hot iron. Soon after the restoration, he was engaged in painting the circumstances of king Charles II.'s escape, which he executed in five large pictures. These were presented to the parliament of Ireland, where they remained for many years in one of the rooms of the parliament house in Dublin. But some time in the last century the house undergoing a thorough repair, these pictures were not replaced, but lay neglected, until they were rescued by the late earl of Clanbrassil, who obtained possession of them, and had them cleaned and removed to his seat at Tullymore park, co. Down, where they were a few years ago. Lord Orford speaks slightingly of these, which he had never seen, and probably with as much justice as of Fuller’s altar-piece at All-souls college, which he never could have seen, for Fuller had no picture there. Fuller died in Bloomsbury-square July 17, 1672, and left a gon, an ingenious but idle man, chiefly employed ia coach -painting, who died young.

After the battle at Cheriton-Down, March 29, 1644, lord Hopton drew on his army to Basing-house, and Fuller, being left there by him, animated the garrison to so vigorous a defence of that place, that sir William Waller was obliged to raise the siege with considerable loss. But the, war hastening to an end, and part of the king’s army being driven into Cornwall, under lord Hopton, Fuller, with the leave of that nobleman, took refuge at Exeter, where he resumed his studies, and preached constantly to the citizens. During his residence here he was appointed chaplain to the infant princess Henrietta Maria, who was born at Exeter in June 1643; and the king soon after gave him a patent for his presentation to the living of Dorchester in Dorsetshire. He continued his attendance on the princess till the surrender of Exeter to the parliament, in April 1646; but did not accept the living, because he determined to remove to London at the expiration of the war. He relates, in his * Worthies,“an extraordinary circumstance which happened during the siege of Exeter” When the city of Exeter, he says, was besieged by the parliament forces, so that only the south side thereof towards the sea was open to it, incredible numbers of larks were found in that open quarter, for multitude like quailg in the wilderness; though, blessed be God, unlike them in the cause and effect; as not desired with man’s destruction, nor sent with God’s anger, as appeared by their safe digestion into wholesome nourishment. Hereof I was an, eye and mouth-witness. I will save my credit in not conjecturing any number; knowing that herein, though I should stoop beneath the truth, I should mount above belief. They were as fat as plentiful; so that being sold for two-pence a dozen and under, the poor who could have no cheaper, and the rich no better meat, used to make pottage of them, boiling them down therein. Several causes were assigned hereof, &c. but the cause of causes was the Divine Providence; thereby providing a feast for many poor people, who otherwise had been pinched for provision.“While here, as every where else, he was much courted on account of his instructive and pleasant conversation, by persons of high rank, some of whom made him very liberal offers; but whether from a love of study, or a spirit of independence, he was always reluctant in accepting any otters that might seem to confine him to any one family, or patron. It was at Exeter, where he is said to have written his” Good Thoughts in Bad Times,“and where the book was published in 1645, as what he calls” the first fruits of Exeter press.“At length the garrison being forced to surrender, he came to London, and met but a coid reception among his former parishioners, and found his lecturer’s place filled by another. However, it was not Ions: before he was chosen lecturer at St. Clement’s near Lombard-street and shortly after removed to St. Bride’s, in Fleet-street. In 1647 he published, in 4to,” A Sermon of Assurance, fourteen years agoe preached at Cambridge, since in other places now, by the importunity of his friends, exposed to public view.“He dedicated it to sir John Danvers, who had been a royalist, was then an Oliverian, and next year one of the king’s judges; and in the dedication he says, that” it had been the pleasure of the present authority to make him mute; forbidding him till further order the exercise of his public preaching.“Notwithstanding his being thus silenced, he was, about 1648, presented to the rectory of Waltham, in Essex, by the earl of Carlisle, whose chaplain he was just before made. He spent that and the following year betwixt London and Waltham, employing some engravers to adorn his copious prospect or view of the Holy Land, as from mount Pisgah; therefore called his” Pi*gah-sijht of Palestine and the confines thereof, with the history of the Old and New Testament acted thereon,“which he published in 1650. It is an handsome folio, embellished with a frontispiece and many other copper- plates, and divided into five books. As for his” Worthies of England,“on which he had been labouring so long, the death of the king for a time disheartened him from the continuance of that work:” For what shall I write,“says he,” of the Worthies of England, when this horrid act will bring such an infamy upon the whole nation as will ever cloud an4 darken all its former, and suppress its future rising glories?“He was, therefore, busy till the year last mentioned, in preparing that book and others; and the next year he rather employed himself in publishing some particular lives of religious reformers, martyrs, confessors, bishops, doctors, and other learned divines, foreign and domestic, than in augmenting his said book of” English Worthies“in general. To this collection, which was executed by several hands, as he tells us in the preface, he gave the title of” Abel Redivivus,“and published it in 4to, 1651. In the two or three following years he printed several sermons and tracts upon religious subjects. About 1654 he married a sister of the viscount Baltinglasse; and the next year she brought him a son, who, as well as the other before-mentioned, survived his father. In 1655, notwithstanding Cromwell’s prohibition of all persons from, preaching, or teaching school, who had been adherents to the late king, he continued preaching, and exerting his charitable disposition towards those ministers who were ejected by the usurping powers, and not only relieved such from what he could spare out of his own slender estate, but procured many contributions for them from his auditories. Nor was his charity confined to the clergy; and among the laity whom he befriended, there is an instance upon record of a captain of the army who was quite destitute, and whom he entirely maintained until he died. In 1656 he published in folio,” The Church History of Britain, from the birth of Jesus Christ to the year 1648;“to which are subjoined,” The History of the University of Cambridge since the conquest,“and” The History of Waltham Abbey in Essex, founded by king Harold.“His Church History was animadverted upon by Dr. Hey 1 in in his” Examen Historicum;" and this drew from our author a reply: after which they had no further controversy, but were very well reconciled *. About this time he was invited, accord ing to his biographer, to another living in Essex, in which he continued his ministerial labours until his settlement at London. George, lord Berkeley, one of his noble patrons, having in 1658 made him his chaplain, he took leave of Essex, and was presented by his lordship to the rectory of Cranford in Middlesex. It is said also that lord Berkeley took him over to the Hague, and introduced him to Charles if. It is certain, however, that a short time hefore the restoration, Fuller was re-admitted to his lecture in the Savoy, and on that event restored to his prebend of Salisbury. He was chosen chaplain extraordinary to the king; created doctor of divinity at Cambridge by a mandamus, dated August 2, 1660; and, had he lived a twelvemonth longer, would probably have been raised to a bishopric. But upon his return from Salisbury in August 1661 he was attacked by a fever, of which he died the 15th of that month. His funeral was attended by at least two hundred of his brethren; and a sermon was preached by Dr. Hardy, dean of Rochester, in which a great and noble character was given of him. H was buried in his church at Cranford, on the north wall of the chancel of which is his monument, with the following inscription:

