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

, the first of an eminent family of learned men in Scotland, was the son of the Rev. Mr. John Gregory, minister of Drumoak in the county of Aberdeen, and was born at Aberdeen in November 1638. His mother was a daughter of Mr. David Anderson of Finzaugh, or Finshaugh, a gentleman who possessed a singular turn for mathematical and mechanical knowledge. This mathematical genius was hereditary in the family of the Andersons, and from them it seems to have been transmitted to their descendants of the names of Gregory, Reid, &c. Alexander Anderson, cousin -german of the said David, was professor of mathematics at Paris in the beginning of the seventeenth century, and published there several valuable and ingenious works; as may be seen in our vol. II. The mother of James Gregory inherited the genius of her family; and observing in her son, while yet a child, a itrong propensity to mathematics, she instructed him herself in the elements of that science. His education in the languages he received at the grammar-school of Aberdeen, and went through the usual course of academical studies at Marischal college, but was chiefly delighted with philosophical researches, into which a new door had been lately opened by the key of the mathematics. Galileo, Kepler, and Des Cartes were the great masters of this new method; their works, therefore, Gregory made his principal study, and began early to make improvements upon their discoveries in optics. The first of these improvements was the invention of the reflecting telescope, which still bears his name; and which was so happy a thought, that it has given occasion to the most considerable improvements made in optics, since the invention of the telescope. He published the construction of this instrument in his “Optica promota,” 1663, at the age of twenty-four. This discovery soon attracted the attention of the mathematicians, both of our own and foreign countries, who immediately perceived its great importance to the sciences. But the manner of placing the two specula upon the same axis appearing to Newton to be attended with the disadvantage of losing the central rays of the larger speculum, he proposed an improvement on the instrument, by giving an oblique position to the smaller speculum, and placing the eye-glass in the side of the tube. It is observable, however, that the Newtonian construction of that instrument was long abandoned for the original or Gregorian, which is now always used when the instrument is of a moderate size; though Herschel has preferred the Newtonian form for the construction of those immense telescopes which he has of late so successfully employed in observing the heavens.

About 1664 or 1665, coming to London, he became acquainted with Mr. John Collins, who recommended him to the best optic glass-grinders there, in order to have his telescope executed. But as this could not be done for want of skill in the artists to grind a plate of metal for the object speculum into a true parabolic concave, which the design required, he was much discouraged; and after a few imperfect trials made with an ill-polished spherical one, which did not succeed to his wish, he dropped the pursuit, and resolved to make the tour of Italy, then the mart of mathematical learning, in the view of prosecuting his fa* vourite study with greater advantage.

In 1668 our author published at London another work, entitled “Exercitationes Geometricae,” which contributed still much farther to extend his reputation. About this time he was elected professor of mathematics in the university of St. Andrew’s, an office which he held for six years. During his residence there he married, in 1669, Mary, the daughter of George Jameson, the celebrated painter, whom Mr, Walpole has termed the Vandyke of Scotland, and who was fellow disciple with that great artist in the school of Rubens at Antwerp. His fame placed him in so great esteem with the royal academy at Paris, that, in the beginning of 1671, it was resolved by that aca^ demy to recommend him to their grand monarch for a pension; and the design was approved even by Mr. Huygens, though he said he had reason to think himself improperly treated by Mr. Gregory, on account of the controversy between them. Accordingly, several members of that academy wrote to Mr. Oldenburg, desiring him to acquaint the council of the royal society with their proposal; informing him likewise, that the king of France was willing to allow pensions to one or two learned Englishman, whom they should recommend. But no answer was ever made to that proposal; and our author, with respect to this particular, looked upon it as nothing more than a compliment.

In 1672 he published “The great and new art of weighing Vanity or a discovery of the ignorance and arrogance of the great and new artist, in his pseudo-philosophical writings. By M. Patrick Mathers, arch-bedal to the university of St. Andrew’s. To which are annexed some tentamina de motu penduli et projectorum.” Under this assumed name, our author wrote this little piece to expose the ignorance of Mr. Sinclare, professor at Glasgow, in his hydrostatical writings, and in return for some ill-usage of that author to a colleague of Mr. Gregory’s. In the same year, sir Isaac Newton, on his wonderful discoveries in the nature of light, having contrived a new reflecting telescope, and made several objections to Mr. Gregory’s, this gave birth to a dispute between those two philosophers, which was continued during that and the following year, in the most amicable manner on each side; Mr. Gregory defending his own construction so far, as to give his antagonist the whole honour of having made the catoptric telescopes preferable to the dioptric; and shewing, that the imperfections in these instruments were not so much owing to a defect in the object-speculum as to the different refrangibility of the rays of light. In the course of this dispute, our author described a burning concave mirror, which was approved by sir Isaac, and is still in good esteem. Several letters that passed in this dispute are printed by Dr. Desaguliers, in an appendix to the English edition of Dr. David Gregory’s “Elements of Catoptrics and Dioptrics.” All this while he attended the proper business of his professorship with great diligence, which taking up the greatest part of his time, especially in the winter season, interrupted him in the pursuit of his proper studies. These, however, led him to farther improvements in the invention of infinite series, which he occasionally communicated to his intimate friend and correspondent Mr. Collins. In 1674 Mr. Gregory was called to Edinburgh, to fill the chair of mathematics in that university. This place he had held but little more than a year, when, in October 1675, being employed in shewing the satellites of Jupiter through a telescope to some of his pupils, he was suddenly struck with total blindness, and died a few days after, to the great loss of the mathematical world, at only thirty-seven years of age.

The most shining part of Gregory’s character is that of his mathematical genius as an inventor. In this view, particularly, he merits a place in these memoirs; and therefore we shall conclude this article with a list of the most remarkable of his inventions. His reflecting telescope; burning concave mirror; his quadrature of the circle, by an infinite converging series; and his method for transformation of curves, have been already mentioned. Besides these, he was the first who gave a geometrical demonstration of lord Brounker’s series for squaring the hyperbola, as it had been explained by Mercator in his “Logarithmotechnia.” He was likewise the first who demonstrated the meridian line to be analogous to a scale of logarithmic tangents, of the half compliment of latitude . He also invented and demonstrated geometrically, by the help of the hyperbola, a very simple converging series for making the logarithms, and therefore recommended by Dr. Halley as very proper for practice. He also sent to Mr. Collins the solution of the famous Keplerian problem by an infinite series. He found out a method of drawing tangents to curves geometrically, without any previous calculations. He gave a rule for the direct and inverse method of tangents, which stands upon the same principle (of exhaustions) with that of fluxions, and differs not much from it in the manner of application. He likewise gave a series for the length of the arc of a circle from the tangent, and v ice versa; as also for the secant and logarithmic tangent and secant, and vice versa. These, with others, for certifying, or measuring the length of the elliptic and hyperbolic curves, were sent to Mr. Collins, in return for some received from him of sir Isaac Newton’s; and their elegance being admirable, and above whatever he had produced before, and after the manner of sir Isaac, gave room to think he had improved himself greatly by that master, whose example he followed, i delivering his series in simple terms, independent on each other.

We are assured, that at his death he was in pursuit of a general method of quadrature, by infinite series, like that of sir Isaac. This appeared by his papers, which came into the hands of his nephew, Dr. David Gregory, who published several of them; and he himself assured Mr. Collins, he had found out the method of making sir Isaac’s series; who thereupon concluded he must have written a treatise upon it. This encouraged Mr. Stewart, professor of mathematics in Aberdeen, to take the trouble of examining his papers, then in the hands of Dr. David Gregory, the late dean of Christ church, Oxford; but no such treatise could be found, nor any traces of it, and the same had been declared before by Dr. David Gregory; whence it happens, that it is still unknown what his method was of making those serieses. However, Mr. Stewart affirms, that, in turning over his papers, he saw several curious upon particular subjects, not yet printed. On the contrary, some letters which he saw confirmed Dr. David Gregory’s remark, and made it evident, that our author had never compiled any treatise, containing the foundations of this general method, a very short time before his death; so that all that can be known about his method can only be collected from his letters, published in the short history of his “Mathematical Discoveries,” compiled by Mr. Collins, and his letters to that gentleman in the “Commercium Epistolicum.” From these it appears, that, in the beginning of 1670, when Mr. Collins sent him sir Isaac Newton’s series for squaring the circular zone, it was then so much above every thing he comprehended in this way, that after having endeavoured in vain, by comparing it with several of his own, and combining them together, to discover the method of it, he concluded it to be no legitimate series; till, being assured of his mistake by his friend, he went again to work, and after almost a whole year’s indefatigable pains, as he acknowledges, he discovered, at last, that it might be deduced from one of his own, upon the subject of die logarithms, in which he had given a method for finding the power to any given logarithm, or of turning the root of any pure power into an infinite series; and in the same manner, viz. by comparing and combining his own series together, or else by deduction therefrom, he fell upon several more of sir Isaac’s, as well as others like them, in which he became daily more ready by continual practice; and this seems to have been the utmost he ever actually attained to, in the progress towards the discovering any universal method for those series.

, elder brother of the preceding, was born in 1627 or 1628, and although he possessed all the genius of the other branches of his family, was educated by his father for trade, and served an apprenticeship to a mercantile house in Holland. Having a stronger passion, however, for knowledge than for money, he abandoned trade in 1655, and returning to his own country, he succeeded, upn the death of an elder brorher, to the estate of Kinarclie, situated about forty miles north of Aberdeen, where he lived many years, and where thirty-two children were born to him by two wives. Of these, three sons made a conspicuous figure in the republic of letters, being all professors of mathematics at the same time in three of the British universities, viz. David at Oxford, James at Edinburgh, and Charles at St. Andrew’s.

Mr. Gregory, the subject of this memoir, while he lived at Kinardie, was a jest among the neighbouring gentlemen for his ignorance of what was doing about his own farm, but an oracle in matters of learning and philosophy, and particularly in medicine, which he had studied for his amusement, and began to practise among his poor neighbours. He acquired such a reputation in that science, that he was employed by the nobility and gentlemen of that county, but took no fees. His hours of study were singular. Being much occupied through the day with those who applied to him as a physician, he went early to bed, rose about two or three in the morning, and, after applying to his studies for some hours, went to bed again, and slept an hour or two before breakfast. He was the first man in that country who had a barometer; and having paid great attention to the changes in it, and the corresponding changes in the weather, he was once in danger of being tried by the presbytery for witchcraft or conjuration. A deputation of that body waited upon him to inquire into the ground of certain reports that had come to their ears; but, affording them ample satisfaction, a prosecution was prevented.

About the beginning of the last century, he removed with his family to Aberdeen, and in the time of queen Anne’s wars employed his thoughts upon an improvement in artillery, in order to make the shot of great guns more destructive to the enemy, and executed a model of the engine he had contrived. The late Dr. Reid, in his additions to the lives of the Gregorys, published in Hutton’s Dictionary, informs us that he conversed with a clockmaker at Aberdeen, who had been employed in making this model; but having made many different pieces by direction without knowing their intention, or how they were to be put together, he could give no account of the whole. After making some experiments with this model, which satisfied him, Mr. Gregory was so sanguine in the hope of being useful to the allies in the war against France, that he set about preparing a field equipage with a view to make a campaign in Flanders, and in the mean time sent his model to his son the Savilian professor, the subject of our next article, that he might have his, and sir Isaac Newton’s opinion of it. His son shewed it to Newton without letting him know that his own father was the inventor of it. Sir Isaac was much displeased with it, saying, that if it had tended as much to the preservation of mankind, as to their destruction, the inventor would have deserved a great reward: but, as it was contrived solely for destruction, and would soon be known by the enemy, he rather deserved to be punished, and urged the professor very strongly to destroy it, and if possible, to suppress the invention. It is probable the professor followed this advice, as he died soon after, and the model was never found. Sir Isaac’s objection, however, appears rather to be fastidious, and might apply with equal force to any improvement in muskeis, &c. or to gunpowder itself. When the rebellion broke out in 1715, Mr. Gregory went a second time to Holland, and returned when it was over to Aberdeen, where he died about 1720, aged ninety-three, leaving behind him a history of his own time and country, which was never published. One of his daughters was mother to the late celebrated Dr. Thomas Reid of Glasgow, by whom the above particulars were first communicated.

He continued at Edinburgh till 1691, when, hearing of Dr. Bernard’s intention to resign the Savilian professorship of astronomy at Oxford, he left Scotland, and, coming to London, was admitted a member of the royal society: and paid his addresses to sir Isaac Newton, who took the first opportunity of recommending him to Mr. Flamstead (master of the mathematical school in Christ’s-hospital, London), with a letter, recommending his mathematical merit above all exception in these terms: “Sir, it. is almost a fortnight since I intended, with Mr. Paget and another friend or two, to have given you a visit at Greenwich; but sending to the Temple coffee-house, I understood you had not been in London for two or three weeks before, which made me think you were retired to your living for a time. The bearer hereof, Mr. Gregory, mathematic professor of Edinburgh college, in Scotland, intended to have given you a visit with us. You will find him a very ingenious person, and a good mathematician, worth your acquaintance.” In proceeding, he mentions our author as a fit person, in case of Mr. Flamstead’s death, to carry on his astronomical views. Thus recommended, the royal astronomer used his best interest to procure him success at Oxford, where he was elected astronomy-professor this year, having been first admitted of Baliol college, and incorporated M. A. February 8, and he was created M. D. on the

Our professor’s genius lay chiefly in inventing new and elegant demonstrations of the discoveries made by others. He gave the first demonstration of that curve, which is well known since by the name of catenaria, or the curve that is formed by a chain fastened at each end; and first discovered, that this curve inverted gave the form of a true and legitimate arch, all the parts supporting each other f. There are several other papers of his in the “Philosophical Transactions,” vols. XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXIV. and XXV. He left also in ms. “A short treatise of the nature and arithmetic of Logarithms,” which is printed at the end of KeilTs translation of Commandine’s Euclid; and the “Treatise of Practical Geometry” mentioned in the note, as published by Mr. Maclaurin. His explication of sir Isaac Newton’s

But he did not enjoy the benefit of these preferments long being a firm loyalist, as well as his patron > he was deprived or both by the tyranny of the usurpers, and was reduced some years before his death to great distress. In. these circumstances, he was taken into the house of one Sutton, to whose son he had been tutor; this was an obscure ale-house on Kiddington-green, near Oxford, where he died March 13, 1646, of an hereditary gout, with which he had been troubled for above twenty years, and which at last seized his stomach. His corpse was carried to Oxford, and interred, at the expence of some friends, in that cathedral. He was honoured with the acquaintance and favour of the greatest men of the age, and held a correspondence with several eminent persons abroad, as well Jews and Jesuits, as others. His works are, “Notes and Observations on some passages of Scripture,” published a little before his death in 1646, 4to, and besides being reprinted four times in the same form, were translated into Latin, and inserted in the “Critici Sacri.” His posthumous works were published by his friend Mr. John Gurgany, B D. of Merton college, in a quarto volume, entitled “Gregorii Posthuma,” 1650, 1664, 1671, and 1683. This volume contains, I. “A Discourse of the LXX Interpreters; the place and manner of their interpretation.” II. “A Discourse declaring what time the Nicene Creed began to be sung in the Church.” III. “A Sermon upon the Resurrection, from 1 Cor. xv. verse 20.” IV. “Kaivav tievrep-, or, a Disproof of him in the third of St. Luke, verse 36.” V. “Episcopus Puerorum in die Innocentium.” VI. “De JEris & Epochis, shewing the several accounts of time among all nations from the creation to the present age.” VII. “The Assyrian Monarchy, being a description of its rise and fall.” “VIII.” The description and use of the Terrestrial Globe.“Besides these, he wrote a tract entitled” Alkibla,“in which he endeavoured to vindicate the antiquity of worshiping towards the East. There is a manuscript of his entitled” Observationes in loca quaedam excerpta ex Johannis Malelae chronographia,“in the public library at Oxford; and he intended to have published a Latin translation of that author with annotations. He translated likewise from Greek into Latin, 1.” Palladius de Gentibus Indiae & Brachmanibus“2.” S. Ambrosius de Moribus Brachmannorum“3.” Anonymus de Brachmanibus" which translations came after his death into the hands of Mr. Edmund Chilmead, chaplain of Christ church, Oxford, and then into those of Edward Byshe, esq. who published them in his own name at London, 1665, 4to.

The greater part of Dr. Gregory’s time, after his arrival in London, was spent in literary employment, and principally in compilations that were successful and useful. He was the first who, about 1782-3, suggested a series of extracts from eminent authors, which were published by the late Mr. Kearsley of Fleet-street, under the name of “Beauties,” and had a very extensive sale. He afterwards published an original work, entitled “Essays historical and moral,” 1785, &vo, which introduced him very favourably to the notice of the public, and reached a second edition in 1788. This was followed by, 1. A translation of Lowth’s Lectures on the sacred poetry of the Hebrews, 1787.“2.” Church History,“1788, and 1795, 2 vols. 3.” Life of Chatterton,“1780, 8vo, inserted afterwards in the” Biographia Britannica,“for which it was originally intended. 4.” Sermons,“1789. 5. A translation of Telemachus, or rather a revisal of Hawkesworth’s translation, 1795, 4to. 6.” The Economy of Nature,“3 vols. 8vo. 7.” A Dictionary of Arts and Sciences,“1806, 2 vols. 4to. To some of these it is supposed he contributed little more than his name; but the number of works which he compiled without his name, would furnish perhaps a more numerous list. Among others he was many years editor of the” New Annual Register,“conducted through the whole of the French war with bitter hostility to the measures of the British government. He took advantage, however, of the short interval of peace, to give it a turn favourable to the then administration, which it is said procured him the living of West Ham. He left in the press” Letters on Natural and Experimental Philosophy,“and a” Series of Letters to his Son," which have since been published.

The business of his employ gave him a great deal of trouble and much uneasiness. The usual method in which the business of taking up money of the merchants at Antwerp for the king’s use, had been managed, was greatly to the prejudice of the crown of England, as well by giving a very large interest for the money borrowed, as other inconveniences, when the principal was not paid within the time of the contract. And as the money which was now taken up in Mr. Gresham’s agency, was not paid at the time agreed on, this gave him great uneasiness, his business being then to get it prolonged, which was not to be done without the consideration of the king’s purchasing jewels or some other commodities to a large amount, as a consideration for prolonging the debt, besides continuing the interest. But this way of proceeding he neither thought for his majesty’s honour nor his own credit, as his agent, and therefore projected the following scheme to bring the king wholly out of debt in two years Provided the king and council would assign him 1200l. or 1300l. a week, to be secretly received at one man’s hands, that so it might be kept secret, he would so use that matter in Antwerp, that every day he would be seen to take up in his own name 200l. sterling by exchange, which would amount in one year to 73,000l. and so doing; it should not be perceived nor give occasion to make the exchange fall. He proposed farther, that the king should take all the lead into his own hands, and making a staple of it, should put out a proclamation or shut up the custom-house, that no lead should be conveyed out of the kingdom for five years; by which the king might cause it to rise, and feed them at Antwerp from time to time, as they should have need. By which means he might keep his money within the realm, and bring himself out of the debts which his father and the Jate duke of Somerset had brought upon him. This scheme being put into execution, had the proposed effect in discharging his majesty’s debts, which were very considerable, as well as in raising his majesty’s credit so high abroad, that he might have borrowed what sums he pleased; and, by the advantageous turn which by this means was given to the exchange in favour of England, not only the price of all foreign commodities was greatly sunk and abated; but likewise gold and silver, which before had been exported in large quantities, were most plentifully brought back again.

At this time the merchants of London met in Lombardstreet, exposed to the open air and all the injuries of the weather. To remedy wbich inconvenience, sir Thomas’s father during his shrievalty wrote a letter to sir Thomas Audeley then lord-privy-seal, acquainting him that there were certain houses in that street belonging to sir George Monoux, which if purchased and pulled down, a handsome exchange might be built on the ground; he therefore desired his lordship to move his majesty, that a letter might be sent to sir George, requiring him to sell those houses to the mayor and commonalty of the city of London for that purpose. The building he supposes would cost upwards of 2000l., 1000l. of which he doubts not to raise before he was out of his office: but nothing effectual was done in it. Sir Thomas therefore took up his father’s design, and improving upon his spirit, proposed that if the citizens would give him a piece of ground in a proper place large enough for the purpose, he would build ari exchange at his own expence with large and covered walks, where the merchants and traders of all sorts might daily assemble and transact business at all seasons, without interruption from the weather or impediments of any kind. This generous offer was gratefully accepted, and in 1566 several houses upon Cornhill and the back of it, with three alleys, called Swan-alley, New-alley, and St. Christopher’s alley, containing in all eighty houses, were purchased by the citizens for more than 3532l. and sold for 478l. on condition of pulling them down, and carrying off the stuff. This done, the ground-plot was made plain at the charges of the city, and possession given to sir Thomas, who was styled “Agent to the queen’s highness” and who, on the 7th of June, laid the first stone of the foundation and the work was forthwith followed with such diligence, that by Nov. 1567, the same was covered with slate, and the shell shortly after fully finished. It is said that the timber of which this fabric was built, was first framed and put together at Battisford, near Ipswich, in Suffolk, and thence brought to London.

Before Osterley was completed, sir Thomas projected and executed that noble design of converting his mansionhouse in Bishopsgate-street into a seat for the muses, and endowing it with the revenues arising from the royal exchange after his decease. While he was meditating this design, the university of Cambridge wrote him an elegant Latin letter, reminding him of a promise, as they had been informed, to give them 500l. either towards building a new college there, or repairing one already built. This letter was dated March 14, 1574-5; and it was followed by another of the 25th, to acquaint him with a report they had heard, that he had promised lady Burghley both to found and endow a college for the profession of the seven liberal sciences. They observe, that the only place proper for such a design, was either London, Oxford, or Cambridge; they endeavour to dissuade him from London, lest it should prove prejudicial to the two universities; and they hope he will not make choice of Oxford, since he was himself bred at Cambridge, which might presume upon a superior regard from him on that account. At the same time, they wrote another letter to the lady Burghley, in which they earnestly request that she will please to use her interest with him, to rix upon Cambridge for the place of his intended college.

But these letters had not the desired effect he persisted in his resolution to settle it in his house at London and accordingly, by an indenture dated May 20, 1575, he made a disposition of his several manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments; with such limitations and restrictions, particularly as to the royal exchange and his mansionhouse, as might best secure his views with regard to the uses for which he designed them. This indenture was soon followed by two wills, one of his goods, and the other of his real estates: the former of these bears date July 4th ensuing, whereby he bequeaths to his wife, whom he makes his sole executrix, all his goods, as ready money, plate, jewels, chains of gold, with all his stock of sheep and other cattle if within the realm of England, and likewise gives several legacies to his relations and friends and to all his servants, amounting in the whole to upwards of 2000l. besides some small annuities. The other will is dated July the 5th, wherein he gives one moiety of the royal exchange to the mayor and commonalty of London, and the other to the Mercers company, for the salaries of seven lecturers in divinity, law, physic, astronomy, geometry, music, and rhetoric, at 50l. per annum for each, with his house in Bishopsgate-street for the lecturers’ residence, where the lectures were to be read. He likewise leaves 53l. 6s. Sd. yearly for the provision of eight almsfolks residing in the alms-houses behind his house, and lOl. yearly to each of the prisons in Newgate, Ludgate, KingVbench, the Marshalsea, and Compter in Woodstreet, and the like sum to each of the hospitals of Christchurch, St. Bartholomew, Bedlam, Southwark, and the Poultry-compter; and 100l. yearly to provide a dinner fof the whole Mercers company in their hall on every of their quarter days, at 25l. each dinner. By this disposition sufficient care was taken that the two corporations, to whom the affair was trusted, should receive no damage by the execution of it; for the stated annual payments amount to no more than 6031. 6s. Sd. and the yearly rents of the exchange received by sir Thomas were 740l. besides the additional profits that must arise from time to time by fines, which were very considerable. But the lady Anne his wife was to enjoy both the mansion-house and the exchange during her life if she survived sir Thomas, and then they were both vested in the two corporations for the uses declared in the will for the term of fifty years; which limitation was made on account of the statutes of mortmain, that prohibited the alienation of lands or tenements to any corporation, without licence first had from the crown. And that space of time the testator thought sufficient for procuring such licence, the doing of which he earnestly recommends to them without delay; in default whereof, at the expiration of fifty years, these estates were to go to his heirs at law.

Mr. Ward has drawn sir Thomas’s character at large, and observes, that he had the happiness of a mind every way suited to his fortune, generous and benign; ready to perform any good actions and encourage them in others. He was a great friend and patron of our celebrated rnartyrologist John Fox. He was well acquainted with the ancient and several modern languages; he had a very comprehensive knowledge of all affairs relating to commerce, whether foreign or domestic; and his success was not less, being in his time esteemed trie richest commoner in England. He transacted queen Elizabeth’s mercantile affairs so constantly, that he was called “The Royal Merchant,” and his house was sometimes appointed for the reception of foreign princes upon their first arrival at London. As no one could be more ready to perform any generous actions which might contribute to the honour of this country, so he very well knew how to make the best use of them for the most laudable purposes. Nor was he less serviceable both to the queen and her ministry on other occasions, who often consulted him, and sought his advice in matters of the greatest importance relating to the welfare of the government. But the most shining part of his character appears in his public benefactions. The royal exchange was not pnly a singular ornament to the city of London, and a great convenience to the merchants, who wanted such a place to meet and transact their affairs in, but likewise contributed very much to the promotion of trade, both by the number of shops erected there, and the much greater number of the poor; who were employed in working for them. And the donation of his own mansionhouse for a seat of learning and the liberal arts, with the handsome provision made for the endowment and support of.it, was such an instance of a generous and public spirit as has been equalled by few, and must perpetuate his memory with the highest esteem and gratitude so long as any regard to learning and virtue is preserved among us. Nor ought his charities to the poor, his alms-houses, and the liberal contributions to the ten prisons and hospitals in London and Southwark, to be omitted.