, so called from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, intruded himself into the see of Antioch, in the fifth century, and after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in the year 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, Among the innovations which he introduced to excite discord in the church, was an alteration in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agion. After the words “O God most holy, &c.” he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, “who has suffered for us upon the cross.” His design in this was to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Fcelix, the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified and hence his followers were called Theopaschites. To put an end to the controversy, the emperor Zeno published in the year 482 the “Henoticon,” or decree of onion, which was designed to reconcile the parties, and Fullo signed it; but the effects of the contest disturbed the church for a long time after his death, which happened in the year 486.

Wood says, “he was an excellent poet, especially in the Latin tongue, and reputed the best comedian (i.e. dramatic writer) of his time.” He had a controversy with Dr. John Rainolds, on the lawfulness of stage-plays, which appears to have been carried on in manuscript letters, until Raiuolds published his “Overthrow of Stage-plays,” containing his answer to Gager and a rejoinder. He had a more singular controversy with Mr. Heale, of Exeter-college, in consequence of his (Gager’s) asserting at the Oxford Act in 1608, “That it was lawful for husbands to beat their wives.” This Mr. Heale answered in “An Apology for Women,*' &c. Oxon. 1609, 4to. In the” Exequiae D. Philippi Sidnxi,“Gager has a copy of verses in honour of that celebrated character, who, when living, had a great respect for his learning and virtues. His Latin plays are, 1.” Meleager,“a tragedy. 2.” Rivales,“a comedy; and 3.” Ulysses redux," a tragedy. These were all acted, and we are told, with great applause, in Christ church hall. The first only was printed in 1592, 4to, and occasioned the controversy between the author and Dr. Rainolds. Gager’s letter in defence of this and his other plays, is in the library of University-college.

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

, after Hippocrates prince of the Greek physicians, was a native of Pergamus in the Lesser Asia, where he was born about A. D. 131, in the reign of the emperor Adrian. His father, whose name was Nicon, was an able architect, and spared neither trouble nor expence in the education of his son. Galen studied with success all the philosophy of his time, but finally applied himself to medicine as his profession. Satyro and Peiops, two eminent physicians of his time, were his chief preceptors in that science. But his application to the works of Hippocrates contributed more than any other instruction to the eminence he attained.

, of Milan, a learned ecclesiastical antiquary, and apostolical notary, flourished in the sixteenth century, under the pontificate of Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. He was an able scholar in the ancient languages, and had devoted much of his time to researches in ecclesiastical history. He endeavoured to correct and illustrate the “Roman Martyrology,” by new-modelling it, and adding a number of new facts respecting the saints. This he dedicated to pope Gregory XIII. and published it at Milan in 1577, but it never was approved by the Roman censors, who thought it too long to be recited in the canonical office; and others have accused him of many inaccuracies. He wrote also the “Lives of the Saints of Milan,” printed there in 1582; some notes on the Greek Septuagint, Rome, 1567, and a “Commentary on the Pentateuch,” ib. 1587. His other works, are translations from Greek into Latin of some discourses of St. Gregory Nyssen and Theodoret new editions of the histories of Sulpicius Severus and of Haymo of Halberstadt, in folio; the acts of Milan; a tract concerning the obelisk which Sixtus V. raised in 1586; and another on the tomb which the same pope erected in. honour of Pius V. a history of the popes, entitled “Theatrum Pontificate;” “S. Didaci Complutensis Canonizatio,” Rome, 1588; “II perfetto Dittionario,” Latin and Italian, Venice, 1659, and 1684. We have no further particulars of his life, except that he died about the year 1590.

, an English divine, born at Beckenham, in Kent, in August 1696, was admitted pensioner of Bene't college, under the tuition of Mr. Fawcett, May 8, 1714, and became scholar of the house in July following. He took the degree of M. A. in 1721, and was upon tbfc king’s list for that of D. D. (to which he was admitted April 25, 1728) when his majesty honoured the university of Cambridge with his presence. In 1721 he was chosen lecturer of St. Paul’s Covent-garden, and instituted the same year to the rectory of Wavenden, or Wanclen, in Buckinghamshire. The lord chancellor King appointed him his domestic chaplain in 1725, preferred him to a prebend in the church of Gloucester in 1728, and to another in that of Norwich ahout three years after. He presented him likewise to the rectory of Ashney, alias Ashton, in Northamptonshire, in 1730; and to that of St. Giles’s in the fields, in 1732; his majesty made him also one of his chaplains in ordinary in October 1735. Dr. Gaily died August 7, 1769. He was the author of, 1. “Two sermons on the Misery of Man, preached at St. Paul’s Covent-garden, 1723,” 8vo. 2. “The Moral Characters of Theophrastus, translated from the Greek, with notes, and a Critical Essay on Characteristic Writing,” 1725, 8vo. 3. “The Reasonableness of Church and College Fines asserted, and the Rights which Churches and Colleges have in their Estates defended,” 1731, 8vo. This was an answer to a pamphlet called “An Enquiry into the Customary Estates and Tenants of those who hold Lands of Church and other Foundations by the tenure of three Lives and twenty-one years. By Everard Fleet wood, esq.” 8vo. 4. “Sermon before the House of Commons, upon the Accession, June 11, 1739,” 4to. 5. “Some Considerations upon Clandestine Marriages,” 1750, 8vo. This was much enlarged in a second edition the year following, and had the honour afterwards to be noticed in the house of commons in the debates on the marriage act. 6. “A Dissertation against pronouncing the Greek language according to Accents,” 1754, 1755, 8vo. 7. “A Second Dissertation,” on the same subject, 8vo.

, was an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, protected and beloved by cardinal Alexander Farnese r whose writings were much esteemed in his day, but now are thought flat and insipid. He wrote, 1. “A Latin treatise on Poetry, in which he dissuades Christian poets from using pagan mythology.” This was the amende honorublt for many licentious and profane poems written in his youth. 2. “A Latin poem on Columbus.” Also eclogues, entitled, “Venatoria,” and other productions. Muretus treats this author with the greatest contempt, bnt he is highly praised by Giraldi and Manutius. He died in 1586, at the age of 90.

Gardiner, says an excellent modern biographer, was one of those motley ministers, half statesman and half ecclesiastic, which were common in those needy times, when the revenues of the church were necessary to support the servants of the crown. It was an inviduous support; and often fastened the odium of an indecorum on the king’s ministers; who had, as ministers always have, opposition enough to parry in the common course of business; and it^is very probable that Gardiner, on this very ground, has met with harder measure in history, than he might otherwise have done. He is represented as having nothing of a churchman about him but the name of a bishop. He had been bred to business from his earliest youth; and was thoroughly versed in all the wiles of men, considered either as individuals, or embodied in parties. He knew all the modes of access to every foible of the human heart; his own in the mean time was dark, and impenetrable. He was a man, “who,” as Lloyd quaintly says, “was to be traced like the fox; and, like the Hebrew, was to be read backwards;” and though the insidious cast of his eye indicated, that he was always lying in wait, yet his strong sense, and persuasive manner, inclined men to believe he was always sincere; as better reasons could hardly be given, than he had ready on every occasion. He was as little troubled with scruples as any man, who thought it not proper entirely to throw off decency. What moral virtues, and what natural feelings he had, were all under the influence of ambition; and were accompanied by a happy lubricity of conscience, which ran glibly over every obstacle. Such is the portrait, which historians have given us of this man; and though the colouring may be more heightened in some than in others; yet the same turn of feature is found in all.