During his excursions abroad, his royal mistress granted him the reversion of two of the best offices in the court of the marches of Wales, one of which falling to him in 1580, he met with some difficulties about the profits. In this contest he experienced the friendship of sir Philip Sidney, who by a letter written to his father’s secretary, Mr. Molyneux, April 10, 1581, prevailed on him not to oppose his cousin Greville' s title in any part or construction of his patents; and a letter of sir Francis Walsingham to the president, the next day, April 11, put an end to the opposition that had been made from another quarter. This office appears to be clerk of the signet to the council of Wales, which is said to have brought him in yearly above 2000l. arising chiefly from the processes which went out of that court, all of which are made out by that officer. He was also constituted secretary for South and North Wales by the queen’s letters patent, bearing date April 25, 1583. In the midst of these civil employments he made a conspicuous figure when the French ambassadors, accompanied by great numbers of their nobility, were in England a second time to treat of the queen’s marriage with the duke of Anjou, in 1581. Tilts and tournaments were the courtly entertainments in those days; and they were performed in the most magnificent manner on this occasion by two noblemen, beside sir Philip Sidney and Fulk Greville, who with the rest behaved so bravely as to win the reputation of a most gallant knight. In 1586 these two friends were separated by the unfortunate death of the former, who be* queathed to his dear friend one moiety of his books.

During the life of the treasurer Cecil, he obtained no advancement in the court or state; but, in 1615, some time after his death, was made under-treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer; in consequence of which he was called to the board of privy-council. In 1617 he obtained from the king a special charter, confirming all such liberties as had been granted to any of his ancestors in behalf of the town of Alcester, upon a new reserved rent of ten shillings a year; and, in 1620, was created lord Brooke of Beau* champ-court. He obtained this dignity as well by his merit and fidelity in the discharge of his offices as by his noble descent from theNevils, Willoughbys de Brook, and Beauchamps. In September 1621, he was made one of the lords of the king’s bed-chamber; and on this, resigning his post in the exchequer, he was succeeded therein by Richard Weston, afterwards earl of Portland. After the demise of king James, he continued in the privy-council of Charles I. in the beginning of whose reign he founded a historylecture in the university of Cambridge, and endowed it with a salary of lOOl. per annum. He did not long survive this last act of generosity; for, though he was a munificent patron of learning and learned men, he at last fell a sacrifice to the extraordinary outrage of a discontented domestic. The account we have of this fatal event is, that his lordship, neglecting to reward one Ralph Heywood, who had spent the greatest part of his life in his service, this attendant expostulated thereupon with his lordship in his bed-chamber, at Brook-house in Holborn; and, being severely reproved for it, presently gave his lordship a mortal stab in the back with a knife or sword; after which he withdrew into another room, and, locking the door, murdered himself with the same weapon. He died September 30, 1628, and his corpse being wrapt in lead, was conveyed from Brook-house, Holborn, to Warwick; where it was interred on the north side of the choir of St. Mary’s church, there, in his own vault, which had formerly been a chapter-house of the church; and where, upon his monument, there is this inscription: “Fulke Greville, servant to queen Elizabeth, counsellor to king James, and friend to sir Philip Sidney. Tropheum peccati.” He made that dear friend the great exemplar of his life in every thing; and Sidney being often celebrated as the patron of the muses in general, and of Spenser in particular, so we are told, lord Brooke desired to be known to posterity under no other character than that of Shakspeare’s and Ben Jonson’s master, lord-chancellor Egerton and bishop Overal’s patron. His lordship also obtained the office of clarencieux at arms for Mr. Camden, who very gratefulty acknowledged it in his life-time, and at his death left him a piece of plate in his will. He also raised John Speed from a mechanic to be an historiographer.

Notwithstanding lord Orford’s flippant and detracting estimate of lord Brooke’s talents and character, he appears to have cherished a taste for all kinds of polite learning, though, as just noticed, his inclination led him more particularly to poetry and history. Phillips, or Milton, remarks, that in all his poems is observable a close, mysterious, and sententious way of writing, but without much regard to elegance of style or smoothness of verse. His principal works are, 1. “The Life of the renowned sir Philip Sidney,” London, 1652, 12mo, rather a kind of dissertation than a life, but sufficiently expressive of his connection with, and attachment to that eminent character. 2. “Certaine learned and elegant workes of the right hon. Fulke lord Brooke, written in his jouth, and familiar exercise with sir Philip Sidney,” Lond. 1633; all the copies extant of this work want twenty-two pages at the beginning. These pages are said to have contained “A treatise on Religion,” and were cancelled, as Mr. Malone (in his History of the Stage) surmises, by order of archbishop Laud. The rest of the volume consists of poetical treatises and letters, and the tragedies of Alaham and Mustapha. 3. “The Remains of sir Fulk Greville, lord Brooke; being poems of Monarchy and Religion, never before printed,” Lond. 1670, 8vo*.

* Lord Orford erroneously attributes 4to, which was evidently written by to him “Sir Fulke Grevilta’s Five one of the presbyterian party, and was Yeares of king James, or the condition afterwards republishetl, with additions, of the state of England, and the rela- under the title of” The first Fourteen tion it had to other provinces,“1643, Years of king James,” 1651, 4to. died at Turin the 5th of November 1573. There are three plays extant of his: “The Treasurer’s Wife,” a comedy, in 1558; the “Death of Caesar,” a tragedy; and the “Frighted Ones, (Les Esbahis)” a comedy, both acted the same day at the college of Beauvais in 1560. Grevin, though snatched away by a premature death, had acquired a great reputation, not only as a poet, but as a physician. Some of his countrymen, speaking of his dramas, give him this favourable testimony, “that he effaced all who preceded him on the French stage, and that eight or ten such poets as he would have put it on a good footing, his versification being easy and smooth, especially in his comedies, and his plots well contrived.” His poems and plays were printed at Paris, 1561, 8vo. He left also a “Treatise on Poisons,” and another “against Antimony,” both translated into Latin, and printed in 4to. It was by his means that the absurd decree of the faculty of Paris, afterwards confirmed by parliament, against the use of antimony in medicine, was passed. He was a Calvinist, and united with Rochandieu and Florence Christian in their ingenious poem entitled “The Temple,” which they wrote against Ronsard, who had abused the Calvinists in his discourse on the Miseries of Time."

Dr. Grew’s Anatomy of Vegetables, of Roots, and of Trunks, originally formed three separate publications in 8vo, but were subsequently collected into a folio volume, and published in 1682, with 83 plates. In this work, truly original, though Malpighi had about the same time, or rather before, pursued the same line of inquiry, scarcely any thing relative to the vegetable anatomy is left untouched. It was the character of Grew to observe every thing, and if a more philosophical observer, more aware of what is best worth remarking, be, in general estimation, a superior character, the latter is more likely to see through the false medium of dazzling theory. The works of Grew are a storehouse of facts, for the use of less original and more indolent authors. They seldom require correction, except where theory is interwoven with observation, and even his theories have passed current till very lately. His chemistry is, of course, that of his time, but his remarks on vegetable secretions, and their multifarious and peculiar properties, abound with ingenuity and originality, as well as his comparative examinations of the various kinds of fruits and seeds. If he had no correct ideas of the propulsion or direction of the sap, we must not forget that he was one of the first who adopted and illustrated the doctrine of the sexes of plants, nor did even the principles of methodical arrangement entirely escape his notice.

In 1681 Dr. Grew published a folio volume, entitled “Museum Regalis Societatis,” or a catalogue and description of the natural and artificial rarities belonging to the Royal Society, and preserved at Gresbam college. This is a scientific and descriptive catalogue, with learned references to preceding writers. It is accompanied by “the Comparative Anatomy of Stomachs and Guts begun, being several lectures read before the Royal Society in 1676.” Twenty-two plates illustrate the first part of this volume, and nine the latter, which were given to him by Daniel Coiwell, esq. the founder of the collection. The latest publication of our author was “Cosmographia Sacra, or a Discourse of the Universe, as it is the creature and kingdom of God.” He was an illustrious proof that it is the fool, and not the philosopher, “who hath said in his heart there is no God” The works of Grew were soon translated into French and Latin, but the latter very incorrectly. His funeral sermon was preached at the meeting in the Old Jewry by the rev. John Shower. It appears by this discourse that Dr. Grew illustrated his learned character by a life of strict piety, humility, and charity.

Here she was with her beloved books in 1550, when the famous Roger Ascham called on a visit to the family in August; and all the rest of each sex being engaged in a hunting-party, he went to wait upon lady Jane in her apartment, and found her reading the “Phaedon” of Plato in the original Greek. Astonished at it, after the first compliments, he asked her, why she lost such pastime as there needs must be in the park; at which smiling, she answered, “I wist all their sport in the park is but a shadow to that pleasure that I find in Plato. Alas, good folk, they never felt what true pleasure meant.” This naturally leading him to inquire how a lady of her age had attained to such a depth of pleasure both in the Platonic language and philosophy, she made the following very remarkable reply: “I will tell you, and I will tell you a truth, which perchance you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me is, that he sent me so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go, eat, drink, he merry or sad, be sewing, playing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea presently sometimes with pinches, rips, and bohs, and other ways (which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordered, that 1 think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Aylmer, who teachfcth me so gently, so pleasantly, with such fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him; and, when I am called from him I fall on weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me. And thus my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure and more, and that in respect of it all other pleasures in very deed be but trifles and troubles unto me” What reader is not melted with this speech What scholar does not envy Ascham’s felicity at this interview He was indeed very deeply affected with it, and to that impression we owe the discovery of some farther particulars concerning this lovely scholar.

These previous steps being taken, and the tower and city of London secured, the council quitted Greenwich and came to London; and July 10, in the forenoon, the two last mentioned dukes repaired to Durham-house, where the lady Jane resided with her husband, as part of Northumberland’s family. There the duke of Suffolk with much solemnity explained to his daughter the disposition the late king had made of his crown by letters patent; the clear sense the privy-council had of her right; the consent of the magistrates and citizens of London; and, in conclusion, himself and Northumberland fell on their knees, and paid their homage to her as queen of England, The poor lady, somewhat astonished at their discourse, but not at all moved by their reasons, or in the least elevated by such unexpected honours, returned them an answer to this effect: “That the laws of the kingdom and natural right standing for the king’s sisters, she would beware of burdening her weak conscience with a yoke which did belong to them that she understood the infamy of those who had permitted the violation of right to gain a sceptre that it were to mock God and deride justice, to scruple at the stealing of a shilling, and not at the usurpation of a crown. Besides,” said she, “I am not so young, nor so little read in the guiles of fortune, to suffer myself to be taken bjr them. If she enrich any, it is but to make them the subject of her spoil; if she raise others, it is but to pleasure herself with their ruins what she adored but yesterday is to-day her pastime and, if I now permit her to adorn and crown me, 1 must to-morrow suffer her to crush and tear me to pieces. Nay, with what crown does she present me! a crown which hath been violently and shamefully wrested from Catharine of Arragon, made more unfortunate by the punishment of Anne Boleyn, and others that wore it after her: and why then would you have me add my blood to theirs, and be the third victim, from whom this fatal crown may be ravished with the head that wears it But in case it should not prove fatal unto me, and that all its venom were consumed, if fortune should give me warranties of her constancy, should I be well advised to take upon me these thorns, which would dilacerate, though not kill me outright; to burden myself with a yoke, which would not fail to torment me, though I were assured not to be strangled with it My liberty is better than the chain you proffer me, with what precious stones soever it be adorned, or of what gold soever framed. I will not exchange my peace for honourable and precious jealousies, for magnificent and glorious fetters. And, if you love me sincerely and in good earnest, you will rather wish me a secure and quiet fortune, though mean, than an exalted condition, exposed to the wind, and followed by some dismal fall.”

But the queen’s charity hurt her more than her justice. The day first fixed for her death was Friday February the 9th; and she had, in some measure, taken leave of the world by writing a letter to her unhappy father, who she heard was more disturbed with the thoughts of being the author of her death than with the apprehension of his own*. In this serene frame of mind, Dr. Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, came to her from the queen, who was very desirous she should die professing herself a papist, as her father-in-law had done. The abbot was indeed a very fit instrument, if any had been fit for the purpose, having, with an acute wit and a plausible tongue, a great tenderiless in his nature. Lady Jane received him with much civility, and behaved towards him with so much calmness and sweetness of temper, that he could not help bein overcome with her distress: so that, either mistaking or pretending to mistake her meaning, he procured a respite of her execution till the 12th. When he acquainted her with it, she told him, “that he had entirely misunderstood her sense of her situation; that, far from desiring her death might be delayed, she expected and wished for it as the period of her miseries, and her entrance into eternal happiness.” Neither did he gain any thing upon her in regard to popery; she heard him indeed patiently, but answered all his arguments with such strength, clearness, and steadiness of mind, as shewed plainly that religion had been her principal care . On Sunday evening, which was the last she was to spend in this world, she wrote a letter in the Greek tongue, as some say, on the blank leaves at the end of a testament in the same language, which she bequeathed as a legacy to her sister the lady Catharine Grey; a piece which, if we had no other left, it is said, were sufficient to render her name immortal. In the morning, the lord Guilford earnestly desired the officers, that he might take his last fare well of her; which though they willingly permitted, yet upon notice she advised the contrary, “assuring him that such a meeting would rather add to his afflictions then increase his quiet, wherewith they had prepared their souls for the stroke of death; that he demanded a lenitive which would put fire into the wound, and that it was to be feared her presence would rather weaken than strengthen him that he ought to take courage from his reason, and derive constancy from his own heart that if his soul were not firm and settled, she could not settle it by her eyes, nor conform it by her words that he should do well to remit this interview to the other world that there, indeed, friendships were happy, and unions indissoluble, and that theirs would be eternal, if their souls carried nothing with them of terrestrial, which might hinder them from rejoicing.” All she could do was, to give him a farewell out of a window, as he passed to the place of his dissolution, which he suffered on the scaffold on Tower-hill with much Christian meekness. She likewise beheld his dead body wrapped in a linen cloth, as it passed under her window to the chapel within the Tower.

Her fate was universally deplored even by the persons best-affected to queen Mary; and, to a woman of any feeling, it must certainly have given much disquiet to begin her reign with such an unusual effusion of blood; especially in the present case of a near relation, one formerly honoured with her friendship and favour, who had indeed usurped, but without desiring or enjoying, the royal diaclem which she assumed, by the constraint of an ambitious father and an imperious mother, and which at the first motion she chearfully and willingly resigned. This made her exceedingly lamented at home and abroad; the fame of her learning and virtue having reached over Europe, excited many commendations, and some express panegyrics in different nations and different languages. Immediately after her death, there came out a piece, entitled, “The precious Remains of Lady Jane Grey,” in 4to.

, a learned schoolmaster of the seventeenth century, was born in London in 1590, and was educated at Westminster-school, whence he was elected student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1606. Here he made great proficiency under the tuition of Dr. Samuel Fell, and was considered even at this early period as eminent for his learning in the Greek and Latin languages. Having taken his degrees in arts, he was in 1614 appointed first master of the Charter-house, or Sutton’s new foundation of the hospital school; but some years afterwards, having rendered himself incapable of holding that office by marriage, the governors gave him the living of Castle Camps in Cambridgeshire. On the 29th of January 1624, he was admitted chief master of Merchant Taylors’ school, on a disputed election, which, however, terminated in hw favour, and he enjoyed the place with much reputation until 1631, when he resigned and was elected head master of Eton school, and a fellow. He was ejected by the usurping powers from both his mastership and living, and reduced to much distress. At length he obtained the mastership of Tunbridge school, in which he continued until the restoration, when he was re-appointed to his former preferments, but did not long live to enjoy them. He died very poor at Eton in October 1660, and was. buried in the choir of the chapel, near the stairs leading to the. organ-loft. He published 1. “A Dictionary” in Latin and English, and English and Latin, an improvement on Rider’s, but afterwards superseded by Holyoak’s. 2. “Luculenta e sacra scriptura testimonia, ad Hugonis Grotii baptizatorum puerorum institutionem,” Lond. 1647, 8vo, dedicated to his learned and excellent fellow collegian John Hales. This catechism of Grotius, which was written in Latin verse, was such a favourite as to be translated into Greek verse by Christopher Wase, and into English verse by Francis Gouldsmith, ol Gray’s-inn, esq. 3. “Parabolse evangelical, Lat. redditse carmine paraphrastico varii generis in usum scholar Tunbrigiensis,” Lond. 8vo, no date. Of the second article above-mentioned, we have an edition of 1668, the title of which is, “Hugonis Grotii Baptizatorum Puerorum Institutio, alternis interrogationibus et responsionibus.” This contains Wase’s translation into Greek, with grammatical notes, and other notes by Barth. Beale, and Gouldsmith’s English version.

, an ingenious and learned English divine, the son of John Grey of Newcastle, was born there in 1694, and in 1712 was entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. May 15, 1716, and that of M. 4- January 16, 1718-19. May 1, he was ordained deacon, and priest April 10, 172Q, by Crew bishop of Durham, to whom he was chaplain and secretary, and who gave him, in 1721, the rectory of Hinton, near Brackley, in Northamptonshire; and obtained for him, from lord Willoughby de Broke, the rectory of Kimcote in Leicestershire. ' He was alsp a prebendary of St. Paul’s. In 1746, he was official and commissary of the archdeaconry of Leicester. In 1730, he published at Oxford a “Visitation-Sermon” and, the same year, '< Memoria Technica or a new Method of artificial Memory“a fourth edition of which came out in 1756. At this time also appeared his” System of English Ecclesiastical Law, extracted from the Codex Juris Ecclesiastic! Anglican!“of bishop Gibson, 8vo. This was for the use of young students designed for orders; and for this the university gave him the degree of D. D. May 28, 1731. He printed an assize sermon in 1732, called” The great Tribunal,“and in 1736, was the author of a large anonymous pamphlet, under the title of” The miserable and distracted State of Religion in England, upon the Downfall of the Church established,“8vo and, the same year, printed another Visitation- Sermon. He also published” A new and easy Method of learning Hebrew without points, 1738;“” Historia Josephi,“and” Paradigmata Verborum, 1719;“” Liber Jobi, 1742;“”Answer to Warburton’s Remarks,“1744;” The last Words of David,“1749;” Nova Methodus Hebraice discendi diligentius recognita & acl Usum Scholarum accornmodata, &c.“1751;” A Sermon at the opening of Steane chapel, Northampt.“1752; and, lastly, an English translation of Mr. Hawkins Browne’s poem” De Animi Immortalitate,“1753. He died Feb. 28, 1771, in his 77th year. He married Joyce, youngest daughter of the rev. John Thicknesse of Brazen-nose-college, Oxford, and sister of the late Philip Thicknesse, esq. by whom he left three daughters, the eldest of whom married Dr. Philip Lloyd, dean of Norwich, and was well-known for her genius in working in worsted, and for her painted windows in that cathedral. Dr. Grey was buried at Hinton, as is his widow, who died Jan. 12, 1794, aged eighty-nine. His” Memoria Technica" was at one time a very popular book, and the system has lately in part been revived by a foreigner, which has been the means of again directing the public attention to Dr. Grey’s book; but it seems agreed that such helps are of very little substantial efficacy, and that attention and exercise are the only means to assist or prolong memory. Dr. Grey was a man of piety and liberality, as appears by his frequent correspondence with Dr. Doddndge.

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

, surnamed Mofa, was a learned civilian of Padua, who, after being a law professor at Padua, Pisa, and Pavia, as far as 1557, left Italy, in order to make a public profession of the Protestant religion; but who, like some other Italian converts, imbibed the heresy of the Antitrinitarians. After having been professor of civil law at Tubingen for some time, he quitted the employment, in order to escape the punishment he would have incurred, had he been convicted of his errors. He was seized at Bern, where he feigned to renounce his opinions, in order to escape very severe treatment; but, as he relapsed again, and openly favoured the heretics, who had been driven from Geneva, he would, as Beza intimates, certainly have been put to death, if he had not died of the plague in September 1567, or as others say in 1564. In a journey to Geneva, during the trial of Servetus, he desired to have a conference with Calvin, which Calvin at first refused, but afterwards granted; and then Gribaldus, though he came according to the appointed time and place, refused to confer, because Calvin would not give him his hand, till they should be agreed on the articles of the Trinity. He was afterwards cited to appear before the magistrates, in order to give an account of his faith; but, his answers not being satisfactory, he was commanded to leave the city. He wrote several works, which are esteemed by the public; as “Commentarii in legem de rerum mistura, & de jure fisci,” printed in Italy. “Commentarii in pandectas juris,” at Lyons. “Commentarii in aliquot praecipuos Digesti,” &c. Francfort, 1577, fol. “Historia Francisci Spira?, cui anno 1548, familiaris aderat, secundum quae ipse viclit & audivit,” Basil, 1550. Sleidan declares, that Gribaldus was a spectator of the sad condition of the apostate Spira, and that he wrote and published an account of his case and sufferings. “De methoclo ac ratione studendi in jure civili libri tres,” Lyons, 1544 and 1556. He is said to have written this last book in a week.

, a very extraordinary woman, (whose maiden name is nowhere mentioned), was born in the county of Kilkenny in Ireland, and married to Mr. George Grierson, printer in Dublin. She died in 1733, at the age of twenty-seven; and was allowed to be an excellent scholar, not only in Greek and Roman literature, but in history, divinity, philosophy, and mathematics. She gave a proof of her knowledge in the Latin tongue by her dedication of the Dublin edition of Tacitus to lord Carteret; and by that of Terence to his son, to whom she likewise wrote a Greek epigram. Dr. Harwood esteems her Tacitus one of the best edited books ever published. Among the editions of her husband’s press, is a very fine one of Dupin’s Ecclesiastical History, 1724, 3 vols. folio, a rare book in this country. Mrs. Grierson composed some poems in English, several of which are inserted by Mrs. Barber amongst her own. When lord Carteret was lordlieutenant of Ireland, he obtained a patent for Mr. Grierson, her husband, to be the king’s printer; and, to distinguish and reward her uncommon merit, had her life inserted in it. Besides her parts and learning, she was also a woman of great virtue and piety. Mrs. Pilkington has recorded some particulars of her, and tells us, that, “when about eighteen years of age, she was brought to her father, to be instructed in midwifery; that she was mistress of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and French, and understood the mathematics as well as most men: and what,” says Mrs. Pilkington, “made these extraordinary talents yet more surprising was, that her parents were poor illiterate country people; so that her learning appeared like the gife poured out on the apostles, of speaking all the languages without the pains of study.” Mrs. Pilkington inquired of her, where she had gained this prodigious knowledge: to which Mrs. Grierson sail, that “she had received some little instruction from the minister of the parish, when she, could spare time from her needle-work, to which she was closely kept by her mother.” Mrs. Pilkington adds, that “she wrote elegantly both in verse and prose; that her turn was chiefly to philosophical or divine subjects; that her piety was not inferior to her learning; and that some of the most delightful hours she herself had ever passed were in the conversation of this female philosopher.” Her son, who was also his majesty’s printer at Dublin, and instructed by her, was a man of uncommon learning, great wit, and vivacity. He died in Germany, at the age of twenty-seven. Dr. Johnson highly respected his abilities, and often observed, that he possessed more extensive knowledge than any man of his years he had ever known. His industry was equal to his talents, he particularly excelled in every species of philological learning, and was perhaps the best critic of his time.

, a French writer of considerable reputation, was born October 9, 1698, at Moulins. He entered early among the Jesuits at Paris, was professor of belles lettres in the college of Louis le Grand, and distinguished himself afterwards in the pulpit. On the dissolution of his order, he retired to Brussels, where he died of a nephritic cholic, February 22, 1775. His works are, 1. An edition of Daniel’s “History of France,” Paris, 1756, 17 vols. 4to, in which the reign of Louis XIII. occupying three volumes, is entirely his own. 2. “Traité des differentes sortes de preuves qui servent à etablir la verite de l'Histoire,” Liege, 1769, 12mo, a very judicious performance. 3. “Sermons,” Liege, 1767, 4 vols. 8vo, not remarkable for spirit or eloquence. 4. Several pious works, among which the most popular is his “Anneé du Chretien,” Paris, 1747, 18 vols. 12mo. 5. “Latin Poems,” written at college, of indifferent character. 6. An improved edition of‘ D’Avrigny’s Memoirs, 1757, 5 vols. 12mo. 7. “Insuffisance de la religion naturelle,” Liege, 2 vols. 12mo. 8. An enlarged edition of the “Delices des Pays Bas,” Liege, 1769, 5 vols. 12mo.

, a landscape painter, born at Amsterdam in 1645, was a pupil of Roland Roghman, whose manner he relinquished after he became acquainted with the more perfect one of A. Vandervelde and Lingelbach. He settled in England, and made views of many of the principal places, which are highly wrought, but with rather an artificial tone of colouring. His execution was minute and laboured, but his pictures are very well completed in that style. He likewise employed his talents in imitations of Rembrandt, Rysdael, Polemburg, and Teniers; and so successfully, that his productions are often taken for originals. He died in the seventy-third year of his age, in 1718. He was known by the appellation of the old Griffier.-^-His son, Robert Griffier, or the young Griffier, practised the same profession as his father, and in the same style. He resided chierly upon the continent, and produced a great number of elaborate pictures of views on the Rhine, &c. with many figures in them. He was alive in 1713.

, a lady once of some note a a writer of novels and plays, whose maiden name was Griffith, was of Welch descent, and early in life married Richard Griffith, a gentleman of a good family, but reduced fortune, in Ireland. The first performance by which she became known was entitled “The Letters of Henry and Frances,” which are said to contain the genuine correspondence between her and her husband before their marriage, and for some years after. They were published at the particular request of Margaret countess of Cork, who was one of her friends, and privy to her connexion with Mr. Griffith, which was at first kept secret. From these letters, a few particulars of the private history of the parties may be collected. Mr. Griffith appears to have received no regular education, although in his youth he had evinced some talents for poetry; he introduced himself, however, by degrees into “the genteelest and most reputable company;” but tired of a city life, passed several years with a relation in the country of Ireland, where he read, learned French, and “studied husbandry philosophically.” He then engaged in a farm and the linen manufacture; and about 1760 appears to have received a place from the duke of Bedford, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland. His acquaintance with Mrs. Griffith was accidental, and commenced on his parr, to use his own phrase, “as an act of gallantry” but rinding “no probability of success,” a strange declaration and being enafrioured with her writings, conversation, and character, became, at last, a real and honourable lover, but declined matrimony for several years, as she had no fortune, and his expectations from his father were much larger than they were likely to turn out. At length, however, they married, about the year 1752; and their first publication was this correspondence, published by subscription, and not very successful with any class of readers, not even the sentimentalists, for whom it was chiefly calculated. Some of the letters, however, are of a superior cast, and contain many sensible remarks on books, men, and manners. Their next publication, which was also written in conjunction, was “Two Novels, in Letters, 4 vols. the first and second, entitled Delicate Distress, by Frances the third and fourth, entitled the Gordian Knot, by Henry,” 1769, 12mo. Both these are of a strict moral tendency; but, like the correspondence of the authors, too much tinged with the pedantry of quotation and philosophizing, instead of natural description and feeling. Previously to this, Mr. Griffith had published in 1764, “The Triumvirate; or the authentic Memoirs of A. B. and C.” 2 vols. 12mo, a novel of so Joose a kind, that even his wife could not venture to recommend it to the fair sex, and yet adds her opinion that “every gentleman will read it with pleasure, and I trust without any injury to his morals.” Of Mr. Griffith’s performances we hear no more, nor have been able to ascertain the time of his death. Mrs. Griffith’s other novels were “Lady Barton,” and “Juliana HarJey.” She also wrote some dramas which had various success, but none of them have preserved their station on the stage. One of her most agreeable publications svas “The Morality of Shakspeare’s Drama illustrated,” 1775, 8vo. She published also some translations, “The Adventures of Pierre Viaud,” and the “Letters of Ninon de L'Enclos,” c. She died Jan. 3, 1793, at Millecenr, in the county of Kildare. She was unquestionably a woman of considerable literary talents, but does not appear to have found in her lover and husband the judgment which could give them a proper direction. Nor did he contribute much to bar happiness in his latter days. He had long accustomed himself to the cant of sentiment, which is too frequently mistaken for genuine moral feeling. When in his grand climacteric, he seduced a girl of fortune and consequence, with whom he lived the reminder of his days. The libehine notions in his “ Triumvirate” appear to have been more predominant sense he affected to entertain of pure morals in his “Letters.”

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

, a celebrated lawyer, and master of the rolls in the seventeenth century, descended from a very ancient family, was born at Brad fieldball, near Manningtree, in Essex, about 1594. Where he had his early education is not known, but he studied law in Lincoln’s-inn, and practised with considerable success. In August 1638 he was chosen recorder of Colchester, and representative for that place in the parliament which met at Westminster April 13, 1640, and again in the parliament which met Nov. 3 of the same year. The measures he at first supported were those of the party which finally overthrew the government, and although he argued chiefly against such abuses as might have been reformed by a better understanding between the conflicting parties, yet his violence against the court, and particularly a bitter speech he made against archbishop Laud, seem to prove that he was too much swayed by the popular clamour of the times, and too readily became one of the committees for the redress of grievances, real or imaginary, as well as for bringing those to punishment who were most obnoxious to the people. In 1642 he was made one of the lieutenants of the county of Essex, in pursuance of the parliament’s ordinance for the militia, and in August the same year, came down to Colchester and proclaimed sir John Lucas a traitor, for intending to assist the king. When he came, however, to penetrate more deeply into the designs of the reformers, he began to withdraw his countenance from them, and when in 1647 he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the king at Newport, in the isle of Wight, his majesty had every reason to be pleased with his candour and moderation. On his return to parliament, he argued for accepting the king’s concessions, and being at the same time one of the commissioners for disbanding the army, was, among others, forcibly excluded from the house by a party of soldiers. After the murder of the king, he went abroad for some time, but in 1656 we find him elected to Cromwell’s parliament as one of the sixteen, representatives for the county of Essex, but not approved by the council, against whose decision he signed a spirited re* monstrance. In February 1659-60 he was chosen one of the new council of state, in whom the executive power was lodged by the remains of the long parliament that restored Charles II.; and a few months after, he was also chosen speaker of the house of commons in what was called the “Healing parliament” which met April 25, 1660. In May following, he waited on the king at Breda, and on his majesty’s arrival, and the settlement of the government, was appointed master of the roils Nov. 3, 1660, which office he filled for nearly twenty-four years with great ability and integrity. He was aiso appointed in the same year chief steward of the borough or St. AlbanV, and recorder of Harwich, and from the restoration to the time or his death, continued to represent Colchester in parliament. For several years he entertained Dr. Gilbert Burntt, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, as his chaplain, or preacher at the rolls; and much assisted him in his “History of the Reformation.” Burnet in his “Own Times” has given an affectionate and probably faithful character of sir Harbottle, who appears to have been a man of real worth, piety, and moderation in his latter days. Sir Harbottle died Dec. 31, 1683, aged about ninety, and was buried in the chancel of St. Michael’s church, St. Alban’s. He was twice married, first to Mary, daughter of sir George Croke, an edition of whose “Reports” he published, 3 vols. folio; and secondly to Anne, daughter of sir Nathaniel Bacon, of Culford-hall, in Suffolk. Other particulars of his family may be seen in our authorities.

Grindal laboured to redress these irregularities by setting down rules and orclers for the management of these exercises; however, the queen still disapproved of them, as seeing probably how very apt they were to be abused. She did not like that the laity should neglect their secular affairs by repairing to those meetings, which she thought might fill their heads with notions, and so occasion dissentions and disputes, and perhaps seditions in the state. And the archbishop being at court, she particularly declared herself offended at the number of preachers as well as the exercises, and ordered him to redress both; urging, that it was good for the church to have few preachers, that three or four might suffice for a county, and that the reading of the Homilies to the people was sufficient. She therefore required him to abridge the number of preachers, and put down the religious exercises. This did not a little afflict him. He thought^ and very properly, the queen infringed upon his office, to whom, next to herself, the highest trust of the church of England was committed; especially as this command was peremptory, and made without at alladvising with him, and that in a matter so directly concerning religion: he wrote a letter to her majesty, declaring, that his conscience would not suffer him to comply with her commands.

This refusal was dated December 20, 1576. The queen therefore having given him sufficient time to consider well his resolution, and he continuing inflexible, she sent letters next year to the bishops, to forbid all exercises and prophesyings, and to silence all preachers and teachers not lawfully called, of which there were no small number; and in June the archbishop was sequestered from his office, and confined to his house by an order of the court of starchamber. In November the lord-treasurer wrote to him about making his submission, with which he not thinking fit to comply, his sequestration was continued; and iri January there were thoughts of depriving him, which* how-­ever, were laid aside. June 1579, his confinement was either taken off, or else he had leave to retire to his house at Croydon; for we find him there consecrating the bishop of Exeter in that year, and the bishops of Winchester, and Lichfield and Coventry, the year following. This part of his function was exercised by a particular commission from the queen, who in council appointed two civilians to manage the other affairs of his see, the two of his nomination being set aside. Yet sometimes he had special commands from the queen and council to act in person, and issued out orders in his own name; and in general was as active as he could be, and vigilant in the care of his diocese as occasion offered. In 1580, for instance, when there happened a violent earthquake, our archbishop having issued an order for prayer and humiliation, composed a prayer for families throughout his diocese, which was allowed by the council, who in a letter to him commended his great zeal, and required him to enjoin the observation of his new order of prayer in all other dioceses. The council also referred to him the decision of a dispute that happened the same year at Merton college, Oxford, of which he was visitor, as archbishop; and soon after he was employed by the lord treasurer in a controversy between the university and town of Cambridge.

Strype has ably vindicated his memory from the misrepresentations of Fuller and Heylin, who consider him as too much inclined to puritanism; and observes, that in the times in which he lived, when he was better known, his episcopal abilities, and admirable endowments for spiritual government, as well as his great learning, were much celebrated. He was a man, says Strype, of great firmness and resolution, though of a mild and affable temper, and friendly disposition; in his deportment courteous and engaging, not easily provoked, well spoken, and easy of access; and in his elation not at all affecting grandeur or state, always obliging in his carriage, as well as kind and grateful to his servants, and of a free and generous spirit. Strype allows, what indeed is obvious, that he used great moderation towards the puritans, to whose interest in the cabinet, joined to his own merits, his preferment was in a great measure owing; and had they repaid this moderation by a corresponding behaviour, he would have less seldom incurred the displeasure of the court , who thought his favours ill-bestowed on men of restless and turbulent dispositions. He had a great respect for the eminent reformers abroad, Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Zanchius, and others, with whom he had contracted a friendship during his exile, and always carried on a correspondence; and he was very instrumental in obtaining a settlement for the French protestants in their own way of worship, approaching to the Genevan, who were allowed to assemble in the Walloon church in Threadneedle-street, which has ever since been a French church.

Collier, whose authority is of some consequence in this case, clears Grindal from all imputations of puritanism, and speaking of the articles at one of his metropolitical visitations, observes, that he was no negligent governor, nor a person of latitude or indifference for the ceremonies of the church; but, on the other hand, he was more deeply concerned for her doctrines, and a strenuous assertor of them. He was celebrated as a preacher in king Edward VI.'s time, both at court and in the university; and in the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign, when the protestant religion was to be declared and inculcated to the people, he was one of the chief persons employed in the pulpit at St. Paul’s, and before the queen and nobility.

, a man eminently learned in his day> and one of the revivers of literature, was born at Bristol in 1442, and educated at Winchester-school. He was elected thence to New college, Oxford, in 1467; and in 1479, presented by the warden and fellows to the rectory of Newton-Longville, in Buckinghamshire. But his residence being mostly at Oxford, the society of Magdalen college made him their divinity reader, about the beginning of Richard the Illd’s reign; and that king corning soon after to Oxford, he had the honour to hold a disputation before him, with which his majesty was so pleased, that he rewarded him graciously. In 1485 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1488 he quitted his reader’s place at Magdalen college, in order to travel into foreign countries; for though he might be reckoned a great master of the Greek and Lati languages in England, where the former especially was then scarcely understood at all, yet he well knew that a more perfect knowledge of it might be attained; and accordingly he went into Italy, and studied there some time under Demetrius Chalcondyles and Politian. He returned to England, and fixed himself in Exeter college, at Oxford, in 1491, where he took the degree of B. D. Here too he publicly taught the Greek language, and was the first who introduced a better pronunciation of it than had been known in this island before. But the introduction of this language alarming many, as a most dangerous innovation, the university divided itself into two factions/distinguished by the appellation of Greeks and Trojans, who bore each other a violent animosity, and proceeded to open hostilities. Anthony Wood says, “I cannot but wonder when I think upon it, to what a strange ignorance were the scholars arrived, when, as they would by no means receive it, but rather scoff and laugh at it; some against the new pronunciation of it, which was endeavoured to be settled; others at the language itself, having not at all read any thing thereof. It is said that there were lately a company of good fellows (Cambridge men as 'tis reported) who, either out of hatred to the Greek tongue, or good letters, or merely to laugh and sport, joined together and called themselves Trojans: one, who was the senior, and wiser than the rest, called himself Priam, another Hector, a third Parys, and the rest by some ancient Trojan names who, after a jocular way, did oppose aa Grecians, the students of the Greek tongue.” In this situation Grocyn was, when Erasmus came ta Oxford; and if he was not this great man’s tutor, yet he certainly assisted him in attaining a more perfect knowledge of the Greek. He was, however, very friendly toErasmus, and did him many kind offices, as introducing him to archbishop Warham, &c. He also boarded him gratis in his house, although he was by no means in affluent circumstances. We cannot be surprized therefore that Erasmus speaks of him often in a strain which shews that he entertained the most sincere regard for him, as well as the highest opinion of his abilities, learning, and integrity. About 1590 he resigned his living, being then made master of Allhallows college, at Maidstone,in Kent, though he continued still to live mostly at Oxford. Grocyn had no esteem for Plato, but applied himself intensely to Aristotle, whose whole works he had formed a design of translating, in conjunction with William Latimer, Linacre, and More, but did not pursue it. While his friend Cotet was dean of St. Paul’s, Grocyn gave a remarkable evidence of the candour and ingenuousness of his temper. He read in St. Paul’s cathedral a public lecture upon the book of Dionysius Areopagita, commonly called “Hierarchia Ecclesiastica;” it being customary at that time for the public lecturers, both in the universities, and in the cathedral thurches, to read upon any book, rather than upon the scriptures, till dean Colet reformed that practice. Grocyn, in the preface to his lecture, declaimed with great warmth against those who either denied or doubted of the authority of the book on which he was reading. But after he had continued to read a few weeks, and had more thoroughly examined the matter, he entirely changed hi sentiments; and openly and candidly declared that he had been in an error; and that the said book, in his judgment, was spurious, and never written by him who, in the Acts of the Apostles, is called Dionysius the Areopagite. But when dean Colet had introduced the custom of reading lectures upon some part of the scriptures at his cathedral, he engaged Grocyn, according to Dr. Knight, as one of the most learned and able men he could meet with, in that useful employment.

Grocyn died at Maidstone in 1519, of a stroke of the palsy, which he had received a year before, and which made him, says Erasmus, “sibi ipsi superstitem;” that is, outlive his faculties. Linacre, the celebrated physiciaa just mentioned, was his executor, to whom he left a con. siderable legacy, as he did a small one fo William Lilly, the grammarian, who was his godson. His will is printed in the appendix to Knight’s “Life of Erasmus.” He had indeed but little to leave, having never enjoyed preferment equal to his worth *; yet he was a man of great generosity, which at one time obliged him to pawn his plate to Dr. Young, who generously returned it by his will without taking principal or interest. A Latin epistle of Grocyn’s to Aldus Manutius is prefixed to Linacre’s translation of“Proclus de Sphaera,” printed at Venice in 1449, fol. Erasmus says, that “there is nothing extant of his but this epistle: indeed a very elaborate and acute one, and written in good Latin.” His publishing nothing more seems to have been owing to too much delicacy; for, Erasmus adds, “he was of so nice a taste, that he h^d rather write nothing than write ill.” Some other things, however, of his writing are mentioned by Bale, Leland, and Tanner, as “Tractatus contra hostiolum Joannis Wiclevi;” “Epistolae ad Erasmum et alios” Grammatica;“” Vulgaria puerorum;“”Epigrammata“” Nota ia Terentium,“and” Isagogicum quoddam."

, a physician and botanist of considerable learning, the son, we presume, of the preceding, was born in Holland, in 1690. He took his doctor’s degree at Leyden in 1715, on which occasion he published a dissertation upon camphor, of the natural history and preparation of which he gives much new information. He settled at Leyden, and became one of the chief magistrates. He adopted the prevailing taste of his coun­ trymen for making collections of natural history, and in 1740 published his “Index Suppellectilis Lapideae,” or a scientific catalogue of his own collection of minerals, drawn up under the inspection, and with the assistance of Linnaeus. In a letter to Haller, in 1737, Linnæus mentions Gronovius, with Burmann and Adrian Van Royen, as principally anxious to increase their collections of dried plants, instead of studying genera; which study Linnæus was destined to revive. Grouovius received from Clayton various specimens of Virginian plants, which he, with the assistance of Linnæus, then resident in Holland, arranged according to the sexual system, and with proper specific characters, descriptions, and synonyms, published under the title of “Flora Virginica,” 1739, 8vo. A second part or supplement of the same work appeared in 1743, and a third was preparing when he died. This last being afterwards incorporated with the two former, the whole was published in 1762, 4to, by his son.

, a learned French theologian, was born in December 1675, at Rheims, of obscure and poor parents. The religious of St. Genevieve, who served the parish of St. Denis at Rheims, undertook his education, and he was admitted doctor of divinity in that city in 1702, and became successively chaplain at Notre Dame, canon of the collegiate church of St. Symphorien, and, in 1704, canon of the cathedral at Rheims. He was also made governor of the little seminary of St. James by M Le Tellier, but was deprived of that office on this gentleman’s death in 1710, and forbidden to preach or confess, on account of his zealous opposition to the bull Unigenitus. Being afterwards excommunicated by M. de Maille, who succeeded M. le Tellier as archbishop of Rheims, he went to Paris, and afterwards to Holland, where he remained ubout a year with father Quesnel and Messrs. Petitpied and Fouillou; but when Louis XIV. died, the proceedings at Rheims were declared null, and M. le Gros returned thither in 1716. He was a zealous promoter of the appeal to a future council, and was the soul of the faculty of theoJogy; but M. de Mailli obtained a lettre dt cachet against him in 1721, by which he was banished to St. John de Luz. This sentence, however, he evaded, by living concealed four or five years. In 1725, he went into Italy to observe what passed in the council appointed by Benedict XIIL and at length retired to Holland, and there spent the last twenty-five years of his life, excepting a voyage he made to England. The archbishop of Utrecht chose him professor of divinity in his seminary at Amersfort, and he died at Rhinwick, near Utrecht, December 4, 1751, aged 76. His principal works are, 1. “Le Renversement des Libenes de l'Eglise Gallicane dans r affaire de la Constitution Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “La Sainte Bible traduite sur les textes originaux, avec les differences de la Vulgate,” 1739, 8vo. M. Rondet published a new edition of this work 1756, in 6 small vois. 12mo.; but, on account of some alterations, it is not esteemed. 3. “Sept Lettres Theolo^iques contre le Traite des Prets de Commerce, et en ge‘ne’ral contre toute Usure,” 4to. 4. “Dogma Ecclesiae circa Usurum expositum, et vindicatum;” with several other pieces in Latin against usury, 4to. 5. “Observations sur une Lettre attribute a ieu M. de Launoi sur l'Usure,” 4to. 6. “Eclaircissement historique et dogmatique sur la Contrition,” 12mo. 7. “Motifs invincible* d‘Attachement a l’Eglise Romaine pour les Catholiqnes, ou de Re-union pour les pretendus Reformes,” 12mo. 8. “Meditations sur la Concorde des Evangiles,” 3 vols. 12mo. 9. “Sur l'EpStre aux Remains,” 2 vols. 12mo. 10. “SurlesEpitrescanoniques,” 2 vols. 12mo. ll.“Memoire sur les Droits du second Ordre,” 4to. 12. “Me”­moire sur l'Appel au futur Concile,“4to; several tracts on the Constitution, the Miracles, ascribed to M.Paris; the Convulsions, &c. 13.” Manuel du Chretien,“which contains the Psalms, the New Testament, and the Imitation, 24to. A book in twelves, entitled” Eclaircissement sur les Conciles genéraux," is also attributed to M. le Gros.

, an eminent English antiquary, was the son of Mr. Francis Grose, of Richmond, jeweller, who died in 1769. He was born in 1731, and having a taste for heraldry and antiquities, his father procured him a place in the college of arms, which, however, he resigned in 1763. By his father he was left an independent fortune, which he was not of a disposition to add to, or even to -reserve. He early entered into the Surrey militia, of which he became adjutant and paymaster; but so much had dissipation taken possession of him, that in a situation which above all others required attention, he was so careless as to have for some time (as he used pleasantly to tell) only two books of accounts, viz. his right and left hand pockets. In the one he received, and from the other paid; and this too with a want of circumspection which may be readily supposed from such a mode of book keeping. His losses on this occasion roused his latent talents: with a good classical education he united a fine taste for drawing, which he now began again to cultivate; and encouraged by his friends, he undertook the work from which be derived both profit and reputation: his Views of Antiquities in England and Wales, which he first began to publish in numbers in 1773, and finished in 1776. The next year he added two more volumes to his English views, in which he included the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, which were completed in 1787. This work, which was executed with accuracy and elegance, soon became a favourite with the public at large, as well as with professed antiquaries, from the neatness of the embellishments, and the succinct manner in which he conveyed his information, and therefore answered his most sanguine expectations; and, from the time he began it to the end of his life, he continued without intermission to publish various works, generally to the advantage of his literary reputation, and almost always to the benefit of his finances. His wit and good-humour were the abundant source of satisfaction to himself and entertainment to his friends. He visited almost every part of the kingdom, and was a welcome guest wherever he went. In the summer of 1789 he set out on a tour in Scotland the result of which he began to communicate to the public in 1790, in numbers. Before he had concluded this work, he proceeded to Ireland, intending to furnish that kingdom with views and descriptions of her antiquities, in the same manner he had executed those of Great Britain; but soon after his arrival in Dublin, being at the house of Mr. Hone there, he suddenly was seized at table with an apoplecticfit, on the 6th May 1791, and died immediately. He was interred in Dublin.

“His literary history,” says a friend, “respectable as it is, was exceeded by his good-humour, conviviality, and friendship. Living much abroad, and in the best company at home, he had the easiest habits of adapting himself to all tempers; and, being a man of general knowledge, perpetually drew out some conversation that was either useful to himself, or agreeable to the party. He could observe upon most things with precision and judgment; but his natural tendency was to humour, in which he excelled both by the selection of anecdotes and his manner of telling them: it may be said too, that his figure rather assisted him, which was in fact the very title-page to a joke. He had neither the pride nor malignity of authorship: he felt the independency of his own talents, and was satisfied with them, without degrading others. His friendships were of the same cast; constant and sincere, overlooking some faults, and seeking out greater virtues.”

At home he still opposed the lazy Italians, who had procured the pope’s letters for provisions, and were the objects of Grosseteste 1 s greatest detestation, for he said “if he should commit the care of souls to them, he should be the friend of Satan.” Upon such principles he would often, with indignation, cast the bulls out of his hand, and absolutely refused to comply with them. He was suspended at one time for disobeying a papal mandate of this kind. Pope Innocent, persisting in his old courses, notwithstanding all the fair promises and assurances he had given to the contrary, commanded the bishop to admit un Italian, entirely ignorant of the English language, to a rich benefice in his diocese, and be refusing to comply, was suspended for it the Lent following. This sentence, however, seems to have been soon relaxed, as we find the bishop singing mass at Hales the same year. A more remarkable instance of Grosseteste’s spirited opposition to the papal usurpations occurred in 1253, when Innocent ordered his nephew, aa Italian youth, to be promoted to the first canonry that should be vacant in the cathedral of Lincoln, and declared that any other disposal of the canonry should be null and void; and that he would excommunicate every one who should dare to disobey his injunction. The pope also wrote to the archdeacon of Canterbury, and to one Mr. Innocent, both Italians, to see this business completed, with a clause of non obstante and to cite all coiuraveners to appear before him without any manner of plea or excuse and under another clause of non obstante^ in two months time.

Grosseteste wrote immediately to the pope, or to his agents, in the most resolute and spirited terms, almost retorting, as Brown in his “Fasciculus rerum expetendarum,” &c. observes, “excommunication for excommunication.” This epistle, of which we have many copies notv extant, both in manuscript and printed, is a most celebrated performance, and has immortalized the bishop’s memory, and endeared it to all generations. He insists, that the papal mandates cannot be repugnant to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, and that, therefore, the tenor of his holifiess’s epistles was not consonant to toe sanctity of the holy see, on account of the accumulated clauses of non obstante. Then, that no sin can be more adverse to the doctrine of the apostles, more abominable to Jesus Christ, or more hurtful to mankind, than to defraud and rob those souls, which ought to be the objects of the pastoral care, of that instruction which by the scriptures they have a right to, &c. Hence he infers that the holy see, destined to edify and not to destroy, cannot possibly incur a sin of this kind; and that no one that is not an excommunicate, ought to obey any such absurd mandate, though an angj^l from heaven should command him, but rather to revolt and oppose them, &c.

The pope, on receiving this flat denial, which he little expected, written, as our readers may perceive, in a sarcastic styje implying much more than is expressed, fell into a furious passion, exclaiming, with a stern countenanc, and with all the pride of Lucifer, “Who is this old dotard, deaf, and absurd, that thus rashly presumes to judge of my actions? By Peter and Paul, if the goodness of my own heart did not restrain me, I should so chastise him, as to make him an example and a spectacle to all the world. Is not the king of England my vassal, my slave, and for a word speaking, would throw him into prison, and load him with infamy and disgrace?” And, when the cardinals interposed, they had much ado to mollify him, by telling him, “it was little for his interest to think of animadverting on the bishop; since, as they must all own, what he said was true, and they could not condemn or blame him, &c.” giving the bishop, at the same time, a most noble testimony, in respect of his piety, learning, and general character, as acknowledged by all the world: in all which, they confessed frankly, they were none of them to be compared to him. The pope, however, excommunicated the bishop, and even named a successor to his see; but the bishop, on his part, contented himself with appealing from the sentence to the tribunal of Christ, after which he troubled himself no more about it, and remained quietly in possession of his dignity.

Towards the end of this summer (1253) he fell sick at his palace at Buckden, and sent for friar John de St. Giles, who was a physician and a divine, in both which capacities he wanted his assistance, as he foresaw, to the great uneasiness of his mind, the troubles that would shortly befall the church. He then gave orders to the clergy of his diocese to renew the sentence of excommunication upon all who should infringe the magna charta concerning the liberties of the kingdom, which made the incumbents very obnoxious to many of the courtiers. In all his conversations on this subject in his last illness, he appears to have retained the strength of his understanding, and conscious of the uprightness of his conduct towards the pope, he still fully approved it in his heart; nor was his courage in the least broken, or his spirits dejected, by any fulminations that had Hfcen launched against him from that quarter. His conversations on this occasion, given by his biographer, display his real sentiments on the depraved and corrupt state of the papacy in his time, the particulars or articles on which he grounded his charge, and that abhorrence of its proceedings which does him so much honour.

He died at Buckden, Oct. 9, 1255, and the corpse was carried to Lincoln, where it was met by archbishop Boniface, who attended the funeral. He was interred in the upper south transept. For an account of his tomb, &c. we must refer to our principal authority. The pope, who rejoiced at his death, ordered a Letter to be written to king Henry, enjoining him to take up the bishop’s bones, cast them out of the church, and burn them, but this letter was not sent. As Grosseteste was a person of acknowledged piety and strictness of manners, he easily arrived at the beatitude, or title of Beatus, and even at sanctity 9 in the general estimation; but he could never obtain these jhonours from the church, though they were solicited for him in the strongest terms. Indeed, as l>r. Pegge observes, it would have been improper and absurd for the popes to repute and proclaim a person to be now an holy beatified saint in heaven, who in their opinion had so openly traduced, insulted, and vilified both the see and court of Rome, which were still pursuing the very same measures he condemned, and continued to be invariably the same depraved, venal, and corrupt body. It is, however, for the honour of bishop Grosseteste, that for his piety and integrity, his learning and abilities, he still lives valued and revered in the breasts of all sober and reasonable men. It is plain that he did not suffer the least in the esteem of the world, any more than he did in his own opinion, by the anathema which pope Innocent had denounced against him. Indeed the papal censures, of which our prelates stood so much in dread at Lyons, in 1245, had been of late so infamously prostituted, that they seem to have lost their efficacy. Grosseteste, in particular, paid no regard to that which was denounced against him, for he still continued to exercise his function; his clergy also made no scruple of obeying him when under the sentence; and his exequies were solemnized not only by the secular but even by the regular clergy of his diocese.