Garth had a very extensive practice, but was extremely moderate in his views of advancing his own fortune; hi humanity and good-nature inclining him more to make use of the great interest he had with persons in power, for the support and encouragement of other men of letters. He chose to live with the great in that degree of independency and freedom, which became a man possessed of a superior genius, of which he was daily giving fresh proofs to the public. One of these was addressed to the late duke or Newcastle, in 1715, entitled “Claremont;” being written on the occasion of giving that name to a villa belonging to that nobleman, who was then only earl of Clare, which he had adorned with a beautiful and sumptuous structure. Among the Latin writers, Ovid appears to have been the doctor’s favourite; and it has been thought that there was some resemblance in their dispositions, manners, and poetry. One of his last performances, was an edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, translated by various hands, in which he rendered the whole 14th book, and the story of Cippus in the 15th. It was published in 1717, and he prefixed a preface, wherein he not only gives an idea of the work, and points out its principal beauties, but shews the uses of the poem, and how it may be read to most advantage.

He had made his will Oct. 15 preceding, by which he appointed M. de Monmor his executor, and left him all his Mss. with leave to publish such as he should think fit for the press; and that gentleman, with the assistance of another friend, having carefully collected and perused them, came to the opinion, that he had written nothing which was not worthy of him, and the whole was published by Monmor’s order at Leyden, 1658, in six volumes, folio. This honourable friend had before testified his great respect for Gassendi’s memory at his funeral, which was performed two days after his death, by depositing his corpse with those of his own ancestors, in the church of St. Nicholas in the Fields, at Paris. Here also he erected a handsome monument, exhibiting his bust, by Nanteuil, set upon a frame of black, inclosing a plate of white marble; upon which was an inscription, in the close whereof his character is elegantly and literally expressed in three words, attesting his “piety, wisdom, and learning.” His dirge and requiem, and funeral rites, according to the usage in the Romish church, were likewise performed in the church of Digne; and a funeral oration pronounced by Nicolas Tixelius, his successor in that rectory, who printed it at Leyden in 1656. It appears by his letters, printed in the sixth volume of his works, that he was often consulted by the most famous astronomers of his time; as Kepler, Longomontanus, Snellius, Hevelius, Galileo, Kercher, Bullialdi, and others; and he is generally esteemed one of the founders of the reformed philosophy, in opposition to that of Aristotle and the schoolmen.

, a French divine of the eighteenth century, descended from a family of distinction, was born at Aix, in Provence, and being at an early age admitted into orders, officiated for some years as priest in the parish church of St. Paul. Among his theological publications is “A Collection, of Homilies on the Epistles to the Romans,” in two volumes, 12mo, with a delineation of the character of St. Paul prefixed. But on the death of his elder brother, a celebrated advocate in the parliament of Provence, he retired into the country, studied law, and being admitted an advocate, practised with uncommon success. The interests of the poor he advocated without hope of reward; and in 1717 he gained a famous cause against the Jesuits, of whom he was an active opponent. Not contented with pleading professionally against them, he attacked them by means of the press, and wrote a piece entitled “The Jesuits unmasked.” He published some treatises against the bishop of Marseilles, who procured him to be banished twice to Viviers, where he died in 1731, and on account of his reputed heresy he was denied the rites of Christian burial.