Few authors, ancient or modern, ever mention bishop Grosseteste without an eulogium, and from the many evidences brought by his biographer, he appears to have excelled all his contemporaries in learning, piety, judgment, and conscientious integrity in the discharge of his episcopal duties, and to have powerfully aided in producing what we may term the preliminaries of that reformation which was afterwards to take place in a church so corrupt, and so weak, that even at this time it was not able to support itself against the arguments of one English prelate, a point of religion, the papists are very desirous of having bishop Grosseteste for their own; and it must be acknowledged that he was much with them doctrinally, and at first entertained a high opinion of the power of the keys, and the personal authority of the pope; but at last, in a case manifestly unscriptural and injurious to the welfare of religion, he openly contemned it, and did not even regard dying in a state of excommunication. He had also at one time conceived a most elevated idea of the hierarchy in general, thinking it superior to the regal dignity. To this he was led, exceeding in this respect even Becket himself, by the authority of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and this is the best excuse that can be made for him; the blindness of the times being sucb, that men of the best learning, and the greatest acuteness, had not critical skill sufficient, though this be the first and proper object of criticism, to distinguish a spurious composition from the true word of God. But, however, he afterwards changed his mind in regard to the hierarchy. Had he lived in more enlightened times, when points formerly taken fur granted as principles not to be controverted, were more maturely canvassed and considered, his ideas on many religious topics would have been greatly enlarged, and he would not have been at all averse to a separation from a church so venal and corrupt as that of Home, nor to a reformation both of her doctrines and discipline.

, a pious dissenting divine, was born in London Jan. J, 1675, where his father was an upholder. In 1693 he was placed under the tuition of the rev. Mr. Jollie, of Attercliffe, in Yorkshire, with whom he went through a course of studies preparatory to ordination among the dissenters; and afterwards studied Hebrew under Capell, formerly professor of oriental languages at Saumur, but at this time a refugee ii> London. In 1699 Mr. Grosvenor was admitted into the ministry, and officiated first as assistant to Mr. Oldfield, in Southwark, and afterwards was joint preacher of a lecture in the Old Jewry meeting. His biographers seem all unwilling to tell us that he was at first of the baptist persua-; sion, and having been baptised in 1689 by Mr. Benjamin Keach, became a member of his meeting for about seven or eight years; but in the course of his studies he changed his opinions, and was “dismissed in a general manner from his membership with” the baptists. In 1703 or 1704 he was chosen to succeed Mr. Slater in the meeting in Crosby-square, to which he was formally ordained in July 1704. In 1716 he was chosen one of the lecturers at Salter’s-hall, which added much to his reputation, but which he resigned in 1740. In 1730 the university of Edinburgh conferred the degree of D. D. upon him. After this he continued to preach until 1749, when the increasing infirmities of age obliged him to desist from all public services. He continued, however, his private studies, and kept up an amicable intercourse with his friends until his death, Aug.7, 1758. Dr. Grosvenor possessed great mildness of temper, lively and brilliant wit, a candid disposition towards those who differed from him, and an habitual cheerfulness which rendered his visits peculiarly acceptable. He published various single sermons preached on funeral and other occasions an “Essay on Health,” 1748, 8vo; and a treatise on consolation, entitled “The Mourner,” which has been repeatedly printed, and still preserves his memory.

, or Hugo de Groot, one of the most eminent names in literary history, was descended from a family of the greatest distinction in the Low Countries: his father^ John de Groot, was burgomaster of Delft, and curator of the university of Leyden, and in 1582, married Alida Averschie, a lady of one of the first families in the country, by whom he had three sons and a daughter. His son Hugo, the subject of this article, was born at Delft on Easter-day, April I0j 1583, and came into the world with the most happy dispositions; a profound genius, a solid judgment, and a wonderful memory. These extraordinary natural endowments had all the advantages that education could give them, and he found in his own father a pious and an able tutor, who formed his mind and his morals. He was scarce past his childhood, when he was sent to the Hague, and boarded with Mr. Utengobard, a celebrated clergyman among the Arrninians, who took great care of his trust; and, before he had completed his twelfth year, was removed to Leyden, under the learned Francis Jimiiis. He continued three years at this university, where Joseph Scaliger was so struck with his prodigious capacity, that he condescended to direct his studies; and in 1597, Grotius maintained public theses in the mathematics, philosophy, and law, with the highest applause.

* Their business was, in conjunc- France, against Spain; but this was tion with lord Cecil, on the part of not successful: Grotius fives a historyEngland, to negociate a triple al- of this embassy in the 7th book of his liance between England. Holland, and Annals. M, cle Buzanval, who had been ambassador in Holland, introduced him to the king-, who presented him with his picture and a gold chain, with which Grotius was so highly flattered, as to have a print engraved of himself, adorned with the chain. After almost a year’s stay in France he returned home, much pleased with his journey; one thin“­only was wanting to complete his satisfaction, a sight of the celebrated M. de Thou, or Thuanus, the person among all the French whom he most esteemed. He had eagerly sought an acquaintance with that great man, and as he did not succeed, he now resolved to open a literary correspondence, and present him with the first-fruits of his studies in print, which he had just dedicated to the prince of Conde”. This was his edition of“Maitianus Capella.” He had formed the plan of this work, when only fourteen years old, almost finished it before he left Holland, and published it presently after his return in 1599. M. de Thou was extremely well pleased with this address, and from this time to his death there subsisted an intimate correspondence between them. In 1600, Grotius sent de Thou an epithalamiuin he had written on the marriage of Henry IV. with Mary of Medicis, but this is not in the collection of his poems.

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

At this time a dispute arose between the English and the Dutch, concerning the right of fishing in the Northern seas. Two Amsterdam vessels, having caught some whales in the Greenland ocean, were met by some English ships bound to Russia; who, finding that the Dutch had no passports from the king of England, demanded the whales, which the Dutchmen, unable to resist, were obliged to deliver. On their arrival in Holland, they made their complaint; and the affair being laid before the States, it was resolved that Grotius, who had written on the subject, and was more master of it than any one, should be sent to England, where his demands were refused. On this the Dutch determined not to send to Greenland for the future without a force sufficient to revenge themselves on the English, or at least to have nothing to fear from them. The dispute growing serious, to prevent any acts of hostility, a conference was held, in 1615, between the commissioners of England and Holland, in which the debate turned chiefly on the whale-fishery; but, the English still insisting on the right to Greenland, which the Dutch refused, the conference broke up without any success. Grotius, who was one of the commissioners from Holland, gives the history of this conference, in a letter to Du Maurier, dated at Rotterdam, June 5, 1615. On this occasion, however, he had reason to be well satisfied with the politeness of king James, who gave him a gracious reception, and was charmed with his conversation. But the greatest pleasure he received at this visit, was the intimate friendship he contracted with Casaubon. Their esteem for each other was increased by a similarity of studies and sentiments, and they both entertained hopes of a scheme, which human agency at least will never render practicable, that of uniting all Christians in one faith. In the midst of these occupations, Du Maurier, the French ambassador in Holland, and his particular

Amsterdam, almost as powerful singly as all Holland, favoured the Gomarists, and disapproved the toleration which the States wanted to introduce. These resolved therefore to send a deputation to that city, in order to reconcile them to their sentiments. Grotius was one of. these deputies: they received their instructions April 21, 1616; and, arriving at Amsterdam next day, met the town-council on the 23d, when Grotius was their spokesman. But neither his speech nor all his other endeavours could avail any thing. The burgomasters declared their pinion for a synod, and that they could not receive the cachet of 1614 without endangering the church, and risquing the ruin of their trade. The deputies wished to answer, but were not allowed. Grotius presented to the States on his return an account in writing of all that had passed at this deputation, and he flattered himself for some time with the hopes of good effects from it; hut his disappointment chagrined him so much, that he was seized with a violent fever, which had almost proved fatal. He was removed to Delft, where he recovered, but, being forbid to do any thing which required application, he wrote to Vossius, desiring his company, as the best restorative of his health. The time of his recovery he employed in examining the part he had acted in the present" disputes; and, the more he reflected on it, the less reason he had for altering his sentiments; and although he foresaw the danger he incurred, his resolution was, not to change his conduct, but to refer the event to Providence. The States of Holland, wholly employed in endeavouring to compound matters, came to a resolution, February 21, 1617, to make a rule or formula, to which both parties should be obliged to conform; and such an instrument was accordingly drawn up at their request by Grotius, who presented it to prince Maurice. But the project did not please him; he wanted a national synod, which was at length determined by the States General, and to be convoked in Holland at Dort. In the mean time the prince, who saw with the utmost displeasure several cities, agreeably to the permission given them by the particular States, levy a new militia, under the title of attendant soldiers, without his consent, engaged the States General to write to the provinces and magistrates of those cities, enjoining them to disband the new levies. This injunction not being complied with, he considered the refusal as a rebellion; concerted with the States General, that he should march in. person with the troops under his command, to get the attendant soldiers disbanded, depose the Arminian magistrates, and turn out the ministers of their party. He accordingly set out, accompanied by the deputies of the States^General, in 1618; and, having reduced the province of Gueldres, he was proceeding to Utrecht, when the States of Holland sent thither Grotius, with Hoogerbetz, pensionary of Leyden, to put that city into a posture of defence against him. But, their endeavours proving ineffectual, the prince reduced the place; and soon aftervyards sent Grotius and Hoogerbetz to prison in the castle at the Hague, where Barnevelt also was confined, August 29th this year. After this the States of Holland consented to the national synod, which was opened at Dort, Nov. 15, 1618, which, as is well known, ended in a sentence, condemning the five articles of the Arminians, and in imprisoning and banishing their ministers. This sentence was approved by the States General, July 2, 1619.

He had been above 18 months shut up at Louvesteih, when, January 11, 1620, Muys van-Halli, his declared enemy, who had been one of his judges, informed the States general, that he had advice from good authority, that their prisoner was seeking to make his escape. Some persons were sent to examine into this matter; but, notivithstanding all the inquiry that could be made, they found no reason to believe that he had contrived any means to escape. H s wife, however, was very industriously and ingeniously employed in contriving it, which she effected in the following manner. He had been permitted to borrow books of his friends, and when he had done with them they were carried back in a chest with his foul linen, which was sent to Gorcum to be washed. The first year his guards were very exact in examining the chest; but, being used to find nothing in it besides books and linen, they grew tired of searching, and even did not take the trouble to open it. His wife, observing their negligence, proposed to take advantage of it. She represented to her husband, that it was in his power to get out of prison when he pleased, if he would put himself into this chest; and not to endanger his health, she caused holes to be bored opposite where his face was to be, to breathe at, persuading him to try if he could continue shut up in that confined posture, as long as it would require to go from Louvestein to Gorcum. Finding it might be done, she resolved to seize the first favourable opportunity; which very soon offered. The commandant of Louvestein going to Heusden to raise recruits, she paid a visit to his lady, and told her in the course of conversation, that she was desirous of sending away a chest of books; for, her husband was so weak, that it gave her great uneasiness to see him study with such application. Having thus prepared the commandant’s wife, she returned to her husband’s apartment, and in concert with a valet and a maid who were in the secret, shut him up in the chest; and at the same time, that the people might not be surprised at not seeing him, she spread a report of his being ill. Two soldiers carried the chest; one of them, finding it was heavier than usual, said there must be “an Arminian in it.” Grotius’s wife, who was present, said with great coolness, “There are indeed Arminian books in it.” The chest was brought down on a ladder with great difficulty; the soldier insisted on its being opened, to see wiiat was in it; he even went and informed the commandant’s wife, that the weight of the chest gave him reason to suspect the contents, and that it would be proper to have it opened. She told him that Grotius’ s wife had said there was nothing but books in and that they might carry it to the boat. It is even said that a soldier’s wife, who was present, reminded them there was more than one example of prisoners making their escape in boxes. In this way, however, eiither by negligence, or connivance, which there seems no reason to suspect, the chest was brought down, and put into the boat; and Grotius’s maid, who was in the secret, had orders to go to Gorcum with it, and put it into a house there. When it came to Gorcum, they wanted to put it on a sledge; but the maid telling the boatman that there were some brittle things in it, and begging of him to take care how it was carried, it was put on a horse, and carried by two chairmen to David Dazelaor’s, a friend of Grotius, and brother-in-law to Erpenius; and, when every body was gone, the maid opened the chest. Grotius had felt no inconvenience in it, though its length was not above three feet and a half. He got out, dressed himself like a mason with a rule and a trowel; and was secretly conveyed in this disguise to Valvic in Brabant. Here he made himself known to some Arminians, and hired a carriage to Antwerp; and, at Antwerp, he alighted at the house of Nicolas Grevincovius, who had been formerly a minister at Amsterdam., but did not make himself known to any other person. It was on March 22, 1621, that he thus recovered his liberty.

In the mean time, his wife’s account, that he was ill, gained credit at Louvestein and, to give him time to get out, she gave out that his illness was dangerous but as soon as she learnt by the maid’s return that he was at Brabant, and consequently in safety, she told the guards what had happened. They informed the commandant, by this time returned from Heusden, who, finding it true, confined Grotius’s wife more closely; but upon her petition to the States-General, April 5, 1621, she was discharged two days after, and suffered to carry away every thing that belonged to her in Louvestein. From Antwerp, Grotius wrote to the States-General, March 30, that, in procuring his liberty, he had employed neither violence nor corruption with his keepers; that he had nothing to reproach himself with in what he had done; that he gave those counsels which he thought best for appeasing the troubles that had arisen in public business; that he only obeyed the magistrates of Rotterdam his masters, and the States of Holland his sovereigns; and that the persecution he had suffered would never diminish his love for his country, for whose prosperity he heartily prayed. He continued some time at Antwerp, deliberating what course to take; and at length, principally by the advice of Du Maurier, determined to go to France, where he had many friends. He arrived at Paris, April 13, 1621, and his wife in October following; but their expences had so much exceeded the small revenue she had still left, that in the beginning of December, he wrote to Du Maurier, that if something was not soon done, he must seek a settlement in Germany, or hide himself in some corner of France. At length the king coming to Paris in January 1621, Grotius was presented to him by the chancellor and the keeper of the seals, in the beginning of March, and on a day when the court was very numerous. His majesty received him graciously, and granted him a pension of 3000 livres, and upon his account granted a protection to all the Dutch refugees, a very singular exchange of the principles of toleration between the two countries. But, notwithstanding the king’s grant, he could not touch the money; they had forgot to put it on the civil list, and the commissioners of the treasury found daily some new excuse for delaying the payment; and at length, when by the solicitation of some powerful friends, he received it, it continued to be paid as grants were paid at that time, that is to say, very slowly. These difficulties did not diminish his passion for literature, “I persist,” he says in a letter to Vossius, dated Sept. 29, 162], “in my respect for sacred antiquity; there are many people here of the same taste. My six books in Dutch will appear soon (i. e. his book on the truth of the Chr.stiau religion.) Perhaps 1 shall also publish my disquisition on Pelagianism, with the precautions hinted to me by you and some other persons of learning. In the mean time, I am preparing an edition of Stobrcus; and to render it more perfect, 1 collate the Greek Mss. with the printed copies.” Thus he spent the greatest part of his time; and as the ministers of Charenton, who had accorded with the decisions of the synod of Dort, would not admit him into their communion, he resolved to have divine service performed at home in his family.

He had now lived a year in the noise of Paris, and began to think of retiring into the country, when the presiDe Meme offered him one of his seats at Bologne, near Senlis. Grotius accepted the offer, and passed there the spring and summer of 1623. In this castle he began his great work, which alone is sufficient to render his name immortal, his “Treatise of the Rights of Peace and War.” He had visited the most distinguished men of learning; among others Salmasius and Rigault, and had the free use of de Thou’s library: he sometimes also made excursions to St. Germain’s, where the court was; but, having learned that De Meme wanted to reside at Bologne, he returned to Paris in October. Btirigny informs us, which somewhat diminishes our respect for Grotius’s firmness of mine!, that he took particular care not to offend De Meme, who was a zealous catholic, and was even so submissive as to eat meagre on Fridays, to receive none of his Dutch refugee ministers, and to abstain from every public or private exercise of the protestant religious worship. In April 1625, prince Frederic Henry succeeding to the post of stadtholder on the death of his brother Maurice, Grotius’s friends conceived great hopes of obtaining leave for his return to Holland and, at their request, he wrote to the new stadtholder for this purpose, but without effect as he had before conjectured. However, he was now in the height of his glory by the prodigious success of his book “De Jure Belli Si Pacis,” which was published this year. In the mean time he began to grow tired of that city. His pension was ill-paid, and his revenue insufficient to keep him decently with a wife and a family. He had an offer of being professor of law in a college at Denmark; but, though he was satisfied with the salary, he thought the place beneath his acceptance. While he remained in suspense, cardinal Richelieu was nominated prime minister in 1626, and being very desirous of becoming acquainted with Grotius, invited him to his house at Limours. Here it is supposed that he wished to engage Grotius to devote himself entirely to him, and that Grotius’s reservations gave offence. It is certain that from this time his pension was unpaid, which greatly distressed him, but his love for Paris induced him to bear with such a privation as long as it was possible.

Stockholm, therefore, he went to a. sea-port two leaguus distant, in order to embark for Lubeck. The queen, being informed of his departure, sent a gentleman to tell him she wanted to see him once more, otherwise she should think he was displeased with her. He returned therefore to Stockholm, and explained himself to the queen, who seemed satisfied with his reasons, and made him a large present in money, amounting to 12 or 13,000 imperials; adding to it some silver plate which was not finished sooner, and which he was assured had delayed the granting of his passport. That was afterwards issued; and the queen gave him a vessel, on-board which he embarked, August 12, for Lubeck.

His theological works, printed in 3 vols. fol. but usually bound in four, include his Commentaries on the Bible, concerning which there have been various opinions. Some esteem him one of the best general commentators, and plead for him that he must not be thought to oppose a doctrine because he rejects some of the texts which have been quoted in support of it. This is plausible; but others conceive that doubts as to his orthodoxy are well founded, and it is evident that none of his biographers have been able to set up a good defence of him in this respect. Calmet has justly remarked the ambiguity of his notions respecting the divinity of Christ, and the doctrine of original sin the indecency of his prefaces and explanation of the Canticles and objects to him that he weakens or reduces almost to nothing the prophecies relating to Jesus Christ. Nor was he less offensive to protestants for his notions conr cerning the pope’s not being antichrist, and concerning St. Paul’s expectation of living until the general judgment. With regard to the prophecies, he is said to have been the first interpreter of Scripture (though some are inclined to doubt this priority) who endeavoured to prove that the greater part of the prophecies of the Old Testament had a double sense, and have received a double accomplishment. He maintains that the predictions even of the evangelical prophet Isaiah, related in their primary and literal sense to the times and circumstances of the Jewish people, but that they respected the Messiah in a secondary and allegorical sense. It is unnecessary to inform such of our readers as are acquainted with the history of theological controversy, that these notions have met with able opponents both in the churches of Rome and England, and it is perhaps as unnecessary to add that they sufficiently account for the general suspicion entertained of Grotius’s religious principles, as well as for the various systems to which his friends or enemies wished, or suspected him to be at one time or other attached.

The late bishop Kurd’s mode of accounting for the apparent inconsistencies in the religious principles of Grotius, is the most favourable we have yet seen, and not improbable. “Grotius,” says that learned prelate, " is justly esteemed among the ablest and most learned men of an age that abounded in ability and learning. Besides his other shining talents, his acquaintance with history was extensive; and his knowledge of Scripture profound. And yet with two such requisites for unlocking the true sense of the prophetic writings, this excellent man undertook to prove in form, that the pope was not antichrist. The account of this mischance is as extraordinary as the mischance itself. The moral qualities of Grotius were still more admirable than his intellectual; and its these qualities we shall find the true spring of his unhappy and misapplied pains on the subject before us. He was in his own nature just, candid, benevolent, to a supreme degree; and the experience of an active turbulent life had but fortified him the more in a love of those pacific virtues. He was, on principle, a sincere and zealous Christian; and consequently impressed With a clue sense of that exalted charity which is the characteristic of that religion but he had seen and felt much of the mischiefs which proceed from theological quarrels and thus every thing concurred to make him a friend to peace, and above all, to peace among Christians. An union of the catholic and protestant churches seemed necessary to this end; and the apparent candour, whether real or affected, of some learned persons, whom he had long known and valued in the church of Rome, drew him into the belief that such a project was not impracticable. Henceforth it became the ruling object of his life; and permitting himself too easily to conclude that the protestant doctrine of antichrist was the sole or principal obstruction to the union desired, he bent all the efforts of his wit and learning to discredit and overthrow that doctrine. Thus was this virtuous man betrayed by the wisdom and equity of his own character; and I know not if the observation of the moral poet can be so justly applied to any other:

“But another sort of answer is due to some of those who have criticised Grotius, and that answer might be given in the words of Grotius himself. He was not of such a stupid and servile cast of mind, as to quote the opinions of poets or orators, of historians and philosophers, as those of judges, from whose decision there was no appeal. He quotes them, as he tells us himself, as witnesses whose conspiring testimony, mightily strengthened and confirmed by their discordance on almost every other subject, is a conclusive proof of the unanimity of the whole human race on the great rules of duty and the fundamental principles of morals. On such matters poets and orators are the most unexceptionable of all witnesses for they address themselves to the general feelings and sympathies of mankind they are neither warped by system, nor perverted by sophistry; they can attain none of their objects; they can neither please nor persuade if they dwell on moral sentiments not in unison with those of their readers. No system of moral philosophy can surely disregard the general feelings of human nature and the according judgment of all ages and nations. But where are these feelings and that judgment recorded and preserved In those very writings which Grotius is gravely blamed for having quoted. The usages and laws of nations, the events of history, the opinions of philosophers, the sentiments of orators and poets, as well as the observation of common life, are, in truth, the materials out of which the science of morality is formed; and those who neglect them are justly chargeable with a vain attempt to philosophise without regard to fact and experience, the sole foundation of all true philosophy. “If this were merely an objection of taste, I should be willing to allow that Grotius has indeed poured forth his learning with a profusion that sometimes rather encumbers than adorns his work, and which is not always necessary to the illustration of his subject. Yet, even in making that concession, I should rather yield to the taste of others than speak from my own feelings. I own that such richness and splendour of literature have a powerful charm for me. They fill my mind with an endless variety of delightful recollections and associations. They relieve the understanding in its progress through a vast science, by calling up the memory of great men and of interesting events. By this means we see the truths of morality clothed with all the eloquence (not that could be produced by the powers of one man, but) that could be bestowed on them by the collective genius of the world. Even virtue and wisdom themselves acquire new majesty in my eyes, when I thus see all the great masters of thinking and writing called together, as it were, from all times and countries, to do them homage, and to appear in their train.

In 1725 he lost his partner in the academy, the rev. Mr. James; and was now obliged to take the students in, divinity under his direction. In the execution of this, task he confined himself to no system in divinity, but directed his pupils to the best writers on natural and revealed religion, and an impartial consideration of the chief controversies. He likewise succeeded Mr. James in his pastoral charge at Fullwood^ near Taunton, in which he continued till his death. In 1730 he published “The Evidence of our Saviour’s Resurrection considered,” and the same year, “Some Thoughts concerning the Proof of a future State from Reason,” in answer to the rev. Mr. Hallet, junior, which drew him into a dispute on the point with that divine. In this controversy he was thought to disparage the necessity of revelation in regard to that proof. In 1732 he printed “A Discourse concerning the Nature and Design of the Lord’s Supper,” where he set that institution in the same light with bishop Hoadly. In 173-1he published, without his name, “Wisdom the first Spring of Action in the Deity,” which was animadverted on, as to some particulars, by Mr. Balguy, who, however, allowed the discourse in general to abound in solid remarks and sound reasonings. In 1736 he published “A Discourse on saving Faith.” The same year he met with a heavy affliction, in the death of his wife; and a little more than a year after this, he died himself; for, having preached on February 19, 1737-8, and with such an uncommon flow of spirits as he said he could hardly govern, he was violentlyseized at night with a fever, which carried him off upon the 27th. His friends erected a handsome monument over his grave, on which is a Latin inscription composed by the late Dr. Ward, rhetoric-professor at Gresham-college, who has also obliged the world with an English version of it. Besides the works already mentioned, he published many sermons upon several occasions, and also a volume of (i Miscellanies in prose and verse.“After his death came out by subscription his” Posthumous Works,“1740, in 4 vols. 8vo. Gruchius, or Grouciii (Nicholas), an eminent antiquary in the sixteenth century, descended from a noble family of Rouen, was the first who explained Aristotle in Greek. He taught with reputation at Paris, Bourdeaux, and Coimbra, and, on his return to France, went to Rochelle, where a college was intended to be established, and where he died in January 1572, leaving many works. The most known are, a translation of F. L. de Castagneda’s” History of the Indies,“Paris, 1554, 4to; a treatise” De Comitiis Romanorum," 1555, fol.; and some pieces against Sigonius, fol. which Sigonius did not answer till he heard of the author’s death.

This employ suited his genius, and soon after he published the most useful of his works, his large collection of inscriptions, whjch is dedicated to the emperor Rodolphus II. who bestowed great encomiums upon it, and gave Gruterus the choice of his own reward. He answered that he would leave it to the emperor’s pleasure, only begged it might not be pecuniary. In the same temper, upon hearing there was a design to give him a coat of arms, in order to raise the dignity of his extraction, he declared, that, so far from deserving a new coat of arms, he was too much burthened with those which had devolved to him from his ancestors. The emperor was then desired to grant him a general licence for all the books of his own publishing, which he not only consented to, but also granted him a privilege of licensing others. His majesty also intended to create him a count of the sacred palace; and the patent was actually drawn, and brought to be ratified by his sign manual; but this monarch happening to die in the interim, it was left without the signature, which it never afterwards received. Yet Gruterus bestowed the same encomiums on the good emperor as if it had been completed; and his privilege of licensing books continued to be of great advantage to him, being one of the most voluminous writers of his age. This task he was the better enabled to execute by the help of his library, which was large and curious, having cost him no less than twelve thousand crowns in gold; but the whole was destroyed or plundered, together with the city of Heidelberg, in 1622. Oswald Smendius, his son-in-law, endeavoured in vain to save it, by writing to one of the great officers of the duke of Bavaria’s troops; but the licentiousness of the soldiers could not be restrained. Afterwards he went to Heidelberg, and having witnessed the havock that had been made at his father’s house, he tried to save at least what Gruterus’s amanuensis had lodged in the elector’s libra^, and brought the Pope’s commission to give him leave to remove them. He received for answer, that as to the Mss. the pope had ordered them all to be sought for carefully, and carried to Home; but as to the printed books, leave would be given to restore them to Gruterus, provided it was approved by Tilly under his hand: but this pretended favour prove4 of no effect, as no access could be had to Tilly,

He did great service to the commonwealth of learning, by publishing valuable editions of several ancient authors. Among these was the “Almagest” of Ptolemy in Greek, which he published at Basil in 1538, and added a preface concerning the use of that author’s doctrine. He also published a Greek “Euclid,” with a preface, in 1533, and Plato’s works with some commentaries of Proclus, in 1534. His edition of Plato was addressed to John More, the chancellor’s son, as a testimony of gratitude for favours received from the father; and the following passage in the dedication shews sir Thomas, as well as Grynseus, in a very amiable light. “It is, you know, three years, since arriving in England, and being recommended most auspiciously hy my friend Erasmus to your house, the sacred seat of the muses, I was there received with great kindness, was entertained with greater, was dismissed with the greatest of all. For that great and excellent man your father, so eminent for his high rank and noble talents, not only allowed me, a private and obscure person (such was his love of literature), the honour of conversing with him in the midst of many public and private affairs, gave me a place at his table, though he was the greatest man in England, took me with him when he went to court or returned from it, and had me ever by his side, but also with the utmost gentleness and candour inquired, in what particulars my religious principles were different from his; and though he found them to vary greatly, yet he was so kind as to assist me in every respect, and even to defray all my expences. He likewise sent me to Oxford with one Mr. Harris, a learned young gentleman, and recommended me so powerfully to the university, that at the sight of his letters all the libraries were open to me, and I was admitted to the most intimate familiarity with the students.”

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

, an eminent Swiss divine, and one of the first reformers, was born at Zurich in 1529. In his youth he attained an accurate knowledge of Greek and Latin, and acquired much fame as an orator and Latin poet. He married the daughter of Zuinglius, and being admitted into orders, preached at Zurich from 1542 to 1575, when he was chosen to succeed Bullinger, as first minister of the protestant church there. His writings also, which consisted of homilies, or sermons on the prophets, evangelists, and apostles, procured him great fame both at home and abroad, and were long regarded as standard books among the protestant churches. He died Nov. 25, 1586. In the early part of queen Elizabeth’s reign we find him corresponding with the English divines who had been exiles in the preceding reign, and brought over an attachment to the simple forms of the Genevan church, which Elizabeth wished to discourage. His works, as enumerated by Verheiden, consist of Latin poems, commentaries on various books of the Scripture, works on grammar and history, and some translations. His son, of the same names, spent some years in Merton college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1573, and returning to Zurich, became minister of St. Peter’s church there. Wood attributes several Latin poems to him, some of which we suspect were the production of his father: but this young man died in 1577, when oniy twenty five years of age.

, surnamed Veronese, the first branch of a family celebrated in the republic of letters, and one of the revivers of literature, was born at Verona in 1370. After being taught Latin by John of Ravenna, he went to Constantinople, with the sole view of learning Greek in the school of Emanuel Chrysoloras, who had not then come to Italy. Pontico Virunio, in his life of Chrysoloras, says that Guarino was of an advanced age when he set out for Constantinople, and that he returned to Italy with a large collection of Greek manuscripts, the loss of which by shipwreck so affected him, that his hair turned white in one night; but Maffei and Apostolo Zeno have justly considered this as a fable. It appears, on the other hand, on comparing various circumstances, that Guarino was very young when he went into Greece, and was only twenty years of age when he returned. After this return he first kept school at Florence, and afterwards successively at Verona, Padua, Bologna, Venice, and Ferrara, in which last city he resided longest. Nicolas III. of Este had invited him thither in 1429 to superintend the education of his son Lionel. Six or seven years after, he was appointed professor of Greek and Latin in the university of Ferrara. This office he filled until the assembling of the grand council, to which the emperor John Paleologus came, accompanied with several Greeks, who found Guarino. sufficient employment, as he mentions in his letters, and on the council being removed to Florence, he accompanied them thither as interpreter between the Latins and Greeks. He returned again to Ferrara, where he held his professorship until his death in 1460. His principal works consist of Latin translations from Greek authors; particularly of many of Plutarch’s lives, part of Plutarch’s morals, and Strabo’s geography. Of this author he at first translated only ten books, by order of pope Nicholas V.; the other seven were translated by Gregory of Typhernuin, and in this state the work was first printed at Rome in 1470, folio. But, at the request of the Venetian senator Marcello, Guarino made a translation of these seven books, of which there are manuscript copies at Venice, Modena, &c. Maffei, in his “Verona Illustrata,” mentions also a translation of the whole seventeen in the hand-writing of Guarino, which was at one time in the library of the senator Soranzo at Venice. To his translation of Plutarch’s lives, he added those of Aristotle and Plato. He also compiled a Greek grammar, “Em. Chrysolorae erotemata lingusc Graecse, in compendium redacta, a Guarino Veronesi,” Ferrar. 1509, 8vo and a Latin grammar, “Grammatical institutiones,” without date or place, but printed at Verona, 1487, and reprinted in 1540, the model, says Maffei, from which all others have been taken. Annexed are some lesser treatises, “Carmina ditiferentialia,” “Liber de Diphtongis,” &c. Guarino also wrote commentaries or notes on various authors, both Greek and Latin, among the latter on Cicero’s orations and Persius’s satires, and was the author of various Latin orations delivered at Verona, Ferrara, and other places, and of some Latin poems, and a great number of letters which have not been printed. He was the first who recovered the poems of Catullus, a manuscript which was mouldering in a garret, and almost destroyed, and rendered the whole legible, with the exception of a very few verses. If it be thought that even all this is insufficient to justify the high reputation which Guarino enjoyed in his lifetime, and for ages afterwards, we must add that, independently of rendering these services to the cause of learning, which were of great importance at its revival, Guarino derived no small share of fame from the vast number of scholars whom he formed, with a like taste for classical literature, which they dispersed throughout all Europe. Guarino, likewise, was one of the most indefatigable student* of his time. Even in old age his memory was extraordinary, and his application incessant. He took little nourishment and little sleep, and rarely went abroad, yet he preserved his strength and faculties to the last. By his wife he had at least twelve children, two of whom followed his steps Jerome became secretary to Alphonso, king of Naples and Baptist, or Battista, rather better known, was professor of Greek and Latin at Ferrara, like his fathev, and like him educated some eminent scholars, among whom were Giraldi and Aldus Manutius. He left a collection of Latin poetry, “Baptists Guarini Veronensis poemata Latina,” Modena, 1496; a treatise on study, “De ordine docendi ac studendi,” without place or date; but there is a subsequent edition of Heidelberg, 1489. He wrote also other treatises, translations from the Greek, discourses, and letters, which latter remain in manuscript. It is to him we owe the first edition of the Commentaries of Servius on Virgil; and he assisted his father in recovering and making legible the manuscript of Catullus above mentioned.

, or more commonly Guarini (Battista), an eminent pastoral poet, descended in the fourth degree from Guarino Veronese, was born at Ferrara in 1537. We know but little of his early years and studies; but it is said that in the course of his education he spent some time at Pisa, and at Padua, where he was much esteemed by the rector of the university; but at an early age he went to Rome, and was still young when, on his return to Ferrara, he lectured for about a year with great reputation, on Aristotle’s Morals, in the same university in which the memory of his ancestors continued to be highly venerated. He was professor of belles lettres there in 1563, when he sent one of his sonnets to Annibal Caro, who in his answer complimented him as a young man of the greatest hopes. In his twenty-eighth year he was admitted into the academy of the Eterei of Padua, founded by the young prince Scipio of Gonzaga, afterwards cardinal. Tasso was at the same time admitted, and between him and Guarino a friendship commenced, which was afterwards disturbed by rivalship.

Having accepted this offer, he was employed, as formerly, on missions to Umbria, Milan, and other places, but now his tranquillity was disturbed by a domestic affair, in which he fancied he had been improperly treated;Alexander, his eldest son, who, in 1587, had married a rich heiress, niece to cardinal Canani, being weary of living under the subjection of his father, and disgusted, whether justly or not, with the treatment he met with from him, resolved to leave his house, and live apart with his wife. Guarino was so highly offended at their departure, that he immediately seized their income, on pretence of debts due to him for money expended at their marriage. His son, deprived of his income for nine months, at last applied to the duke of Ferrara to interpose his authority, which he did, commanding the chief judge to take cognizance of the affair, who immediately decided it in favour of Alexander. This sentence exasperated the father still more; so that, looking on it as a proof that the duke had no regard for him, he addressed a letter to him in the most respectful but strongest terms, to be dismissed the service; which the duke granted, though not without intimating some displeasure at Guarino, for shewing so little regard to the favours he had conferred on him. The treatment, however, which Tasso had suffered was a recent lesson for the poets who iiad the misfortune to be patronized by Alphonso, and Guarino immediately went into the service of the duke of Savoy, where he had some reason to expect a better lot; but here he did not remain many months; and during a year of repose in the country, he resumed his labours on his favourite pastoral, which at length was published in 1590, at Venice, 4to, and the same year at Ferrara, in 12mo. The great applause which he received from this poem, was followed by a most severe loss in the death of his wile, Dec. 25, 1590, at Padua. This misfortune appears to have greatly affected him. His two eldest sons had left him two of his daughters were married three others he had placed in convents and from being surrounded by a numerous family, he was now left with one boy only often years old. In this desolate state he appears to have entertained thoughts of going to Home and becoming an ecclesiastic. He was, however, diverted from this step by an invitation received in 1592 from the duke of Mantua, who sent him to Inspruck to negociate some affairs at the archduke’s court. But he afterwards was dismissed this service, as he had been that of Ferrara, by the solicitations of duke Alphonso; who, it is said, could not bear that a subject of his, of Guarino’s merit, should serve other princes. Thus persecuted, he went to Rome apparently with the design just mentioned, but was again prevented from executing it by a reconciliation with Alphonso, which brought him back to Ferrara in 1595. This reconciliation was obtained by his son Alexander, who was very much beloved at court. However, fresh quarrels between father and son soon broke out again, which were afterwards carried to a great height; and, great changes happening upon the death of Alphonso in 1597, Guarino thought himself ill used, and left Ferrara to go to Ferdinand de Medicis, grand duke of Tuscany, who expressed a great esteem for him.

, a French naval officer, born at St. Malo in 1673, was the son of a merchant who had been French consul at Malaga, and who commanded armed vessels, either for war or trade, as circumstances required. Young Du Guay, led by his example, went on board a privateer, and performed a number of heroic actions. In 1691, when he was only in his eighteenth year, he had the command of an armed sloop, carrying fourteen guns, with which he obtained much success on the coast of Ireland. Three years after he entered the river of Limerick, and carried off several vessels but falling in with four English ships, he was obliged to yield, and was taken a prisoner into Plymouth. In confinement he won the aifootions of a female, who enabled him to make his escape, and in a short time he appeared again on the coast of England, where he captured some prizes. In 1695 he took three rich vessels on the Irish coast, and two Dutch ships on th coast of Spain: these successes were followed by others still more important. In 1696 he fell in with baron de Wassenaer, who with three ships was escorting a fleet of merchant-men, and took the baron with a part of his convoy. He presented, in person, his prisoner to the king, and thereupon was removed to the royal navy, and appointed to the command of a frigate. In a few years afterwards he was made captain of a fifty-four gun ship, with which, it is said, he took an English man-of-war of seventytwo gnus. So brilliant was his career of success, that in 1709 he was rewarded with letters of noblesse, the preamble to which records his having captured more than 300 merchant ships, and 20 ships of war. The most important f all his exploits was the taking of Rio Janeiro in 1711, which occasioned a loss to the Portuguese of at least a million sterling. A pension was now forced on him, he having in 1707 refused one that was then offered, requesting that it might be granted to his second captain, whose thigh had been shot off. “I,” said the gallant officer, “am sufficiently rewarded, if I obtain the advancement of my friends. 7 ' In 1728 he was made commander of the order of St. Louis, and lieutenant-general, and in 1731 went at the head of a squadron to curb the insolence of Algiers and Tunis, and promote a good understanding between France and Tripoli. After many other important services, he died at Paris Sept. 27, 1736, leaving” Memoirs," partly written by his own hand, and partly by a nephew, which were printed in one vol. 4to. 1740.

, a French writer who attained some share of reputation among the encyclopedists, was born at Paris June 6, 1738, in which city he died Feb. 26, 1812. His countrymen have as yels given us very little of his history, except that he was, either by talents or interest, advanced to be a member of the academies of Marseilles and Lyons, an associate of the Frencij institute, and a member of that of Auxerre. He was intimately connected with Beaumarehais, whom he often assisted with his pen, and passed for his secretary. In political sentiments he was a disciple of Rousseau, and eagerly promoted those opinions which led to the revolution. Besides three tragedies of no great merit, he published, i. “Graves observations stir les bonnes moeurs,” in poetical tales, published under the name of Frere Prul, Paris> 1777. 2. “Discours,” likewise in verse, o h abolition of slavery, Paris, 1781, in which he compli acnti Henry IV. as

, whose proper name was John Francis Barbieri, an eminent artist, was born at Cento, a village subject to Ferrara, in 1590, and learnt the principles of the art from his countrymen Cremonirii and Benedetto Gennari. Tradition classes him with the disciples of the Carracci but neither his age, his habits, nor his style, make it probable that he ever belonged to that school for of three manners which he successively adopted, it is difficult to say which differs most from its precepts. The first, and least known, is an imitation of Caravagio, abrupt with vivid lights, and deep shades, without much study in faces or extremities; flesh of a yellow cast, and little amenity of colour. From this he passed to the second, his best and most valued manner, gradually improving it by observation, and the help of the Venetian, Bolognese, and Roman schools, by connexion with the best scholars of the Carracci, and the friendship of Caravagio, whose style still forms its basis in bold contrasts of light and shade, but sweetly united, and magically relieved; like Caravagio, he obliterates the outline, but leaves him far behind in elegance and dignity of feature. His females, insidiously charming, dart a sting from their veiled eyes, though his men generally exhibit little more than what the model could afford; youthful vulgarity, emaciated age.

The few specimens left of Guercino’s first manner, are at Bologna and Cento; of the second, are, in general, all he painted at Rome in fresco or in oil, the Aurora in the Villa Ludovisi, the St. Petronilla now in the Louvre, and the Dido in the Spada collection, and of that style is the cupola of the dome in Piacenza; of the third manner, though it bears many traces of the second, the picture of the Circumcision, once at Bologna, now in the Louvre, is the most celebrated. Guercino was invited to Rome by Gregory XV. and after two years spent there with much success, returned home whence he could not be drawn by the most powerful allurements from either the kings of England or France. Nor could Christina, queen of Sweden, prevail with him to leave Bologna, though in her p-ssage through it she made him a visit, and would not be satisfied till she had taken him by the hand; “that hand,” said she, “which had painted 106 altar-pieces, 144 pictures for people of the first quality in Europe, and had, besides, composed ten books of designs.” He received the honour of knighthood from the duke of Mantua. He died a bachelor in 1666, very rich, notwithstanding vast sums of money, which he had expended in building chapels, founding hospitals, and other acts of charity: for, it is reported, that he was every where as much venerated for his exemplary piety and charity, as for his knowledge and skill in his profession.

, a Spanish writer, was born in the province of Alaba, towards the end of the fifteenth century, and was brought up at court. After the death of Isabella, queen of Castile, he turned Franciscan monk, but afterwards having made himself known at court, became preacher and historiographer to Charles V. He was much admired for his politeness, eloquence, and great parts, but his preaching and conversation proved very superior to his writing. His style was found to be extravagantly figurative, and full of antitheses, but this was trifling, compared with his notions of writing history, and the liberty he took to, falsify whatever he pleased, and to advance as matter of fact the inventions of his own brain, and when censured for it, alleged by way of excuse, that no history, excepting the Holy Scripture, is certain enough to be credited. Being in the emperor’s retinue he had an opportunity of visiting a great part of Europe, an4 was made bishop of Guadix, in the kingdom of Granada, and then bishop of Mondonedo, in Galicia. He died in 1544, or 1548. He was the author of several works in Spanish, the most famous of which is his “Dial of Princes, or Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,” which has been translated into all the languages of Europe. Vossius says it “has nothing in it of Antoninus, but is all a fiction, and the genuine offspring of Guevara himself, who scandalously imposes upon the reader, plainly against the duty of an honest man, but especially of a bishop. In the mean time he has many things not unuseful nor unpleasant, especially to a prince, whence it is entitled The Dial of Princes’.” Those who may be supposed to have spoken of Guevara in the most indulgent manner, have yet been forced to set him in a most scandalous light. “It deserves our pity rather than our censure,” says Nicolas Antonio, “that a writer of such fame should think himself at liberty to forge ancient facts, and to play with the history of the world, as with Æsop’s Fables or Lucian’s Monstrous Stories.” Among Guevara’s works must be ranked his “Epistles,” with which some have been so charmed, that they have not scrupled to call them Golden Epistles; but Montaigne says, “Whoever gave them this title, had a very different opinion of them from what I have, and perhaps saw more in them than I do.” Bayle had such a contempt for Guevara as an author, as to speak with surprize of “the eagerness of foreigners in translating some of his works into several languages.” Mr. Hay ley, however, remarks, that if we may judge of his personal character from his “Letters,” he appears to have been an amiable man. In one he reproves a female relation, with good nature, for intemperate sorrow on the death of a little dog and in another he draws the character of a true friend, with great energy of sentiment and expression. One of Guevara’s sayings, that heaven is filled with those that have done good works, and hell with those that have resolved to do them," has been, under a different form of expression, ascribed to other writers.

He continued thus employed in the proper business of his profession till 1511; but that year the cKsis of the public affairs gave occasion to call forth his abilities for more important matters. The Florentines were thrown into great difficulties by the league, which the French and Spaniards had entered into against the pope. Perplexed about their choice to remain neuter or engage in the league* they had recourse to our advocate, whom they sent ambassador to Ferdinand, king of Spain, to treat of this matter; and at the same time charged him with other affairs of the highest importance to the state. With this character he left Florence in 1512, and arriving safely afc Bruges, where his Spanish majesty then resided, remained two years at that court. Here he had an opportunity of exerting and improving his talents as a statesman. Many events happened in that time, the consequences whereof came within his province to negociate; such as the taking and plundering Ravenna and Prato by the Spaniards, the deposing of Piero Soderini, and the restoration of the family of Medici. In these and several other occurrences, which happened at that time, he adopted such measures, and with such address, that the republic found no occasion to employ any other minister; and the king testified his satisfaction by a great quantity of fine-wrought plate, which he presented to him at his departure. On his arrival at Florence in 1514, he was received with, uncommon marks of honour; and, in 15 15, constituted advocate of the consistory by Leo X. at Cortona. The pope’s favours did not stop here. Guicciardini’s extraordinary abilities, with a hearty devotion to the interest of the church, were qualifications of necessary use in the ecclesiastical state. Leo, therefore, that he might reap the full advantage of them, sent for him not long after to Rome, resolving to employ him where his talents might be of most service. In 1518, when Modena and Reggio were in great danger of being lost, he was appointed to the government of those cities, and proved himself equal to the charge.

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

Guicciardini has, however, some defects. He is accused of being tedious and particular, and that he now and then indulges reflections, and retards the events which, in history, should be ever hastening towards the catastrophe. Yet although fastidious or indolent readers may complain, of this, there is throughout the whole work, especially in the first five books, "preparation of incidents, that, instead of being prolix, the reader can scarce lay down the book without an ardent desire or' knowing what follows next; and the worst that can be said of his speeches is, that they are fine political harangues, improperly placed. Another objection, however, has been thought to have more weight, if indeed it be not as sir William Jones fears a correct picture of society at that time, namely, that he represents all the actions of his personages as arising from bad motives, and the persons who figure most in his drama are almost all knaves or fools, politic betrayers, or blustering ideots. Upon the whole, however, Guicciardini must be allowed the first of the historians of Italy, a country which has produced Machiavelli and Davila, Nani and Muratori.

Of this history there have been various editions, and it has been translated into various languages, particularly into English, by the chevalier Austin Parke Goddard, 1O vols. 8vo, 1754, &c. The original xvas first published by Guicciardini’s nephew Agnolo, at Florence in 15^1, folio. But this edition comprehends only the first sixteen books, as we have remarked, and is besides defective by the omission of several passages of importance. The four additional books were published by Seth Vioiti at Parma in 1564, and the passages omitted have been published separately in the work entitled “Thuanus resthufcus, sive sylloge, e. cum Francisci Guicciardini paralipomenis,” Amst. 1663. It was afterwards often re-printed complete, but in 1775, appeared an edition at Friburg, in 4 vols. 4to, professedly printed from the manuscript, reviewed and corrected by the author, which is, or was, in the library of Magliabecchi at Florence. This, of course, seems entitled to the preference.

Though nature had been very kind to his inner-man, yet she had not been so to his outer; for he was deformed both before and behind; his head, which was unreasonably large, did not bear a just proportion to his body, which was small; and he was blind of his right eye. In recompense, however, for these bodily defects, he possessed very largely the faculties of the mind. He was not learned, but he had a great deal of wit and judgment. His taste lay for heroic poetry, and he had an aversion to any thing free or satirical. His taste is original, though we may sometimes perceive that Dante, Petrarch, and Chiabrara, were his models.

Though the writers of his life tell us of some prose piece before it, yet the first production we know of is “Poesie Liriche,” Parma, 1681; which, with “L'Amalasunta,” an opera, printed there the same year, he afterwards made no account of, they being written during the depravity of his taste. In 1687 he published at Rome, “Accademia per musica;” written by order of Christina of Sweden, for an entertainment, which that princess gave to the earl of Castlemain, whom James II. of England sent ambassador to Innocent XI. to notify his accession to the throne, and to implore his holiness’ s assistance in reconciling his three kingdoms to Popery. “L'Endimione di Erilo Cleoneo, pastor Arcade, con un discorso di Bione Crateo al card male Albano. In Roma, 1692.” The queen of Sweden formed the plan of this species of pastoral, and furnished the author with some sentiments, as well as with some lines, which are marked with commas to distinguish them from the rest. The discourse annexed, to point out the beauties of the piece, was written by John Vincent Gravina. “LeRime,” Roma, 1704. In this he declares, that he rejects all his works, which had appeared before these poems, except his “L'Endimione.” “Sei Omelie di M. S. Clemente XI. Spiegate in versi,” Roma, 1712, folio, a very magnificent work, and adorned with cuts, but not properly either a version or a paraphrase, the author having only taken occasion, from some passages in these homilies, to compose verses according to his own genius and taste.

Many of Guido’s latter performances are not to be placed in competitionwith those which he painted before he unhappily fell into distressed circumstances, by an insatiable appetite to gaming, when his necessities compelled him to work for immediate subsistence, and he contracted a habit of painting in a more slight and negligent manner, without any attention to his honour or his fame. In the church of St. Philip Neri, at Fano, there is a grand altar-piece by Guido, representing Christ delivering the keys to St. Peter. The head of our Saviour is exceedingly fine, that of St. John admirable and the other apostles are in a grand style, full of elegance, with a strong expression and it is well preserved. In the archiepiscopal gallery at Milan, is a St. John, wonderfully tender in the colouring, and the graces diffused through the design excite the admiration of every beholder. At Bologna, in the Palazzo Tanaro, is a most beautiful picture of the Virgin, the infant Jesus, and St. John; Jn which the heads are exquisitely graceful, and the draperies in a grand style. But in the Palazzo Zampieri is preserved one of the most capital paintings of Guido: the subject is, the Penitence of St. Peter after denying Christ, with one of the apostles seeming to comfort him. The figures are as large as life, and the whole is of an astonishing beauty; the painter having shewn, in that single performance, the art of painting carried to its highest perfection. The heads are nobly designed, the colouring clear and precious, and the expression inimitably just and natural.

Great were the honours this painter received from Paul V. from all the cardinals and princes of Italy, from Lewis XIII. of France, Philip IV. of Spain, and from the king of Poland and Sweden, who, besides a noble reward, made him a compliment, in a letter under his own hand, for an Europa he had sent him. He was extremely handsome arul graceful in his person; and so very beautiful in his younger days, that his master Luclovico, in painting his angels, took him always for his model. Nor was he an angel only in his looks, if we may jDelieve what Gioseppino told the pope, when he asked his opinion of Guido’s performances in the Capella Quirinale, “Our pictures,” said he, “are the works of men’s hands, but these are made by hands divine.” In his behaviour he was modest, gentle, and very obliging; lived in great splendour both at Bologna and Rome; and was only unhappy in his immoderate love of gaming. To this in his latter days he abandoned himself so entirely, that all the money he could get by his pencil, or borrow upon interest, was too little to supply his losses: and he was at last reduced to so poor and mean a condition, that the consideration of his present circumstances, together with reflections on his former reputation and high manner of living, brought a languishing distemper on him, of which he died in 1642.