He adhered, however, closely to the court, and in compliance with the measures which were then pursued, drew up a declaration for liberty of conscience extending to papists, of which a few copies were printed off, though presently called in; he was about the same time employed to draw up 'another declaration of indulgence to the quakers, by an exemption from all oaths. He also wrote, “Considerations touching the Liturgy of the Church of England, in reference to his Majesty’s late Declaration, and in order to a happy union in church and state,” 1660. He then obtained a removal to the see of Worcester, to which he was elected May 23, 1662. But with this promotion he was so far from being satisfied, that he looked upon it as an injury; he had, it seems, applied to the king for the rich bishopric of Winchester, and flattered himself with the hopes of a translation thither; and the regret and vexation at the disappointment is thought to have hastened his end, for he died on September 2O, that year. After his death, his widow, being left with five children, in consideration of the short time he had enjoyed Worcester, and the charge of removing from Exeter, petitioned the king for the half year’s profits of the last bishopric; but her petition was rejected as unreasonable, on account of his large revenues and profits at his first coming to Exeter. As to his character, it is certain he was an ambitious man; which, as is usually the case, occasioned the moral part to be severely sifted; and in this respect the behaviour of his relict, though otherwise intended, was far from being of service to his memory. In a letter to one of her sons, after the bishop’s death, she calls the Emov B<Wixj*J, “The Jewel;” said her husband had hoped to make a fortune by it; and that she had a letter of a very great man’s, which would clear up that he wrote it. This assertion, as Clarendon had predicted, was eagerly espoused by the anti-royalists, in order to disparage Charles I. This, on the other hand, kindling the indignation of those who thought his majesty greatly injured, they took every opportunity to expose the dark side of the bishop’s character; and represented him as an inconstant, ambiguous, and lukewarm man, covetous of preferment, hasty and impatient in the pursuit of it, and deeply tinctured with folly and vanity; upon the whole, an unhappy blemish and reproach of the sacred order. Nor is bishop Kennet’s censure less severe, though conveyed in a somewhat less intemperate language, when he tells us that Dr. Gauden was capable of underwork, and made himself a tool to the court, by the most sordid hopes of greater favour in it. This charge is supported by two instances, namely, his drawing up the two declarations already mentioned; one for liberty of conscience to the papists, the other for indulgence to the quakers in respect to taking an oath; the latter of which we have seen passed into an act of parliament, and the policy and justice of the former attested by a connivance to all loyal papists, or such as deny the pope’s power of dissolving their allegiance to their lawful sovereign, which was the express motive for making the declaration. The most candid character of him is that left us by Wood, who says, “that he was esteemed by all who knew him, to be a very comely person, a man of vast parts, and one that had strangely improved himself by unwearied labour; and was particularly much resorted to for his most admirable and edifying way of preaching.” It is certain, however, he had too luxuriant an imagination, which betrayed him into an Asiatic rankness of style; and thence, as bishop Burnet argues, that not he, but the king himself, was the true author of the Eixuv Boktixjkw; in. which there is a nobleness and justness of thought, with a greatness of style that caused it be esteemed the best written book in the English language. But Burnet had not the advantage of proofs which have since been published, particularly in Clarendon’s State Papers, vol. III. from which an opposite conclusion may be drawn. Those, however, who would examine this question in all its bearings, may be referred to Nichols’s “Literary Anecdotes” for the arguments against Gauden, and to Laing’s “History of Scotland,” for what can be alleged in favour of Gauden’s being the real author of the “Icon.” Our own opinion is, that the matter may still be questioned, nor can we agree with Mr. Laing in presuming “that no one will now venture to defend the authority of the Icon.” We think there is a strong probability that it was composed from materials written by the king; and that Gauden, a man so ambitious and avaricious as to claim high rewards for all his services, was very likely to attribute the whole to himself. We agree, however, with Mr. Laing, that “if ever a literary imposture were excusable, it was undoubtedly Gauden’s, and had it appeared a week sooner, it might have preserved the king.”

These qualities recommended him to such company and acquaintance as delighted him most; and among others to Swift and Pope, who were struck with the sincerity, the simplicity of his manners, and the easiness of his temper. To the latter he addressed the first-fruits of his muse, entitled “Rural Sports, a Georgic,” printed in 1711. This piece discovered a rich poetical vein, peculiar to himself, and met with some agreeable attestations of its merit, that would have been enjoyed with a higher relish, had not the pleasure been interrupted by the state of his finances; which, by an uncommon degree of thoughtlessness and Gullibility , were reduced now to a low ebb. Our poet’s purse was an unerring barometer of his spirits; whifch, sinking with it, left him in the apprehension of a servile dependence, a condition he dreaded above any thing that could befal him. The clouds were, however, shortly dispelled by the kindness of the duchess of Monmouth, who appointed him her secretary in 1712, with a handsome salary. This seasonable favour seating him in a coach, though not his own, kindled his muse to new efforts. He first produced his celebrated poem called “Trivia or the Art of Walking the Streets,” and the following year, at the instance of Pope, he formed the plan of his “Pastorals.” There is not perhaps in history a more remarkable example of the force of friendship in an author, than was the undertaking and finishing of this inimitable poem. Pope, in the subscription of the Hanover-club to his translation of the “Iliad,” had been ill used by Philips their secretary, and his rival in this species of poetry. The translator highly resented the affront; and, meditating revenge, intimated to Gay how greatly it was in his power to pluck the bays from this envied rival’s forehead. Gay immediately engaged in his friend’s quarrel, and executed his request even beyond his expectation. The rural simplicity neglected by Pope, and admired in Philips, was found, though mixed with some burlesque, only in the “Shepherd’s Week.” This exquisite piece of nature and humour came out in 1714, with a dedication to lord Bolingbroke, which Swift facetiously called the author’s original sin against the court.