, an eminent Scotch divine, the son of an opulent tradesman in Aberdeen, was born in that city in 1586, and received *a liberal education at Marischal college, then recently founded, with a view to the church. Before he took orders, however, he appeared as an autii:>r, by publishing, when only in his twentieth year, a treatise entitled “The New Sacrifice of Christian Incense,” London, 1608 and the same year, “The only way to Salvation,” printed also at London. Immediately after the publication of these, he appears to have taken orders, and was called to the pastoral charge of the parish of King EJward in the presbytery of Turriff and synod of Aberdeen. Here he passed some of the happiest years of his life, in high favour with Jiis parishioners and here in 1610 he married Katherine Rowen, daughter of Mr. Rowen or Rolland of Disblair, by whom he had no issue. In 1617, when king James I. visited Scotland, with a view to establish episcopacy, and brought bishop Andrews of Ely with him to assist in the management of that very delicate and ultimately unsuccessful attempt, Dr. Andrews, among other eminent men of the Scotch clergy whom he consulted, paid great regard to Mr. Guild; and the following year, when Andrews was promoted to the see of Winchester, Mr. Guild dedicated to him, one of his most useful works, entitled “Moses unveiled,” pointing out those fgures in the Old Testament which allude to the Messiah. Mr. Guild became, much about the same time, acquainted with Dr. Young, a countryman of his own, dean of Winchester, who introduced him to the king, by whom he was appointed one of the royal chaplains. This obligation he afterwards acknowledged in the dedication to his “Harmony of the Prophets,” a work which he published in the beginning of the reign of Charles I. It was afterwards printed with his “Moses unveiled,” in an edition now before us, dated Edinburgh, 1684.

When the commotions took place in consequence of king Charles’s endeavours to establish episcopacy in Scotland, the Perth articles, as they were called, were opposed by the Scotch covenant, which was subscribed by the majority of the clergy and people of Scotland, but not being so rigorously enforced as to prohibit all exercise of private judgment, Dr. Guild was permitted to subscribe it under such limitations as he was pleased to specify, which implied a loyal adherence to the king, but no condemnation of the articles of Perth, or of episcopal government. He was afterwards one of the commissioners in the general assembly of Scotland which met in 1638, and abolished the hierarchy of the church; and after his return from Glasgow, where this assembly met, officiated as formerly at Aberdeen in the pastoral function, and, with a view to beal the animosities then prevailing between the episcopal and presbyterian party, published “A friendly and faithful advice to the nobility, gentry, and others,” recommending that moderation which was then impossible, while the two great bodies who divided the sentiments of the two kingdoms, persisted in mutual encroachments. Yet notwithstanding an obvious leaning to the loyal side in Dr. Guild’s conduct, he was, on a vacancy, elected principal of King’s college, Aberdeen, in 1640, and preached his last sermon, as minister of Aberdeen, in June 1641. This was followed by a special mark of favour from his majesty, who bestowed upon Dr. Guild “a free gift of a house and garden, which had formerly been the residence of the bishop of Aberdeen.” He did'not, however, allow this to increase his private fortune, but wiih his usual liberality, devoted it to the service of the public, in benefactions to the college, the town, and the poor of the adjoining parish.

His attachment to the royal cause, however, soon involved him in the sentence passed on all who held such sentiments, and in 1651 he was deposed by five commissioners of general Monk’s army. From this time he appears to have resided in a private station at Aberdeen, improving his charitable foundation, and adding to it exhibitions for three scholars of Marischal college. He also during this retirement wrote “An Explication of the Song of Solomon,” London, 1658, 8vo “The Sealed Book opened,” or an explanation of the Revelation of St. John and “The Novelty of Popery discovered,” Aberdeen, 1656, 16mo.

The life of Dr. Guild, suitably to its benevolent progress, terminated with acts of charity. By his last will, written in 1657, he bequeathed seven thousand marks to be secured on land, and the yearly profit applied to the maintenance of poor orphans. His library he left to the unU versity of St. Andrew’s, except one valuable manuscript, supposed to be the original of the memorable letter from the states of Bohemia and Moravia, to the council of Constance, 1415, relative to John Huss and Jerome of Prague. This Dr. Guild bequeathed to the university of Edinburgh, He died in August 1657. His widow so far followed his benevolent example, that by her munificence are still maintained, six students of philosophy, four scholars at the public school, two students of divinity, six poor widows, and six poor men’s children. Before her death she sent up to Dr. John Owen a manuscript of her husband’s, who had intended to have published it with a dedication to that celebrated nonconformist, although not personally known to him. Dr. Owen accordingly published it, under the title ft The Throne of David, or an exposition of the Second (Book) of Samuel," Oxford, 1659, 4to; with a recommendatory preface, which shews how little there was of difference in religious opinion between Dr. Guild and the party that thought him unworthy to continue his ministerial labours.

, a Prussian botanist, whose proper name was Wieland, was born at Koenigsberg, and after several extensive journeys into Palestine, Egypt, Africa, and Greece, was carried prisoner into Barbary; but being redeemed by the celebrated Fallopius, afterwards succeeded him in the botanical chair at Padua, and died in 1587 or 1589. Haller characterizes him as a learned but desultory writer, an acrimonious critic, even of the excellent Conrad Gesner, but especially of Matthiolus, whom he violently hated. He had little or no merit as a practical botanist, nor did he scarcely attempt to describe or define any plants. He published a learned essay on the “Papyrus,” in quarto, at Venice, in 1572, and various controversial epistles. His “Synonyma Piantarum,” one of the earliest works of its kind, appeared long after his death, in 1608, at Franc fort, in octavo.

, called Quintus Icilius, an able writer on military tactics, was born at Magdeburg, and studied at the universities of Halle, Marpurg, and Leyden, where he applied to the classics, theology, and the oriental languages. He first carried arm* in the service of the United Provinces, and while thus einployed found leisure to prepare materials for his “Memoirs Militaires sur les Grecs et les Remains,” which induced him to obtain permission to visit England, where he re^­mained a year. The work was at length published, in two volumes quarto, 1757, received with much approbation, and went through five editions in France and Holland. In the same year he entered as a volunteer in the allied army, acquired the esteem of Ferdinand of Brunswick, and was recommended to the notice of Frederic II. of Prussia, who kept him near his person, often conversed with him on the art of war, and on account of his great knowledge on this subject, gave him the name of Quintus Icilius, the com* mander of Caesar’s tenth legion, when he appointed him to the command of a regiment formed out of the refuse of all nations, during the heat of the war. At the general peace he was one of the few persons whom his majesty admitted into his convivial parties at Potsdam, and to whom he gave the freest access to his library and coins, which latter Guise-hard increased so much, that he valued both at the sum of a hundred thousand dollars. The king, however, in his latter days, treated him with much disrespect, and took every opportunity to mortify him in the presence of others. Giiiscliard died May 13, 1775. Frederic purchased his library of his heirs for the sum of 12,000 dollars. Besides the work already mentioned, he was author of a very useful work to military or classical students, entitled “Memoires Critiques et Historiques sur plusieurs Points d'Antiquites Militaires,” in 4 vols. Hvo. Gibbon, who read his “Military Memoirs” with great attention, bestows high encomiums on him, and considers him as very superior to Folard, whom however Guischard affected too much to undervalue.

, an English divine, was born at Ablond’s or Abbey-load’s court, near Gloucester, in 1653, and entered in 1669 a commoner of Oriel-college, Oxford, which he changed for All souls, where he was chosen fellow a little before he took his first degree in arts, April 4, 1674. He commenced M. A. in 1677, and entered into orders; but marrying in 1680, he resigned his fellowship. However, he still continued at Oxford, and took a house in St. Michael’s parish, resolving not to leave the university, on account of his studies, which he prosecuted with indefatigable industry, and soon became a great master of the oriental learning and languages. He translated into English, and illustrated with a commentary, Dr. Bernard’s work entitled “Misnae pars ordinis prim”! Zeraim Tituli septem,“1690, 4to, and a tract” De Victimis humanis,“8vo, and was preparing an edition of Abulfeda’s Geography, when he was seized with the small-pox, which carried him off' Sept. 3, 1684, aged only thirty-one. Thomas Smith gives him the title of” Vir longe eruditissimus,“and observes, that his death was a prodigious loss to the republic of letters; and the editors of the” Acta Eruditorum“style him a” person of great learning, and the immortal ornament of the university of Oxford." He was buried at St. Michael’s church in that city, where a monument was erected to his memory by his widow, with a Latin inscription. He left issue a son John, who, being bred to the army, raised himself to the highest posts there, and was well known in the military world, by the title of General Guise. He died in 1765, and bequeathed his large collection of paintings to Christ-church Oxford, where he was educated, and where they are now placed in the lower library.

, an Italian poet of the thirteenth century, was usually called Fra Guittone, as belonging to a religious and military order, now extinct, called the cavalieri gaudenti, established in 1208, during the barbarous crusade carried on against the Albigenses. This abominable massacre, however, was over before Guittone became a member. Little else is known of his history, except that he founded the monastery of St. Mary at Florence, and died in the same year, 1293. The Florence “Collection of the ancient Italian poets,” 1527, contain his poetical works, amounting to about thirty sonnets and canzoni, partly on subjects of love, and partly of devotion, or of both mixed. In most of these is a harmony, taste, and turn of sentiment, more polished than is to be found among his predecessors, and which Petrarch has evidently studied, and sometimes imitated. His letters, published by Bottari, “Lettere de fra Guittone d'Arezzo con note,” Rome, 1745, are curious, not perhaps for intrinsic merit, but as the first specimens of Italian letter-writing.

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

But these and other acts of munificence were not sufficient to protect his memory from being severely attacked. The part he took in the Savoy conference, and afterwards against the nonconformists, has been censured as unbecoming and intemperate. Bishop Burnet says, that at the conference all the arts of sophistry were used by him in as confident a manner as if they had been sound reasoning; that he was unweariedly active to very little purpose, and being very fond of the popish rituals and ceremonies, he was much set upon reconciling the church of England to Rome. Mr. Masters states the disputed points in his character to be whether his head was as good as his heart whether he was equally clear in his ideas and discernment, as lively in his imagination and expressions whether his judgment was as solid as his parts were quick whether there was more of scholastic learning, sophistry, or the art of logic, than of real truth and strength in his reasonings and disputations; whether his zeal or his knowledge were predominant, both in the forming and maintaining his opinions and schemes about civil and ecclesiastical polity; and whether he had more regard in his plan of Christian faith, doctrine, and discipline, to the traditions and authorities of the fathers, than to plain scriptural proofs and principles: and upon those points his biographers are divided.

His works were, “A contention for truth, in two publick disputations upon infant baptism, between him and Mr. Henry Denne, in the church of St. Clement-Danes, 26 Nov. 1657,” Lond. 16.58, 4to. “Schism unmasked; or a late conference between him and Mr. John Pierson, minister, on the one part, and two disputants of the Romish persuasion on the other, in May 1657.” This was published in 8vo, the year following, with a large preface, by a catholick at Paris. “A view and correction of the Common Prayer,” 1662. “The Paschal or Lent Fast, Apostolical and perpetual,” Lond. 1662, 4to. Besides these, it ought never to be omitted that he wrote that excellent prayer in our Liturgy, called “The general supplication.”

He had invented a small portable quadrant, for the more easy finding of the hour and azimuth, and other solar conclusions of more frequent use, in 1618; and in 1620, he published his Latin “Canon Triangulorum, or Table of artificial Sines and Tangents to the Radius 10,000,000 parts, to each Minute of the Quadrant.” This was a great improvement to astronomy, by facilitating the practical part of that science in the resolution of spherical triangles without the use of secants or versed sines, the same thing being done here (by addition and subtraction only) for performing which the former tables of right sines and tangents required multiplication and division. This admirable help to the studious in astronomy was gratefully commemorated, and highly commended, by several of the most eminent mathematicians who were his contemporaries, and who at the same time did justice to his claim to the improvement, beyond all contradiction.

The use of astronomy in navigation unavoidably draws the astronomer’s thoughts upon that important subject; and accordingly we find Gunter discovering a new variation in the magnetic needle, or the mariner’s compass, in 1 Gilbert, in the beginning of that century, had incontestibly established the first discovery of the simple variation; after which the whole attention of the studious in these matters was employed in settling the rule observed by nature therein, without the least apprehension or suspicion of any other; when our author, making an experiment at Deptford in the above year, found that the direction of the magnetism there had moved no less than five degrees within two minutes, in the space of forty-two years. The fact, however, was so surprising, and so contrary to the opinion then universally received of a simple variation only, which had satisfied and bounded all their curiosity, that our author dropt the matter apparently, expecting, through modesty, an error in his observation to have escaped his notice in his experiment. But afterwards, what he had done induced his successor at Gresham, Mr. Gellibrand, to pursue it; and, the truth of Gunter’s experiment being confirmed by a second, farther inquiry was made, which ended in establishing the fact. We have since seen Halley immortalize his name, by settling the rule of it in the beginning of the last century.

The truth is, Gu-nter’s inclination was turned wholly the same way with his genius; and it cannot be denied that he reached the temple of fame by treading in that road. To excite a spirit of industry in prosecuting mathematical knowledge, by lessening the difficulties to the learner; to throw new light into some things, which before appeared so dark and abstruse as to discourage people of ordinary capacities from attempting them; and by that means to render things of wonderful utility in the ordinary employment of life so easy and practicable as to be managed by the common sort; is the peculiar praise of our author, who effected this by that admirable contrivance of his famous rule of proportion, now called the line of numbers, and the other lines laid down by it, and fitted in his scale, which, after the inventor, is called “Gunter’s scale;” the description and use of which he published in 1624, 4to, together with that of his sector and quadrant already mentioned. His fame having reached the ears of his sovereign, prince Charles gave directions, that he should draw the lines upon the dials in Whitehall garden, which were destroyed in Charles Il.'s time, and give a description and use of them; and king James ordered him to print the book the same year, 1624. There was, it seems, a square sj;one there before of the same si?e and form, having five dials upon the upper part, one upon each of the four corners, and one in the middle, which was the principal dial, being a large horizontal concave; besides these, there were others on the sides, east, west, north, and south; but the lines on our author’s dial, except those which shewed the hour of the day, were greatly different. And Dr. Wallis tells us, that one of these was a meridian, in fixing of which great care was taken, a large magnetic needle being placed upon it, shewing its variation irom that meridian from time to time. If the needle was placed there with that intention by our author, it is a proof that his experiment at Deptford had made so much impression upon him, that he thought it worth while to pursue the discovery of the change in the variation, of which the world would doubtless have reaped the fruits, had his life been continued long enough for it. Unfortunately, however, for science, he died December 10, 1G26, about his forty-fifth year, and in the prim of life, at Gresham college, and was buried in St. Peter the Poor, Broad-street, without any monument or inscription; hut his memory will always be preserved in the mathematical world as an inventor, and the parent of instrumental arithmetic. The 5th edition of his works was published by Mr. Leybourn in 1674, 4to.

, a learned protestant divine, was born at Basil, Dec. 8, 1654, where his father was a merchant. Until the fourteenth year of his age, he was instructed by private tutors, and profited so much as to be then fit for the university of Basil, where, after studying languages, philosophy, mathematics, and history, for three or four years, he was on July 2, 1672, admitted to the degrees of master of arts and doctor in philosophy. He tnen studied divinity, and had for one of his masters Peter Werenfels, father of the celebrated Samuel VVerenfels. In about two years, he was appointed to lecture on theology during the vacations, and acquitted himself with great credit. In March 1676, he was admitted a preacher, and the following year passed six months at Geneva, whence he went into France, and visited the university of Saumur, where he heard the lectures of Henry Philiponeau de Hautecour, who was afterwards his colleague in the university of Franeker. His reputation having by this time extended to Germany, he was invited to Heilborn to be professor of philosophy and rhetoric, and rector of the classes, of which office he took possession in 1685, with a public harangue, “de fato philosophico in ecclesia Christiana.” As divinity was still his favourite study, he continued improving his knowledge of it; and having visited Heidelberg during the third jubilee of that university, he received his degree of D. D. with every mark of distinction, even from the learned catholics who heard him maintain a thesis on this occasion, the subject of which was “Christ’s kingly office.” After he had remained about two years at Heilborn, he was requested to accept the theological chair at Hanau, with which he complied. In 1696 he was again removed to Bremen as professor in ordinary of divinity, moderator of the schools, and perpetual rector magrdficus. To this place he drew a great concourse of students; but the fatigues attending his occupations here made him willing to accept the less laborious professorship of divinity at Deventer in 1699. In 1705 the curators of the university of Franeker offered him their theological chair, which he at first refused, but accepted it, on a second and more pressing invitation, in 1707. His constitution was now, however, so much worn down by repeated attacks of the gout, that he did not enjoy this office above four years, dying Sept. 28, 1711. Gurtler was a man of genuine piety, modesty, and candour, and of extensive knowledge in every branch of science, but especially in those connected with his profession. His works, which have generally received the approbation of catholics as well as protestants, are, 1. A Latin, German, Greek, and French Dictionary, published in 1682. 2. “Historia Templariorum observationibus ecclesiasticis aucta,” Amst. 1691, 8vo, and 1702, with additions. 3. “Institutiones Theologies,” ibid. 1794, 4to. 4. “Voces Typico-propheticiT,” Bremen, 1698, 4to, and Utrecht, 1715, considerably enlarged. 5. “Dialogi Eucharistici,” Bremen, 1699, 4to. 6. “SystemaTheologise propbeticse,” Amst. 1702, 4to, considered as one of the best works of the kind. 7. “Origines mundi, et in eo regnorum,” &c. Amst. 1708, 4to. 8. “Dissertationes de Jesu Christo in gloriam evecto,” Franeker, 1711. 9. “Forma sanorum verborum,” a short abridgment of divinity, which he used as a text-book, 1709, 12mo. Gurtler wrote also a “History of the Churches of France,” in German.

, or more properly Gustavus Ericson, king of Sweden, was the son of Eric Vasa, and descended from the ancient kings of Sweden. He was born in 1490. His great passion was the love of glory, and this difficulties and dangers increased rather than diminished. He lived at a time when the greatest part of the wealth of Sweden was in the hands of the clergy, when every nobleman was, in his own territories, a sovereign, and, lastly, when Steeno was administrator of the realm. In the war which was originally prosecuted betwixt the Swedes and Christian king of Denmark, this last, having got Gustavus into his power, kept him a prisoner many years in Denmark. He at length made his escape, and through innumerable dangers got back to his native country, where, for a long period, he used every effort to rouse his countrymen to resist and repel their invaders and victorious enemies. In this, however, he was not successful; and Christian of Denmark having got possession of Stockholm and Coltnar, exercised the cruelest tyranny on all ranks, and in one day put to death ninety-four nobles, among whom was the father of Gustavus. Gustavus at length prevailed on the Dalecarlians to throw off the yoke; and, at the 4 head of a considerable body of forces, entered the provinces of Halsingia, Gestricia, and some others. After a series of desperate adventures, temporary successes, and frequent defeats; he recovered Upsal; for which disappointment Christian put to death the mother and sister of Gustavus in cruel torments. Having overcome East Gothland, and blockaded Stockholm, he convened the Staters-General, and was by them offered the title of King. This he refused, and was satisfied with the regal power, and title of administrator. A short time afterwards, a revolution took place in Denmark; Christian was driven from his dominions; and Frederic duke of Holstein, uncle of Christian, was made his successor. There was now nothing to oppose Gustavus; he therefore summoned the States to meet at Stregnez, filled up the vacancies of the senate, and was proclaimed king with the usual forms of election. He also prevailed on the States to render the crown hereditary to the male heirs; and, to make the life of Gustavus yet more remarkable in history, it was in his reign that Lutheranism was established as the natural religion of Sweden. The latter part of his life was spent in cultivating the arts of peace, and in decorating his metropolis with noble edifices. He died at Stockholm, of a gradual decay, on the 9th of September, 1560, in the seventieth year of his age, and was quietly succeeded in his throne by his eldest sou Eric.

, called also Gænsfleisch de Sulgeloch, the reputed inventor of the art of printing, was born at Mentz, of noble and wealthy parents, about 1400. In 1427 he came to reside at Strasburgh a merchant, but appears to have returned to Mentz in 1430, and to have been a man of property in 1434. Between this and the year 1439 he had conceived and perhaps made some trials of the art of printing with metal types. In the archives of the city of Mentz, Schoepflin discovered a document of a process carried on by Guttenberg against one George Dritzehen, from which we learn that the former had promised to make the latter acquainted with a secret art that he had recently discovered. In the same document mention is made of four forms kept together by two screws, or press-spindles, and of letters and pages being cut up and destroyed, to prevent any person from discovering the art. The ablest writers have, however, differed upon the subject of the materials with which Guttenberg at first printed. Schoepflin supposed them to have been metal; Fournier, Meerman, and Fischer, were of opinion that they were composed of wood. In the years 1441-2 Guttenberg lived at Strasburg, as a wealthy man, and continued in the same place till 1446, when he returned again to Mentz, and seems to have opened his mind fully tc Fust, a goldsmith of the same place (See Fust), and prevailed on him to advance large sums of money in order to make more complete trials of the art. Between 1450 and 1455, the celebrated Bible of 637 leaves, the first important specimen of printing with metal types, was executed between Guttenberg and Fust. Exclusively of the Bible, Guttenberg is supposed to have printed some other works, but there is no book whatever extant with his name subscribed. He died about the latter end of 1467. More ample information and discussion on the invention of this noble art, and the claims of Guttenberg, may be found in Oberlin’s “Essai sur les annales de la vie de Jean Gutenberg,” 1801; Fischer’s “Essai sur les monumens Typographiques de Gutenberg,” 1802, 4to Danou’s “Analyse des opinions diverses sur l'origine de Plmprimerie,” 1803, Svojand the better known works of Schoepflin, Meerman, Fournier, Heinecken, and Lambinet.

, an eminent critic, was born of a good family at Angers, in 1575. He lost his father and mother when a child; and the small estate they left him was wasted by the imprudence of his guardians. He applied himself, however, intensely to books; and, with a view to improve himself by the conversation of learned men, he took a journey to Paris in 1599. The acquaintance he formed with the sons of Claudius du Puy proved very advantageous to him; for, the most learned persons in Paris frequently visited these brothers, and many of them met every day in the house of Thuanus, where Mess, du Puy received company. After the death of that president, they held those conferences in the same place; and Guyet constantly made one. He went to Rome in 1608, and applied himself to the Italian tongue with such success as to be able to write Italian verses. He was much esteemed by cardinal du Perron and several great personages. He returned to Paris by the way of Germany, and was taken into the house of the duke d'Epernon, to teach the abbot de Granselve, who was made cardinal de la V alette in 1621. His noble pupil, who conceived so great an esteem for him as always to entrust him with his most important affairs, took him to Rome, and procured him a good benefice; but Guyet, after his return to Paris, chose to live a private life rather than in the house of the cardinal, and resided in Burgundy college. Here he spent the remainder of his life, employed in his studies; and wrote a dissertation, in which he pretended to shew that the Latin tongue was derived from the Greek, and that all the primitive words of the latter consisted only of one syllable; but of this they found, after his death, only a vast compilation of Greek and Latin words, without any order or coherence, and without any preface to explain his project. But the reading of the ancient authors was his favourite employment, and the margins of his classics were full of notes, many of which have been published. Those upon Hesiod were imparted to Graevius, who inserted them in his edition of that author, 1667. The most complete collection found among his papers was his notes upon Terence; and therefore they were sent to Boeclerus, and afterwards printed. He took great liberties as a critic: for he rejected as supposititious all such verses as seemed to him not to savour of the author’s genius. Thus he struck out many verses of Virgil discarded the first ode in Horace and would not admit the secret history of Procopius. Notwithstanding the boldness of his criticisms, and his free manner of speaking in conversation, he was afraid of the public; and dreaded Salmasius in particular, who threatened to write a book against him if he published hjs thoughts about some passages in ancient authors. He was generally accounted a man of great learning, and is said to have been a sincere and honest man. He was cut for the stone in 1636; excepting which, his long life was hardly attended with any illness. He died of a catarrh, after three days illness, in the arms of James du Puy, and Menage his countryman, April 12, 1655, aged eighty. His life is written in Latin, with great judgment and politeness, by Mr. Portner, a senator of Ratisbon, who took the supposititious name of Antonius Periander Rhaetus; and is prefixed to his notes upon Terence, printed with those of Boeclerus, at Strasburg, in 1657, an edition in no great estimation.

Not long after her deliverance, she was introduced to Fenelon, afterwards archbishop of Cambray, who became her disciple. She had besides acquaintance with the dukes de Chevreuse and Beauvilliers, and several other distinguished persons, who, however, could not protect her from the ecclesiastics, who made violent outcries on the danger of the church from her sect. In this exigence, she was persuaded to put her writings into the hands of the celebrated Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and submit them to his judgment; who, after reading all her papers, both printed and Mss. including a life she had written of herself, had a conference with her, and was well satisfied with her principles; but her enemies among the churchmen bt-ing not equally satisfied, an order passed for the re-examination of her two books already mentioned. Bossuet was at the head of this examination, to whom the bishop of Chalons, afterwards cardinal de Noailles, was joined, at the request of madame Guyon; and to these two were added, M.Tronson, superior of the society of St. Sulpice, and Fenelon. During the examination, madame Guyon retired to a convent at Meaux, by the desire of Bossuet, who at the end of six months drew up thirty articles, sufficient as he thought to set the sound maxims of a spiritual and mystic life in a proper light, to which four more were added by way of qualification by M. Fenelon, and the whole were signed at Issy near Paris, by all the examiners, March 10, 1695. Madame Guyon having signed them by the advice of Bossuet, he prevailed with her likewise to subscribe a submission, in which, among other things, she said, “I declare nevertheless, without any prejudice to the present submission, that I never had any design to advance any thinw that is contrary to the mind of the catholic apostolic Iloman church, to which I have always been, and shall always continue, by the help of God, to be submissive even to the last breath of my life; which I do not say by way of excuse, but from a sense of my obligation to declare my sentiments in simplicity. I never held any of those errors which are mentioned in the pastoral letter of M. de Meaux; having always intended to write in a true catholic sense, and not then apprehending that any other sense could be put upon my words.” To this the bishop subjoined an attestation, dated July 16, 1695, signifying that “madam Guyon having lived in the house, by the order and permission of their bishop, for the space of six months, had never given the least trouble or pain, but great edification; that in her whole conduct, and all her words, there appeared strict regularity, simplicity, sincerity, humility, mortification, sweetness, and Christian patience, joined to a true devotion and esteem for all matters of faith, especially for the mystery of the incarnation, and the holy infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that, if the said lady would choose to pass the rest of her life in their house, the community would esteem it a favour and happiness, &c.” In consequence of these submissions, and of this testimony, Bossuet declared himself satisfied with her conduct, and continued her in the participation of the holy sacrament, in which he found her; and added that he had not discovered her to be any wise involved in the abominations, as he was pleased to term them, of Molina (see Molina), or others elsewhere condemned; and that he never intended to comprehend her in what he had said of those abominations in his ordonnance of April 15th preceding.

Thus acquitted she returned to Paris, not thinking of any further prosecution.; but all these attestations and submissions were not sufficient to allay the storm, and she soon found herself involved in the prosecution or rather persecution of the archbishop of Cambray. This amiable prelate, when Bossuet desired his approbation of the book he had composed, in answer to madame Guyon’s sentiments, not only refused it, but openly declared that this pious woman had been treated with great partiality and injustice, and that the censures of her adversary were unmerited and groundless. Fenelon also, in the same year, published a book, in which he adopted several of the tenets of madame Guyon, and especially that favourite doctrine of the mystics, which teaches that the love of the Supreme Being must be pure and disinterested, that is, exempt from all views of interest and all hope of reward. What followed with respect to the archbishop may be seen in another place (art. Fenelon); but madame Guyon was imprisoned before the expiration of 1695, in the castle of Vincennes, whence she was removed to a convent, and afterwards sent to the Bastille, where she underwent many rigorous examinations, and continued in prison as a criminal till the meeting of the general assembly of the clergy of France in 1700, when nothing being proved against her, she was released. After this she went first to the castle belonging to her children, whence she was permitted to retire to Blois, the next town to that castle.

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

, the Ovid of Wales, and one of the most famous Welsh bards, was born in 1340 at Brogydin, in the county of Cardigan. He was brought up in the family of Llewelyn ap Guilym Fychan, styled lord of Cardigan, at Emlyn, until he was fifteen years of age; at which period he removed, after a short stay with his parents, and settled as steward and private tutor in the family of Ivor Hael. Like other itinerant bards of that age, he often visited different parts of the principality, and was so universally admired, that he has been claimed by the men of Anglesea as their countryman; and was generally known by the name of David of Glamorgan, and the nightingale of Teivi vale, in Cardiganshire. He died about 1400. Excepting music and a few Latin words, which he might pick up at mass, it cannot be ascertained from his works, that he had any acquaintance with the sciences or learned languages; for his poems consist chiefly of lively descriptions of nature, written in pure unadulterated Welsh. His “Poems” were published in 1792, 8vo, by Mr. Owen Jones and Mr. William Owen, who think that in invention, harmony, perspicuity, and elegance of language, Gwilym has not been excelled by any of his successors. A translation, however, is yet wanting to enable the English reader to appreciate his merits.

Upon the settlement of Gresham college, he vras chosen the first professor of physic about the beginning of March 1596, being one of the two nominated by the university of Oxford. On the 25th June, 1604, he was admitted a candidate of the College of Physicians of London; at the beginning of 1605 was made physician of the Tower; and on Dec. 22 in the same year, was chosen a fellow of the college. In the month of August of that year, king James and his queen, with prince Henry and their courts, went to Oxford, where they were entertained with academical exercises of all kinds, in which Dr. Gwinne again distinguished himself, particularly in a question respecting the salutary or hurtful nature of tobacco, proposed in compliment to his majesty, who was a professed enemy to that weed. In the evening of the same day, a Latin comedy was acted at St. John’s college, written by Dr. Gwinne, and entitled “Vertumnus, sive Annus recurrens.”

Dr. Gwinne kept his professorship at Gresham college till Sept. 1607, and then quitted it very probably upon his marriage. After he left Gresham college, he continued to practise in London, and was much esteemed both in the city and couit. In 1620, he, and seven others, were appointed commissioners by his majesty, for garbling tobacco; and a power was granted to any five or more of them (one of whom was to be a physician, another a merchant, a third a grocer, and a fourth an apothecary), to draw up orders and directions in writing for garbling and distinguishing that commodity before it was exposed to sale. Dr. Gwinne died, at his house in Old Fish-street, in 1627. “He was,” says Dr. Ward, “a man of quick parts, a lively fancy and poetic genius, had read much, was well versed in all sorts of polite literature, accurately skilled in the modern languages, and much valued for his knowledge and success in the practice of physic. But his Latin style was formed upon a wrong taste, which led him from the natural and beautiful simplicity of the ancients, into points of wit, affected jingle, and scraps of sentences detached from old authors; a custom which at that time began to prevail both here and abroad. And, he seems to have contracted this humour gradually, as it grew more in vogue; for his ‘ Oratio in laudem musicæ,’ is not so deeply tinged with it, as his ‘Orationes duse,’ spoken many years afterwards in Gresham college.”

, a French poet of the seventeenth century, was abbot of Notre Dame de Cerisy, one of the first members of the French academy, and the most distinguished among the beaux esprits of his time. He died in 1655, and left several poems; that entitled “Metamorphose des Yeux d'Iris changes en Astres,” 1639, 8vo, is particularly admired, and is certainly not without considerable merit. Habert also wrote the “Life, or Panegyric of Cardinal de Berulle,” 1646, 4to, and a Paraphrase on some of the Psalms. His brother, Philip Habert, was among the first members of the French academy, and appointed commissioner of artillery, through the interest of M. de la Meilleraye, who had a great regard for him. He unfortunately perished at the siege of Emmerick, in 1637, aged thirty-two, under the ruins of a wall, which was blown up by a cask of gun-powder, through the negligence of an unskilful soldier. There is a poem of his in Barbin’s Collection, entitled “Le Temple de la Mort,” written on the death of M. de la "Meilleraye’s first wife, which was once much admired.

, an excellent English poet, was descended from a Roman catholic family. His greatgrandfather was Richard Habington or Abington of Brockhampton, in Herefordshire. His grandfather, John, second son of this Richard Habington, and cofferer to queen Elizabeth, was born in 1515, and died in 1581. He bought the manor of Hindlip, in Worcestershire, and rebuilt the mansion about 1572. His father, Thomas Habington, was born at Thorpe, in Surrey, 1560, studied at Oxford, and afterwards travelled to Rheims and Paris. On his return he involved himself with the party who laboured to release Mary queen of Scots, and was afterwards imprisoned on a suspicion of being concerned in Babington’s conspiracy. During this imprisonment, which lasted six years, he employed his time in study. Having been at length released, and his life saved, as is supposed on account of his being queen Elizabeth’s godson, he retired to Hindlip, and married Mary, eldest daughter of Edward Parker lord Morley, by Elizabeth, daughter and sole heir of sir William Stanley, lord Monteagle.

Our author wrote also “Observations upon History,” Loud. 1641, 8vo, consisting of some particular pieces of history in the reigns of Henry II. Richard I. &c. interspersed with political and moral reflections, similar to what he had introduced in his larger history, or “History of Edward IV.” 1640, fol. which, as Wood asserts, was both written and published at the desire of Charles I. He also insinuates that Habington <c did run with the times, and was not unknown to Oliver the Usurper," but we have no evidence of any compliance with a system of political measures so diametrically opposite to those which we may suppose belonged to the education and principles of a Roman catholic family. It is, indeed^ grossly improbable that he should have complied with Cromwell, who was as yet no usurper, and during the life of his royal master, whose cause was not yet desperate. Of his latter days we have no farther account than that he died Nov. 13, 1645, and was buried at Hendlip, in the family vault. He left a son, Thomas, who dying without issue, bequeathed his estate to sir William Compton.

In 1625 he was named by the king himself to attend an ambassador in to Germany; but was dissuaded from the journey by being told, that on account of his severe treatment of the Jesuits in his “Loyola,” he might be in danger, though in an ambassador’s train. In 1628, he commenced D. D. and in 1631 was made archdeacon of Bedford, to which charge he usually went once in a year, and frequently exhorted his clergy “to all regular conformity to the doctrine and discipline by law established, without under or overdoing, asserting in his opinion, that puritanism lay on both sides; whosoever did more than the church commanded, as well as less, were guilty of it; and that he only was a true son of the church, who broke riot the boundals of it either way.” His church of St. Andrew being old and decayed, he undertook to rebuild it, and for that purpose got together a great sum of money in stock and subscriptions; but, upon the breaking out of the civil war, this was seized by the parliament, as well as what had been gathered for the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral. In March 1641, he was one of the sub-committee appointed by the house of lords to consult of what was amiss and wanted correction in the liturgy, in hopes by that means to dispel the cloud hanging over the church. He delivered a masterly speech against the bill for taking away deans and chapters, which is published at length in his life by Dr. Plume. In March 1642 he was presented to a residentiary’s place in St. Paul’s, London; but the troubles coming on, he had no enjoyment of it, nor of his rectory of St. Andrew’s. Besides, some of his parishioners there having articled against him at the committee of plunderers, his friend Seltlen told him it was in vain to make any defence; and advised him to retire to Cheam, where he would endeavour to prevent his being molested. He was disturbed here by the earl of Essex’s army, who, marching that way, took him prisoner along with them; but he was soon after dismissed, and from that time lay hid in his retirement at Cheam, where we hear no more of him, except that in 1648-9, he attended in his last moments Henry Rich, earl of Holland, who was beheaded for attempting the relief of Colchester.

After the restoration of Charles II. he recovered all his preferments, and was offered the bishopric of Gloucester, which he refused; but he accepted shortly after that of Lichfield and Coventry, and was consecrated December 22, 1661. The spring following he repaired to Lichfield, where, finding the cathedral almost battered to the ground, he rebuilt it in eight years, in a very magnificent style, at the expence of 20,000l. of which he had 1000l. from the dean and chapter; and the rest was of his own charge, or procuring from benefactors. He laid out lOOOl. upon a prebendal house, which he was forced to live in, his palaces at Lichfield and Ecclestiall having been demolished during the civil war. He added to Trinity college, in Cambridge, a building called Bishop’s hostel, which cost him 1200l. ordering that the rents of the chambers should be laid out in books for the college library. Besides these acts of munificence, he left several benefactions by will; as 50l. to Clare-hall, 50l. to St. John’s college, and all his books, which cost him about 1500l. to the university library. He died at Lichfield, October 21, 1670, and was buried in the cathedral, under a handsome tomb, erected by his eldest son sir Andrew Hacket, a muster in chancery: he was twice married, and had several children by both his wives.

He published only the comedy of “Loyola” above-mentioned, and “A Sermon preached before the king, March 22, 1660;” but, after his decease, “A Century of Sermons upon several remarkable subjects” was published by Thomas Plume, D. D. in 1675, folio, with his life. His sermons are rather too much in the quaint style of bishop Andrews. In 1693 appeared his “Life of archbishop Williams,” folio, of which an abridgement was published in 1700, 8vo, by Ambrose Philips. He intended to have written the life of James I. and for that purpose the lordkeeper Williams had given him Camden’s ms notes or annals of that king’s reign; but, these being lost in the confusion of the times, he was disabled from doing it. According to his biographer, Dr. Plume, he was zealous against popery, and all separation from the church of England. In the dispute between the Calvinists and the Arzmuians he was ever very moderate; but being bred under bishop Davenant and Dr. Samuel Ward in Cambridge, adhered to their sentiments. He was exemplary in his behaviour, chearful in conversation, hospitable, humble, and affable, though subject to great eruptions of anger, but at the same time very placable and ready to be appeased, and of too generous a nature to be vindictive. When he was a bishop he desired to hold nothing in commendam; he renewed all his leases for years, and not for lives, and upon very moderate fines, and spent a very considerable share thereof in the repair of his cathedrals and acts of charity. In his younger years he had been much addicted to School learning, which was then greatly studied in the university; but he afterwards grew weary of it, and professed " that he found more shadows and names than solid juice and substance in it, and would much dislike their horrid and barbarous terms, more proper for incantation than divinity; and became perfectly of Beatus Rhenanus’s mind, that the schoolmen were rather to be reckoned philosophers than divines; but if any pleased to account them such, he had much rather, with St. John Chrysostom, be styled a pious divine, than an invincible or irrefragable one with Thomas Aquinas, or our own countryman Alexander Hales. For knowledge in the tongues, he would confess he could never fix upon Arabian learning the place was siticulosa regio, a dry and barren land, where no water is and he being discouraged in his younger years, by such as had plodded most in it; and often quarrelled with his great friend Salmasius, for saying he accounted no man solidly learned without skill in Arabic and other eastern languages. Our bishop declared his mind otherwise, and bewailed that many good wits of late years prosecuted the eastern languages so much as to neglect the western learning and discretion too sometimes. Mr. Selden and bishop Creighton had both affirmed to him, that they should often read ten pages for one line of sense, and one word of moment; and did confess there was no learning like to what scholars may find in Greek authors, as Plato, Plutarch, &c. and himself could never discern but that many of their quotations and proofs from them were, in his own words, iucerta, et inexplorata.

, an eminent scholar, and one of the revivers of the learned languages in England, was descended from a good family in Buckinghamshire, and born in 1516. He was educated at Eton school, under Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely, and was thence elected to King’s college, in Cambridge; where he greatly distinguished himself by his parts and learning, and particularly by writing Latin in an elegant, but, as Mr. Warton thinks, not a very pure style. He studied also the civil law, of which he became doctor; and read public lectures in it in 1547, and the two years following, and was so much approved, that upon a vacancy in the professor’s chair in 1550, the university employed the celebrated Ascham to write to king Edward VI. in his favour. He was accordingly appointed professor, and was also for some time professor of rhetoric and orator of the university. During king Edward’s reign, he was one of the most illustrious promoters of the reformation; and therefore, upon the deprivation of Gardiner, was thought a proper person to succeed him in the mastership of Trinity-hall. In September 1552, through the earnest recommendation of the court, though not qualified according to the statutes, he was chosen president of Magdalen college in Oxford; but, in October 1553, upon the accession of queen Mary, he quitted the president’s place for fear of being expelled, or perhaps worse used, at Gardiner’s visitation of the said college. He is supposed to have lain concealed in England all this reign; but, on the accession of Elizabeth, was ordered by the privy council to repair to her majesty at Hatfield in Hertfordshire, and soon after was constituted by her one of the masters of the court of requests. Archbishop Parker also made him judge of his prerogative-­court. In the royal visitation of the university of Cambridge, performed in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, he was one of her majesty’s commissioners, as appears by the speech he then made, printed among his works. In 1566 he was one of the three agents sent to Bruges to restore commerce between England and the Netherlands upon the ancient terms. He died Jan. 21, 1571-2, and was buried in Christ Church, London, where a monument was erected to his memory, but was destroyed in the great fire of London. He was engaged, with sir John Cheke, in turning into Latin and drawing up that useful code of ecclesiastical law, published in 1571, by the learned John Fox, under this title, “Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,” in 4to. He published, in 1563, a letter, or answer to an epistle, directed to queen Elizabeth, by Jerom Osorio, bishop of Silva in Portugal, and entitled “Admonitio ad Elizabetham reginam Angliæ,” in which the English nation, and the reformation of the church, were treated in a scurrilous manner. His other works were collected and published in 1567, 4to, under the title of “Lucubrationes.” This collection contains ten Latin orations, fourteen letters, besides the above-mentioned to Osorio; and also poems. Several of his original letters are in the Harleian collection; and his poems, “Poemata,” containing a great number of metrical epitaphs, were separately published with his life in 1576. Many of our writers speak in high terms of Haddon, and not without reason; for, through, every part of his writings, his piety appears equal to his learning. When queen Elizabeth was asked whether she preferred him or Buchanan? she replied, “Buchananum omnibus antepono, Haddonum nemini postpono.”

, a celebrated German poet of the last century, was born at Hamburgh in 1708. His father was minister from the king of Denmark to the circles of Lower Saxony, a well informed man, who associated with men of letters, and was capable of giving a direction to his son’s studies suitable to his genius. By various misfortunes, however, he lost his property, and died when our poet was only fourteen, and very ill provided for the liberal education which his father intended. His mother endeavoured to make up this loss by placing him at a college at Hamburgh, where, having previously imbibed a taste for poetry, he read the ancient as well a* the modern poets with eagerness and assiduity. Without the help of a master, or the salutary aid of criticism, he endeavoured to draw from his own stock the power of dissipating the fogs of dulness in the north, as Haller had done in the south of Germany. In 1728 or 1729, he published a small collection of poems, which have many marks of youth, and though his versification is free, and his language often very pure, the thoughts are frequently cold, and the expression too concise. In subjects which require little taste and philosophy, he has succeeded better than in works of sentiment and imagination. Of his taste at this time, he has given a bad specimen in his satire entitled “The Poet,” in which he puts Pietsch by the side of Virgil.

About this time (1729), he came to London with the Danish ambassador, baron Stoelenthal, and here he composed some of his most beautiful odes, and his best songs. In 1733 he was appointed secretary of the English factory at Hamburgh, which united him with our countrymen, whom he always esteemed. In 1734 he married the daughter of an English taylor, of the name of Butler, a step which does not seem to have added to his happiness. In 1738 he published the first volume of his “Fables,” an original work, which contributed much to his reputation. In 1740, he composed the beautiful satire of “The Philosopher;” in 1741, the sublime picture of the “Sage;” in 1742, the Universal Prayer, from the Paraphrase of Pope; and, in 1743, his celebrated poem on “Happiness.” This last piece is equally favourable to his opinions and his poetical talents. His modest muse does not succeed in sublime descriptions, or the dithirambic flights: it has more of the elegance that pleases, than the splendour that dazzles; more Socratic wisdom, than oriental sublimity. His Moral Poems are like the Sermones of Horace. His “Considerations on some of the Attributes of God” contains the sublimest passages of Scripture “The Prattler” is a dialogue full of familiar descriptions of human life */ The Letter to a Friend“is an instructive commentary on the” Nil Adrnirari" of Horace. Various other pieces followed; but, in 1750, he first excited the gaiety of his nation, by mixing sports and graces with the solemn poetry of the Germans. His odes and songs are highly pleasing. Nature, sprightliness, simplicity, enthusiasm, and harmony, unite to render them seductive: for spirit and elegance, he may be said to resemble our own Prior.

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

Du Haillan died at Paris, Nov. 23, 1610. Dupleix remarks, that he was originally a protestant, but changed his religion, in order to ingratiate himself at court. His dedications and prefaces indeed shew, that he was not very disinterested either as to fame or fortune. He displays his labours too ostentatiously, and the success of his books, their several editions, translations, &c. and he too palpably manifests that species of puffing quackery which disgraces the literary character.

, a learned English divine, was the son of a merchant in Exeter, and born there in 1579. After a proper education in classical literature, he was admitted of St. Alban’s-hall, in Oxford, in 1595, where he became so noted a disputant and orator, that he was unanimously elected fellow of Exeter college at two years standing. He then studied philosophy and divinity, and having received holy orders, travelled abroad. In 1610 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and in 1611 took his degrees in divinity. He was afterwards made chaplain to prince Charles, and archdeacon of Surrey, in 1616; but never rose to any higher dignity, on account of the zealous opposition he made to the match of the infanta of Spain with the prince his master. Wood relates the story thus: After Hakewill had written a small tract against that match, not without reflecting on the Spaniard, he caused it to be transcribed in a fair hand, and then presented it to the prince. The prince perused it, and shewed it to the king; who, being highly offended at it, caused the author to be imprisoned, in August 1621; soon after which, being released, he was dismissed from his attendance on the prince. He was afterwards elected rector of Exeter college, but resided very little there, although he proved a liberal benefactor to the college; for, the civil war breaking out, he retired to his rectory of Heanton near Barnstaple in Devonshire, and there continued to the time of his death in 1649. He wrote several things, enumerated by Wood; but his principal work, and that for which he is most known, is “An Apology or Declaration of the Power and Providence of God in the Government of the World, proving that it doth not decay, &c.” in four books, 1627. To which were added two more in the third edition, 1635, in folio.

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

Hakluyt returned to England in the memorable year 1588, and applied himself to methodize the naval history of England more accurately and more extensively than had ever yet been attempted, in which he was, as usual, encouraged by sir Walter Raleigh. He applied himself also to collect, translate, and digest, all voyages, journals, narratives, patents, letters, instructions, &c. relating to the English navigations, which he could procure either in print or ms.; and towards the end of 1589 he published these collections in one volume folio, with a dedication to sir Francis Walsingham, who was a principal patron and promoter of the work. About 1594 he entered into the state of matrimony, which did not divert him from going on with his collections of English voyages, till he had increased them to three volumes folio: and, as he was perpetually employed himself, he did not cease to invite others to the same useful labours. Thus, Mr. John Pory, whom he calls his honest, industrious, and learned friend, undertook, at his instigation, and probably under his inspection, to translate from the Spanish “Leo’s Geographical History of Africa,” which was published at London, 1600, in folio. Hakluyt himself appeared in 1601, with the translation of another history, written by Antonio Galvano in the Portuguese tongue, and corrected and amended by himself. This history was printed in 4to, and contains a compendious relation of the most considerable discoveries in various parts of the universe from the earliest to the later times.

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

It was by indefatigable application that he acquired so great an extent of knowledge. He rose early, was never idle, and scarce ever held any discourse about the passing events of the day, except with some few in whom he confided. He entered into no correspondence, unless on necessary business or matters of learning, and spent very little time at his meals. He never went to public feasts, and gave no entertainments but to the poor, literally following our Saviour’s direction, of feasting none but these. He always rose from dinner with an appetite, and able to enter with an unclouded mind on any serious employment that might present itself.

Some time before the civil wars broke out, he was called to the bar, and began to make a figure in the world; but, observing how difficult it was to preserve his integrity, and yet live securely, he resolved to follow those two maxims of Pomponius Atticus, who lived in similar times; viz. “To engage in no faction, nor meddle in public business, and constantly to favour and relieve those that were lowest.” He often relieved the royalists in their necessities, which so ingratiated him with them, that he became generally employed by them in his profession. He was one of the counsel to the earl of Strafford, archbishop Laud, and king Charles himself 5 as also to the duke of Hamilton, the earl of Holland, the lord Capel, and the lord Craven. Being esteemed a plain honest man, and of great knowledge in the law, he was equally acceptable to the presbyterians and the loyalists. In 1643 he took the covenant, and appeared several times with other lay -persons among the assembly of divines. He was then in great esteem with the parliament, and employed by them in several affairs, particularly in the reduction of the garrison at Oxford; being as a lawyer added to the commissioners named by the parliament to treat with those appointed by the king. In that capacity he was instrumental in saving the university, by advising them, especially the general Fairfax, to preserve that seat of learning from ruin. Afterwards, though no man more lamented the murder of Charles I. he took the oath called “The Engagement;” and, January 1651-2, was one of those appointed to consider of the reformation of the law. Cromwell, who well knew the advantage it would be to have the countenance of such a man as Hale to his courts, never left importuning him, till he accepted the place of one of the justices of the common bench, as it was called; for which purpose he was by writ made serjeant at law January 25, 1653-4. In that station he acted with great integrity and courage. He had at first serious scruples concerning the authority under which he was to act and, after having gone two or three circuits, he refused to sit any more on the crown side that is, to try any more criminals*. He had indeed so carried himself in some trials, that the powers then in being were not unwilling he should withdraw himself from meddling any farther in them; of which Burnet gives the following instance. Soon after he was made a judge, a trial was brought before him, upon the circuit at Lincoln, concerning the murder of one of the townsmen who had been of the king’s army, and was killed by a soldier of the garrison there. He was in the field with a fowling-piece on his shoulder, which the soldier seeing, he came to him, and said, he was acting

to sit on the crown side at the assizes, property.“against an order the protector had made, viz.” That none who had been of the king’s party should carry arms;“and so would have forced the piece from him. But the other not regarding the order, and being the stronger man, threw down the soldier, and having beat him, left him. The soldier went to the town, and telling a comrade how he had been used, got him to go with him, and help him to be revenged on his adversary. They both watched his coming to town, and one of them went to him to demand his gun; which he refusing, the soldier. struck at him as they were struggling, the other came behind, and ran his sword into his body, of which he presently died. It was in the time of the assizes, so they were both tried. Against the one there was no evidence of malice prepense, so he was only found guilty of manslaughter, and burnt in the hand; but the other was found guilty of murder: and though colonel Whaley, who commanded the garrison, came into the court, and urged that the man was killed only for disobeying the protector’s order, and that the soldier was but doing his duty; yet the judge regarded both his reasonings and threatenings very little, and therefore not only gave sentence against him, but ordered the execution to be so suddenly done, that it might not be possible to procure a reprieve. On another occasion he displayed both his justice and courage in a cause in which the protector was deeply concerned, and had therefore ordered a jury to be returned for the trial. On hearing this, judge Hale examined the sheriff about it, and having discovered the fact, shewed the statute which ordered all juries to be returned by the sheriff or his lawful officer, and this not being done, he dismissed the jury, and would not try the cause. The protector was highly displeased with him, and at his return from the circuit (for this happened in the country) told him in great anger, that” he wa not fit to be a judge.“Hale replied only, with inimitable aptness of expression, that” it was very true."

He would never receive private addresses or recommendations from any persons of whatever rank, in any matter in which justice was concerned. One of the first peers in England went once to his chamber, and told him, “that having a suit in law to be tried before him, he was come to acquaint him with it, that he might the better understand it when it should be heard in court.” Judge Hale interrupted him, and said, “he did not deal fairly to com-e to his chamber about such affairs, for he never received any information of causes but in open court, where both parties were to be beard alike,” and therefore he would not suffer him to go on. The nobleman complained of this to the king, as a rudeness that was not to be endured; but his majesty bid him “content himself that he was no worse used,” and added, “he verily believed Hale would have used himself no better, if he had gone to solicit him in any of his own causes.” Two other stories are told to prove his strict integrity, one of a gentleman who sent him a buck for his table, and the other of the dean and chapter of Salisbury, who made him a present of six sugar-loaves, and as the gentleman and the dean and chapter had causes pending before him, he insisted on paying for these articles before he would try them. Too much, however, has been made of these stories, for it was proved that both presents were compliments which the parties had been accustomed to pay to the judges for the time being on the circuit. So many are the testimonies to judge Hale’s integrity, that it cannot stand in need of such petty supports as these.