, a Roman catholic divine, who attempted to translate the Bible, with a view to destroy its credibility, was born in 1737, in the parish of Ruthven, and county of Bamff, in Scotland. His parents, who were Roman catholics, in very humble life, possessed but a few books, among which was an English Bible, to the study of which their son applied very early, and is said to have known all its history by heart before he was eleven years old. At the age of fourteen he was sent to Scalan, a free Roman catholic seminary in the Highlands, of obscure fame, where he acquired only an acquaintance with the vulgate Latin Bible. Having attained the age of twentyone, he was removed to the Scotch college at Paris, where he made such proficiency in his studies as very much attracted the attention of his preceptors. Here school divinity and biblical criticism occupied the principal part of his time; and he endeavoured also to make himself master of the Greek and Latin languages, and of the French, Spanish, German, and Low Dutch.

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

, an eminent German poet and moral writer, was born at Haynichen, in Saxony, July 4, 1715. His father was a clergyman of a small income, who had thirteen children. Gellert was educated at home, where his poetical powers first appeared in a poem on the birth-day of his father, which was succeeded by many others, but all these in his maturer years he committed to the flames. He was afterwards sent to school at Meissen r where he learned Greek and Latin, and in 1734 he went to Leipsic, whence, after studying four years, his father’s narrow income obliged him to recall him. Gellert wished much to continue at the university, but he submitted to necessity, and at home had an opportunity of again turning his attention to those poetical pursuits for which he had early displayed a predilection; and perhaps it is to his recall from the university that we owe the beauty and simplicity of his fables. At this time he occasion-ally composed sermons, which are in general distinguished both for spirit and sound reasoning, but they contain several indications of a taste not very correct, and a judgment not arrived at maturity. In 1741 he again returned to the university of Leipsic, with a nephew of his own, of whose education he had the charge. Here he met with some friends, from whose conversation and directions he confesses that he derived very considerable advantage. About this time he published several tales and fables in a periodical publication. In 1745 he acquired the right of giving public lessons in the university, particularly on- morals. He had early received an impression of the importance of Christian morality, and thought that he could not pass over the subject in silence, without neglecting one of the most essential duties of his Situation. Soon after the commencement of his academical labours, he published his “Tales and Fables.” Amongst these, the manner in which the character of a devotee was drawn, was much admired. This suggested to Gellert the idea of his comedy of the “Devotee,” which was first published in the Bremen Magazine, but afterwards caused him much vexation. Many condemned it because it appeared to them to have a mischievous tendency, by exposing piety and seriousness to ridicule. But Gellert was not a man who could attempt to sap the foundations of real religion and morality, though he wished to expose hypocrisy and affectation to merited contempt. Among the many flattering instances of public approbation which the “Tales and Fables” produced, Gellert was particularly pleased with that of a Saxon peasant. One day, about the beginning of winter, he saw the man drive up to his door a cart loaded with fire-wood. Having observed Gellert, he asked him whether he was the gentleman who wrote such fine tales? Being answered in the affirmative, he begged pardon for the liberty which he took, and left the contents of his cart, being the most valuable present he could make. At this time the Germans had no original romances of any merit. In order to give some celebrity to this species of composition in his own country, he published the “Swedish Countess,” a work of a melancholy cast, and containing many indications of that depression of spirits which embittered the latter days of Gellert. In 1747 he published a book entitled “Consolations for Valetudinarians,” which was received with as much eagerness as his other works, and translated into various languages. It contains a melancholy representation of the sufferings which he himself endured. Nothing, however, could overcome his activity, and in 1748 the continuation of hisf “Tales and Fables” was published. About this time he was deprived of the society of several friends who had often dispersed the gloom that resulted from his disorder. The only intimate friend that remained was Havener, who persuaded Gellert to give to the public some of his letters. In 1754 he published his “Didactic Poems,” whicu were not so well received as his Tales and Fables, and he himself seems to have been sensible that they were not so agreeable, although useful and instructive. He bestowed particular care on some sacred songs, which were received with great enthusiasm all over Germany, both in the Roman catholic and protestant states. About this time he was appointed professor extraordinary in philosophy, and gave lectures on the Belles Lettres. From this period Gellert suffered extremely from an hypochondriac affection. His days were spent in melancholy reflections, and his rights in frightful dreams. But he made prodigious efforts to resist this malady, and to continue to perform his academical duties; and these efforts were often successful. The constant testimonies of the approbation with which his works were received, and the sympathy of his friends, were never-failing sources of consolation, and served to spread many cheerful moments over the general languor of his life. The calamities of war which desolated Germany after 1757, induced Gellert for some time to quit Leipsic. While in the country, he was attacked by a severe illness, from which, however, contrary to all expectation, he recovered. In 1761 the chair of a professor in ordinary was offered him, but he refused to accept it, from a persuasion that the state of his health was such as to render him incapable of discharging the duties of the situation with that regularity and attention which he thought necessary. In 1763-4, Gellert went to Carlsbad by the advice of his physicians to drink the waters, which, however, seem to have given him little relief. After a few years more of almost constant suffering, GeHett died at Leipsic, on the 13th of December. 1769. Some time before his death he revised and corrected his moral lessons, which he published at the request of the elector of Saxony. He was a man of the easiest and most conciliating manners; pleasing even to strangers; and of a disposition to form and preserve the most valuable friendships. He was open and enthusiastic in his attachments, ready at all times to givtt his counsel, labour, and money, to serve his friends. In himself, of a timid and hypochondriac habit, and disposed to criticise both his own character and works with a severity of which his friends could not acknowledge the justice. He had a constitutional fear of death, which, notwithstanding, receded as the hour of trial approached; so that he died with calmness and fortitude. In this he is thought to have resembled our Dr.Johnson, but in other respects his character and habit seem to approach nearer to those of Cowper. His works were published in ten vols. 8vo, in 1766; and after his death a more complete edition at Leipsic, in eight rolumes, with engravings. Kutner has celebrated his various excellencies; he says, “a century will perhaps elapse, before we have another poet capable of exciting the love and admiration of his contemporaries, in so eminent a degree as Gellert, and of exercising so powerful an influence on the taste and way of thinking of all ranks.” Though not deserving all this, he was an agreeable and fertile writer; the poet of religion and virtue; an able reformer of public morals. His “Moral Lessons” were translated into English, and published by Mrs. Douglas of Eduam house, 1805, 3 vols. 8vo, with an excellent life of the author, to which this article is chiefly indebted.

As Gellibrand was inclined to puritan principles, while he was engaged in this work, his servant, William Beale, by his encouragement, published an al manack for the year 1631, in which the popish saints, usually put into our kalendar, and the Epiphany, Annunciation, &c. were omitted; and the names of other saints and martyrs, mentioned in the book of martyrs, were placed in their room as they stand in Mr. Fox’s kalendar. This gave offence to Dr. Laud, who, being then bishop of London, cited them both into the high-commission court. But when the cause came to a hearing, it appeared, that other almanacks of the same kind had formerly been printed; on which plea they were both acquitted by abp. Abbot and the whole court, Laud only excepted; which was afterwards one of the articles against him at his own trial. This prosecution jdid not hinder Geliibrand from proceeding in his friend’s work, which he completed in 1632; and procured it to be printed by the famous Ulacque Adrian, at Gouda in Holland, in 1633, folio, with a preface, containing an encomium of Mr. Brigg’s, expressed in such language as shews him to have been a good master of the Latin tongue. Geliibrand wrote the second book, which was translated into English, and published in an English treatise with the same title, “Trigonometria Britaonica, &c.” the -first part by John Newton in 1658, folio. While he was abroad on this business, he had some discourse with Lansberg, aa eminent astronomer in Zealand, who affirming that he was fully persuaded of the truth of the Cop^ernican system, our author observes, “that this so styled a truth he should receive a an hypothesis; and so be easily led on to the consideration of the imbecility of man’s apprehension, as not able rightly to conceive of this admirable opifice of God, or frame of the world, without falling foul on so great an absurdity:” so firmly was he fixed in his adherence to the Ptolemaic system. He wrote several things after this, chiefly tending to the improvement of navigation, which would probably have been further advanced by him, had his life been continued longer; but he was untimely carried offby a fever in 1636, in his thirty-ninth year, and was buried in the parish church of St. Peter le Poor, Broadstreet. He had four younger brothers, John, Edward, Thomas, and Samuel; of whom John was his executor, and Thomas was a major in the parliamentary army, was an evidence in archbishop Laud’s trial; and was grandfather to Samuel Gellibrand, esq. who, about the middle of last century, was nnder-secretary in the plantation-office.

, a Scotch divine of considerable talents and zeal, and one of the founders of the Secession church in Scotland, (See Erskine, Ebenezer, and Ralph), and the leader of that division of the seceders called the Antiburghers, was born in Perthshire, in 1713, and was educated at the university of Edinburgh. Soon after 1730, violent disputes occurring in the general assembly of the church of Scotland, respecting the law of patronage, Mr. Gib was among the keenest opponents of private church patronage, and in 1733 was with three others dismissed from his pastoral charge. These afterwards formed congregations of their own, to one of which, at Edinburgh, Mr. Gib was ordained, in April 1741. This congregation gradually increased, and with others of the same kind, was in a flourishing state, when in 1746 a schism took place among them respecting the swearing of the oaths of burgesses, and from this time the secession church was divided into two parties, called burghers and antiburghers, and Mr. Gib was considered as the ablest advocate for the latter. In 1774 he published “A display of the Secession testimony,” 2 vols. 8vo, and in 1786 his “Sacred Contemplations,” at the end of which was an “Essay on Liberty and Necessity,” in answer to lord Kames’s Essay on that subject. Mr. Gib died at Edinburgh, June 18, 1788, and was buried in the Grey-friars church-yard, where art elegant monument has been erected to his memory, at the expence of his congregation, among whom he had unweariedly laboured for the long period of forty-seven years.

In 1767 he joined with Mr. Deyverdun, a Swiss gentleman then in England, and a man of taste and critical knowledge, to whom he was much attached, in publishing a literary Journal, in imitation of Dr. Maty’s “Journal Britannique. 1 * They entitled it” Memoires Literaires de la Grand Bretagne.“Two volumes only of this work were published, and met with very little encouragement. Mr. Gibbon acknowledges having reviewed lord Lyttelton’s History in the first volume. The materials of a third volume were almost completed, when he recommended his coadjutor Deyverdun as travelling governor to sir Richard Worsley, an appointment which terminated the” Memoires Literaires.“Mr. Gibbon’s next performance was an attack on Dr. Warburton, which he/ condemns for its severity and for its cowardice, while he brings the testimony of some eminent scholars to prove that it was successful and decisive. Warburton’s hypothesis on the descent of yEneas to hell had long been applauded, and if not universally adopted, had not been answered during a space of thirty years. It was the opinion of this learned writer, that the descent to hell is not a false, but a mimic scene which represents the initiation of Æneas, in the character of a law-giver, to the Eleusinian mysteries. Mr. Gibbon, on the contrary, in his” Critical Observations on the Sixth Book of the Æneid,“1770, endeavoured to prove, that the ancient law-givers did not invent the mysteries, and that Æneas never was invested with the office of law-giver that there is not any argument, any circumstance, which can melt a fable into allegory, or remove the scene from the Lake Avernos to the temple of Ceres; that such a wild supposition is equally injurious to the poet and the man; that if Virgil was not initiated he could not, if he were, be would not, reveal the secrets of the initiation; and that the anathema of Horace (vetabo qui Cereris sacrum vulgarity &c.) at once attests his own ignorance and the iimocence of his friend. All this might have been argued in decent and respectful language, but Mr. Gibbon avows that his hostility was against the person as well as the hypothesis of” the dictator and tyrant of the world of literature," and with the acuteness of the critic, he therefore determined to join the acrimony of the polemic. In his more advanced years he affects to regret an unmanly attack upon one who was no longer able to defend himself, but he is unwilling to part with the reputation to which he thought his pamphlet entitled, or to conceal the praise which professor Heyne bestowed on it.

When he first came to settle in London, in 1719, he became intimately acquainted with Mr. John Skepp, author of“The Divine Energy,” and in 1751 new-modelled that work for a second edition. Skepp was an able Hebraist, and had formed a good collection of Hebrew and Rabbinical books, which Gill bought on his death in 1721, and bestowed many years in a careful study of them, reading the Targums, the Mishna, the Talmuds, the book of Zohar; and having collected a vast mass of useful observations, he employed them as illustrations for his Exposition of the Bible. Of this voluminous work> the New Testament appeared first in 3 vols. t'ol. 1746, 1747, and 1748. In this last year he received the degree of D. D. from the Marischal college, Aberdeen, professedly “on account of his learned defence of the true sense of the holy scriptures against deists and infidels.” This diploma was decreed to him in the handsomest manner, without his knowledge, and the fees were remitted. His Exposition of the Old Testament was published afterwards in various years, forming, along with the New, 9 vols. fol. which, becoming of late years in much demand, and the price being greatly raised, a new and very neat edition was published in 1810—12, in 10 vols. 4to, by Mr. Bagster, of the Strand. In 1767 Dr. Gill published a “Dissertation on the Antiquities of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-points, and Accents,” and in the same year collated the various passages of the Old Testament quoted in the Mishna, in the Talmuds, both Jerusalem and Babylonian, and in the Rabbath; and extracted the variations in them, from the modern printed text, which he sent to Dr. Kennicott, who politely acknowledges the obligation in his “State of his Collation,” published in 1767. In 1769 Dr. Gill published a “Body of doctrinal Divinity,” 2 vols. 4to, and in 1770 a “Body of practical Divinity.” This was the last of his numerous publications, in the preparation of which he liad spent many years of his long life. He died at his house at Camberwell, Oct. 14, 1771; his wife had been dead some years before, and his only surviving son died in 1804, aged seventy-seven. Dr. Gill’s private character was so excellent, that the admirers of his writings have said that “his learning and labours were exceeded only by the invariable sanctity of his life and conversation.” His extensive learning and reading cannot be called in question, but as a writer he is in general too copious and diffuse.