Judge Hale, probably in consequence of his rule of favouring and relieving those that were lowest, and perhaps owing to the connections he had formed in early life, was now very charitable to the nonconformists, and screened them as much as possible from the severities of the law. He thought many of them had merited highly in the affair of the king’s restoration, and at least deserved that the terms of conformity should not have been made stricter than they were before the war. In 1671 he was promoted to the place of lord chief justice of England, and behaved in that high station with his usual strictness, regularity, and diligence; but about four years and a half after this advancement, he was attacked by an inflammation in the diaphragm, which in two days time broke his constitution to that degree that he never recovered; for his illness turned to an asthma, which terminated in a dropsy. Finding himself unable to discharge the duties of his function, he petitioned in January 1675-6, for a writ of ease; which being delayed, he surrendered his office in February. He died December 25th following, and was interred in the church-yard of Alderley, among his ancestors; for he did not approve of burying in churches, but used to say, “That churches were for the living, and church-yards for the dead.” He was twice married, having by his first wife ten children, all of whom he outlived except his eldest daughter and youngest son. The male line of the family became extinct in 1784, by the death of his great grandson, Matthew Haje, esq. barrister at law. To enter more minutely into the character of this great and good man would be to enlarge this article beyond all reasonable bounds. The testimonies to the excellence of his character are numerous. Whoever knew him spoke well of him. One enemy only, Roger North (in his Life of the Lord Keeper North) has endeavoured to lessen the respect due to sir Matthew Hale’s character; but in so doing, it has been justly remarked, has degraded his own. Sir Matthew was, for the brightness and solidity of his genius, the variety and elegance of his learning, and the politeness of his manners, the delight and envy of his contemporaries. His knowledge in divinity and humanity was a radicated habit: and there was scarce ever any appeal from his judgment as a casuist or a critic. Biirnet’s Life of Hale cannot be too often read.

He was the author of several things which were published by himself; namely, 1. “An Essay touching theGravitation or Non -gravitation of Fluid Bodies, and the Reasons thereof.” 2. “Difficiies Nugse, or observationstouching the Torricellian Experiment, and the various solutions of the same, especially touching the weight and elasticity of the air.” 3. “Observations touching the Principles of natural motion, and especially touching rarefaction and condensation.” 4. “Contemplations moral and divine.” 5. “An English Translation of the Life of Pomponius Atticus, written by Corn. Nepos; together with observations political and moral.” 6. “The Primitive Origination of Mankind considered and explained according to the Light of Nature, &c.” He left also at his decease other works, which were published namely, 1. His “Judgment of the Nature of true Religion, the Causes of its Corruption, and the Church’s Calamity by men’s addition and violences, with the desired Cure.” 2. “Several Tracts; as a f Discourse of Religion under three heads’,” &c. 3. “A Letter to his Children, advising them how to behave in their speech.” 4. “A Letter to one of his sons after his recovery from the small-pox/' 5.” Discourse of the Knowledge of God and of ourselves, first by the light of nature; secondly, by the sacred Scriptures.“All these, under the title of his” Moral and Religious Works,“were published by the rev. Thomas Thirlwall, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo, with his life by bishop and an appendix to it. Of his law tracts, one only was printed in his life-time, viz.:” London Liberty, or an argument of Law and Reason,“1650, which was reprinted in 1682, under the title of” London’s Liberties, or the opinions of those great lawyers, lord chief justice Hale, Mr. justice Wild, and serjeant Maynard, about the election of mayor, sheriffs, aldermen, and common councel of London, and concerning their charter.“In 1668 he wrote a preface to Rolle’s” Abridgment," which he published with the whole of that work.

After his death, appeared, 1. “The Pleas of the Crown, or a Methodical Summary,” 1678, 8vo, continued by Jacob and reprinted in 1716. To this edition is often annexed “The Treatise of Sheriffs 7 Accounts,” and “The Trial of the Witches.” It must not be concealed that this otherwise learned and sagacious man was so far prejudiced by early opinions, as to believe in witchcraft, and to preside on the trials of some persons accused of it. The “Pleas” has passed through seven editions, the last of which was in 1773. It was not, however, considered by the author as a complete work, but intended as a plan for his “Historia Placitorum Coronse,” of which hereafter. 2. “Treatise shewing how useful, &c. the inrolling and registering of all conveyances of land,” 1694, 4to, reprinted with additions in 1756. 3. “Tractatus de Successionibus apud Anglos, or a treatise of Hereditary Descents,” 1700, and 1735, 8vo. This forms a chapter in his “History of the Common Law.” 4. “A treatise on the original Institution, &c. of Parliaments,” 1707, republished by Francis Hargrave, esq. in 1796, 4to, under the title of “Hale’s Jurisdiction of the House of Lords,” with an introductory preface, including a narrative of the same jurisdiction, from the accession of James I. 5. “Analysis of the Law,” without date, but seems to have been only a design for a, 6. “History of the Common Law of England, in twelve chapters,” 1713, 8vo, a fourth and fifth edition of which were published in 1779 and 1794, 2 vols. 8vo, by Mr. serjeant Runnington. 7. “Historia Placitorum Coronie, or History of the Pleas of the Crown,” 1739, 2 vols. folio, edited by Sollom Emlyn, esq. and again in 1772, by George Wilson, esq. 2 vols. 8vo, and lastly in the same size, in 1800, by Thomas Dogherty, esq. There are a few other tracts and opinions published by Mr. Hargrave and other law writers in their collections. Sir Matthew Hale by his will bequeathed to the society of Lincoln’s-inn his ms books, of inestimable value, which he had been near forty years in gathering with great industry and expence. “He desired they should be kept safe and all together, bound in leather, and chained; not lent out or disposed of: only, if any of his posterity of that society should desire to transcribe any book, and give good caution to restore it again in a prefixed time, they should be lent to him, and but one volume at a time:” They are,“says he,” a treasure not fit for every man’s view; nor is every man capable of making use of them."

, an eminent scholastic divine of the thirteenth century, is supposed by some to have been a native of Gloucestershire, but others think he was a native of Hales in Norfolk. He was educated probably at Oxford, whence he went to the university of Paris, studied divinity and the canon law, and excelled so in both as to be called the “Irrefragable Doctor,” and the “Fountain of Life.” Nothing indeed can exceed the encomiums bestowed upon him in extravagance, although he appears to have been a good man, and well versed in the learning of his time. In 1222 he entered into the order of the Friars Minims, and took up his principal residence at Paris, where he died August 27, 1245. By order of Innocent IV. he wrote a commentary on the four books of sentences, or “Sum of Divinity,” printed at Nuremberg, 1482, and often reprinted; but there is a commentary on the sentences printed at Lyons in 1515, with his name to it, which is not his and Dupin is inclined to think that the “Sum of the Virtues,” Paris, 1509, and the “Destructorium Vitiorum,” Nuremberg, 1496, and Venice, 1582, are improperly attributed to his pen. Other works are enumerated by Dupin, of which doubts may be entertained, and many of his Mss. are said to be lost, but neither the authenticity of the one, or the loss of the other, "will now be thought matters of much interest or regret.

About 1636 he wrote his tract on “Schism” for the use of his friend Chilling-worth, in which, as already noticed, he expresses his sentiments on liturgies, forms of worship, &c. in exact conformity with those who are for dispensing with all obligations of the kind in established churches. Being informed that archbishop Laud was displeased with it, he drew up a vindication of himself in a letter addressed to his grace, who in 1638 sent for him to Lambeth, and after a conference of several hours, appears to have been reconciled to him. Of this conference we have a curious account by Dr. Heylin, in his “Cyprianus Anglicus,” some particulars of which have been eagerly contested by Des Maizeaux, in his Life of Hales. What seems most clear is, that Hales made some kind of declaration to the^ archbishop, purporting that he was a true son of the church of England, both in doctrine and discipline, which certainly implies a change or intended change of opinion, unless we allow to the writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica, that “a true son of the church,” or an “or­* Such is the story given by all his 87 and 92, we shall see more reasor. biographers; but if we consult his to think that he was influenced by the Letters in the” Golden Remains,“p. opinions of Martinius. thodox son of the church,” were phrases used, not in opn ^ition to heretics, but to puritans. In either way, the archbishop appears to have been satisfied, and informed Mr. liuies that he might have any preferment he pleased. Hales at this time modestly declined the offer, but the year following was presented by the archbishop at a public dinner, with a canonry of Windsor, in which he was installed June 27, 1639. With respect to the letter above-r ttientioned, which he wrote to the archbishop, it is said to have been first published by Dr. Hare in the seventh edition of his pampnlet entitled “Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the study of the Scriptures in the way of private judgment.” Des Maizeaux says it was probably found among the papers of archbishop Laud, which after the restoration were taken from Prynne; but this conjecture is erroneous; it was found in the house of Mrs. Powney, where Mr. Hales died, and there are even some reasons for doubting whether it was ever sent to the archbishop, although this is certainly not improbable. The original is at Eton, and appeared in print before it fell into the hands of Dr. Hare, the author of “Difficulties and Discouragements,” if indeed Dr. Hare was that author, which has been questioned.

supposed, to be Richard Bishop, who worth reviving. forms us that he was bursar about the time when the contest began between the king and parliament, and when both armies had sequestered the college rents, so that he could not get any to pay wages to the servants, or to buy victuals for the scholars. But after nine weeks hiding himself to preserve the college writings and keys, he was forced to appear. The old woman that concealed him demanded but six-pence a week for his brown bread and beer, which was all his meat, and he would give her twelve-pence. This concealment was so near the college or highway, that he used to say, “those who searched for him might have smelt him if he had eaten garlick.”

He continued in his fellowship at Eton, although he refused the covenant, but was ejected upon his refusal to take the engagement “to be faithful to the Common-wealth of England, as then established without a king, or a house of lords.” His successor, a Mr. Penwarn, or Penwarden, kindly offered him half the profits of his fellowship; but Mr. Hales refused to accept it, saying, if he had a right to any part, he had a right to the whole. Both Wood and Des Maizeaux have misrepresented this expression, which we give on the authority of Mr. Montague, one of his executors. About the same time he refused a liberal offer from a gentleman of the Sedley family, in Kent, of 100l. his board, and servants to attend him. In this spirit of independence he retired to the house of a Mrs. Salter, at Rickings, near Colebrook, accepting of a smaller salary of 50l. with his diet, to instruct her son. Here he also officiated as chaplain, performing the service according-to the liturgy of the church of England, in company with Dr. Henry King, the ejected bishop of Chichester, who was in the same house. But this retirement was soon disturbed by an order from the ruling powers, prohibiting all persons from harbouring malignants, or royalists; and although Mrs. Salter assured Mr. Hales that she was prepared to risk the consequences, he would not suffer her to incur any danger upon his account, but retired to the house of Hannah Dickenson, in Eton, whose husband had been his servant, and who administered the humble comforts she could afford with great care and respect. But being now destitute of every means of supporting himself, ne was obliged to sell (not the whole, as Wood says, but) a part of his valuable library to Cornelius Bee, a bookseller in London, for 700l. which, Walker informs us, and the fact seems to be confirmed by Dr. Pearson in his preface to the “Golden Remains,” he shared with several ejected clergymen, scholars, and others.

We shall now relate a story which has appeared in the various accounts of his life, and which is at least interesting-, but in most particulars questionable. It is thus related,: “His friend Mr. Faringdon” (See Faringdon) “coming to see Hales some few months before his death, found him in very mean lodgings at Eton, but in a temper gravely ch earful, and well becoming a good man under such circumstances. After a slight and homely dinner, suitable to their situation, some discourse passed between them concerning their old friends, and the black and dismal aspect of the times; and at last Hales asked Faringdon to walk out with him into the church-yard. There this unhappy man’s necessities pressed him to tell his friend that he had been forced to sell his whole library, save a few books which he had given away, and six or eight little books of devotion which lay in his chamber; and that for money, he had no more than what he then shewed him, which was about seven or eight shillings; and ‘ besides,’ says he, < I doubt I am indebted for my lodging.‘ Faringdon, it seems, did not imagine that it had been so very low with him, and therefore was much surprised to hear it; but said that ’ he had at present money to command, and to-morrow would pay him fifty pounds, in part of the many sums he and his wife had received of him in their great necessities, and would pay him more as he shoukl want it.‘ But Hales replied, < No, you don’t owe me a penny; or if you do, I here forgive you; for you shall never pay me a penny. I know you and yours will have occasion for much more than what you have lately gotten; but if you know any other friend that hath too full a purse, and will spare me some of it, I will not refuse that.‘ To this Hales added, ’ When I die, which I hope is not far off, for I am weary of this uncharitable world, I desire you to see me buried in that place in the church-yard,‘ pointing to the place. l But why not in the church-/ said Faringdon, * with the provost (sir Henry Savile), sir Henry Wotton, and the rest of your friends and predecessors?’ ‘ Because,’ says he, * I am neither the founder of it, nor have I been a benefactor to it, nor shall I ever now be able to be Sq.'” Dr. Walker, who relates this story, informs us of the persons from whom he received it; but it is now unnecessary to trace a narrative so flatly contradicted by Mr. Hales’s will, in which we find him bequeathing a very considerable property, and a very considerable part of his library, and indeed leaving such friendly legacies as are wholly inconsistent with the circumstances of a man reduced to a few shillings, and in debt for his lodging.

“Hales, set by himself, most gravely did smile To see them about nothing keep such a coil. Apollo had spied him, but knowing his mind, Past by, and called Falkland that sat just behind.” But there is no proof that Mr. Hales of Eton was meant here, and still less proof of a letter in verse by sir John Suckling having been written to Mr. Hales at Eton, and beginning“” Sir, whether these lines do find you out," &c. It has more the appearance of one written to some person, at Oxford or Cambridge, than at Eton.

, an eminent natural philosopher, particularly distinguished by his experiments on the physiology of plants, was the sixth son of Thomas Hales, esq. of Beakeborn, or Beckesbourn, Kent, and grandson of sir Robert Hales, bart. of Beckesbourn, where he was born, Sept. 17, 1677, and was admitted a pensioner of Bene't college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Moss, June 19, 1696, where, after taking his first degree in arts, he was admitted a fellow, Fob. 25, 1702-3. He proceeded M. A. at the next commencement, and was admitted B. D. in 1711. The degree of D. D. was conferred on him by the university of Oxford in 1733. Botany and anatomy formed his studies of relaxation while at Cambridge, his companion in which was the celebrated antiquary Dr. Stukeley. He was advanced successively to the perpetual curacy of Teddington, Middlesex, and to the livings of Portlock, Somersetshire, and Farringdon, Hampshire. He married Mary, the daughter and heiress of Dr. Henry Newce of Much-Hadham, in the county of Hertford, and rector of Halisham in Sussex. This lady died at the end of two years, leaving no issue, nor did he ever marry strain. He resided to the end of his life at Teddington, wliere he was visited by persons of rank and taste, amongst others by Frederick late prince of Wales, after whose death Dr. Hales was made clerk of the closet to the princess dowager, who always entertained a high respect for him, and after his decease erected a handsome monument to his memory in Westminster-abbey, near that of Handel. On this is liis bust in a large medallion, supported by a female figure representing Botany, accompanied by Religion. The epitaph is in Latin. He refused a canonry 01 Windsor, that he migbt continue to devote himself to his parochial duties, and his favourite scientific pursuits; and as piety, truth, and virtue were the principles of his character, he lived in universal esteem to the age of eighty-four, dying at Teddington, January 4, 1761, where he was buried, under the church tower, which he had rebuilt at his own expence.

Dr. Hales, having been elected a fellow of the royal society in 1717, communicated to that learned body his first essay in Vegetable Physiology, containing an account of some experiments concerning the effect of the sun’s heat in raising the sap. In 1727 appeared the first edition of his “Vegetable Staticks,” in 8vo, illustrated by plates, of which a second edition was published in 1731, followed afterwards by several others. This work was translated into French by Buffon in 1735, and into Italian by a Neapolitan lady named Ardinghelli, in 1756. There are also German and Dutch editions. The original book was, in fact, the first volume of a work entitled “Statical Essays,” of which the second, relating to the circulation of the blood in animals, was called “Hemastaticks,” and came out in 1733. In this the subject of the urinary calculus also is treated chemically and medically. With a laudable view of preventing as well as curing, the sufferings and crimes of his fellow-creatures, this good man published anonymously “a friendly admonition to the drinkers of gin, brandy, and other spirituous liquors,” which has often been reprinted and distributed gratis, by those who consider the temporal and eternal interests of their fellow subjects rather than the increase of the revenue. His invention of a ventilator for mines, prisons, hospitals, and the holds of ships, laid before the royal society in 1741, and applied also to the ventilation and consequent preservation of corn in granaries, has proved one of the most extensively useful contrivances for the preservation of health and human life. His philosophy was not a barren accumulation for the ignorant to wonder at, or for its professor to repose on in sottish self-sufficiency and uselessness; but an inexhaustible bank, on which his piety and his benevolence were continually drawing. Such philosophy and such learning alone entitle their possessors to authority or respect, and such are the best fruits of religion. In this instance at least they were duly honoured, both at home and abroad. The fame of Hales was widely diffused throughout the learned world, of which he received a most distinguished testimony, in being elected one of the eight foreign members of the French academy of sciences, in 1753, in the place of sir Hans Sloane, who died that same year. In 1732 he had been appointed, by the British government, a trustee for settling a colony in Georgia. He was well acquainted with Mr. Ellis, and other naturalists of his day, with whose views and pursuits of all kinds he ardently concurred; but it does not appear that his foreign correspondence was extensive. His name does not occur among the correspondents of Haller, who nevertheless held him in the highest estimation, as a philosopher and a man. As a vegetable physiologist, Dr. Hales is entitled to the highest honour. His experiments and remarks led the way to those of Du Hamel, Bonnet, and all that have followed. His accuracy of observation, and fidelity of relation, have never been impeached, and his ideas in physics, in many instances, went before the knowledge of his day, and anticipated future discoveries: such are his observations relative to airs, and to vegetable secretions. One of his more able successors in the study of vegetable physiology has doubted the accuracy of one of his plates only, tab. 11, in which three trees, having been united by engrafting their branches, the intermediate one, by the earth being removed from its roots, is left hanging in the air, but an experiment of the late Dr. Hope’s at Edinburgh, upon three willows, of which Dr. Smith was an eye-witness, and which was conducted with success in imitation of this of Hales, puts his account beyond all doubt whatever.

Dr. Hall, by his literary labours, deserved far more attention than he acquired. He had a quick apprehension, and his judgment was clear and penetrating; but it was his misfortune never to compare or revise the manuscripts he had once transcribed. His edition of “Leland de Scriptoribus” is very erroneously printed, and in some parts are great omissions, from his negligence. This was his first publication, and appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1709. From a letter of bishop Tanner, we learn that he originally designed to publish Leland’s work only, and not what he afterwards completed in his “Bibliotheca;” and that he was at first somewhat concerned to find himself anticipated, although he allows Mr. Hall’s fitness for the task. Mr. Hail published also “N. Triveti Annales,” 1718, 3vo, the “Continuatio” of the same, 1722, 8vo; and drew up the account of Berkshire for the “Magna Britannia,” but was not, as reported, the author of the account of Cumberland in that work.

, an English lawyer and historiographer, was the son of John Halle of Northall in Shropshire, by Catherine his wife, daughter and heir of Thomas Gedding, and was descended from sir Francis Van Halle, knight of the garter in the time of Edward III. who was the son of Frederic Van Halle, of the Tyrol, in Germany, natural son of Albert king of the Romans and archduke of Austria. He was born, probably about the last year of the fifteenth century, in the parish of St. Mildred’s, London. He was educated at Eton, whence in 1544 he was sent to King’s college, Cambridge, where he continued until he became a junior fellow. He afterwards studied at Gray’s-inn, and resided there until he was made a judge in the sheriffs’ court. Wood, however, says that he went to Oxford about 1518, when cardinal Wolsey founded certain lectures there; and adds that, that being the common mart of learning, no person of ingenuity or curiosity thought themselves complete until they had been there. But Mr. Baker of St. John’s, in a letter to Hearne, seems to think this doubtful, as he is not to be traced from Gray’s-inn to Oxford.

, an English poet of some note, was born at Durham, August 1627, and after one year spent at St. John’s college, Cambridge, removed to Gray’s-inn, London, where he was called to the bar; but entering into the politics of the times, and writing on subjects favourable to the rebellion, he attracted the notice of parliament, who sent him into Scotland to attend Oliver Cromwell, and afterwards distinguished him by other marks of favour: but, being too much addicted to pleasure, he fell a sacrifice to its indulgence; and returning to his native city of Durham, died there, August 1, 1656. In 1646 (during his short residence at Cambridge), being then but nineteen years of age, he published “Horas Vacivse, or Essayes,” a sufficient proof of his abilities. His poems came out the same year. He published the first English version of Longinus, which he entitled “The Height of Eloquence,” Lond. 1652, 8vo. This he translated from the Greek, as he also did “Hierocles upon the Golden Verses of Pythagoras;” before which is an account of the ingenious translator and his works, by John Davis of Kidwelly, by whom it was published in 1657, 8vo. Several of his poems are preserved in Nichols’s “Select Collection,” reprinted from a little volume, entitled “Poems by John Hall, Cambridge, printed by Roger Daniel, printer to the universitie, 1646, for J. Rothwell at the Sun in St. Paul’s Churchyard,” to which in 1647 was added “The Second Booke of Divine Poems by J. H.” which is now become exceedingly scarce. Recommendatory verses are prefixed to it by Jo. Pawson (his tutor), H. More, W. Dillingham, W. Harrington, Ja. Windet, R. Marshall, T. Smithsby, and Edw. Holland.

He was accordingly removed to Cambridge at the age of fifteen, and admitted of Ernanuel college, of which he was chosen scholar, and took the degree of bachelor of arts. His residence, however, was not without its difficulties. In 1591, as his expences began to be felt in so large a family, he was recalled to fill the office of schoolmaster at Ashby de la Zouch, and would have been prevented from ever returning to college, had not Mr. Edmund Sleigh of Derby, an uncle by marriage, offered to defray half the expences of his residence at Cambridge, until he should attain the degree of master of arts; and this he liberally performed. Another difficulty still presented itself. In 1395, his rholar&hip exnir*^ a^rj +h Q statutes of the college permitting only one person of a county to become fellow, he was about to leave the university a second time, when the earl of Huntingdon prevailed on his countryman and tutor, Mr. Gilby, to resign his fellowship, on promise of being made his lordship’s chaplain, and receiving higher promotion Mr. Gilby consented, and the days of examination for the fellowship were appointed; but before two of the three days of trial had expired, news was brought of the sudden death of the earl, by which event Mr. Gilby was likely to be deprived of the conditions on which he resigned. Alarmed at this, our author, with very honourable feeling, went to the master of the college, Dr. Chaderton, and stated the case, offering at the same time to leave college, and hoping that Mr. Gilby could be re-admitted. The latter, however, he was told, could not take place, as the fellowship had been declared void, and the election must proceed whether he continued to be a candidate or not. Mr. Hall accordingly went to the third examination, and was unanimously chosen.

In 1596 he took his degree of master of arte, and acquitted himself on every public trial with great reputation. He read also the rhetoric lecture in the schools, but resigned it, when he found that it interfered with an object more dear to him, the study of divinity; and he soon after entered into holy orders. As we have no account of him when at college, except the few particulars in his “ Specialities,” written by himself, we cannot trace the progress of his muse. It is not improbable that, like other juvenile poets, he had written some pieces at a very early period of life. All that is certain, however, is, that his satires were published in 1597 and 1598 in the following order: “Virgidemiarurn (i. e. a gathering or harvest of rods), sixe bookes. First three bookes of tooth-lesse satyrs, 1. Poetical. 2. Academical!. 3. Moral.” Printed by T. Creede for R. Dexter. “The three last bookes of byting satyrs,” by R. Bradock for Dexter, 1598; both parts, 1599*.

His errand to London was a dispute with his patron sir Robert Drury, whom we have noticed as the patron of the poet Donne, but who in Mr. Hall’s case does not appear to have acted with liberality or justice. He had detained about ten pounds per annum belonging to the living of

usual judgment, that " the poet is bet-to be circulated or read. See Warton’s

ter known than the prelate or the pole-Hist, of Poetry, and the Life of Hall in

It must be allowed that the religious principles which he inculcated from the pulpit and the press, were much more consonant to what the puritans maintained, than the lax Arminianism for which Laud contended, but at the same time bishop Hall’s zeal for episcopacy was not inferior to that of any supporter of the church. Few men, indeed, wrote more, or suffered more, in the cause. He published, even when publishing became hazardous, several able treatises in defence of the liturgy and church discipline; and was the powerful antagonist of Marshall, Calamy, Young, Newcomen, and Spurstow, who wrote a celebrated book called Smectymnuus (a title made up of their initials, Christian and surname), and all this he boldly ventured, when the republican party had possessed themselves of the fortresses of civil and ecclesiastical government, and were about to substitute power for argument; nor was it long before they made him experience the dangers of a high station in the church.

“The sequestrators sent certain men appointed by them (whereof one had been burned in the hand) to appraise all the goods that were in my house; which they accordingly executed with all diligent severity, not leaving so much as a dozen of trenchers, or my children’s pictures out of their curious inventory: yea, they would have apprized our very wearing-apparel, had not some of them declared their opinion to the contrary. These goods, both library and household-stuff of all kinds, were appointed to be exposed to public sale; but in the mean time, Mrs. Goodwin, a religious good gentlewoman, whom yet we had never known or seen, being moved with compassion, very kindly offered to lay down to the sequestrators the whole sum at which the goods were valued; and was pleased to leave them in our hands, for our use, till we might be able to re-purchase them. As for the books, several stationers looked on them, but were not forward to buy. At last Mr. Cooke, a worthy divine of this diocese, gave bond to the sequestrators, to pay them the whole sum whereat they were set; which was afterwards satisfied out of that poor pittance which was allowed me for my maintenance.”

This “poor pittance” had at first the appearance of liberality, for when he applied to the committee of sequestrators at Norwich, they were either so ashamed of what they had been compelled to do, or entertained so much respect for his character, as to agree that he should have 400l. a-year out of the revenues of the bishopric. But their employers at the seat of government disdained to vary their proceedings by such an act of generosity, and the Norwich committee were told that they had no power to allow any such thing, but if his wife needed a maintenance. upon her application to the lords and commons she might receive a fifth part. After long delays, this was granted; but the sequestrators produced such confused accounts, that the bishop could never ascertain what a fifth part meant, and was obliged to take what they offered. And that even this pittance might wear the appearance of insult and persecution, after they had cut off all his resources they demanded assessments and monthly payments for the very estates they had seized, and levied distresses upon him in spite of every assurance that he had given up all. They even commanded him to find the arms usually furnished by his predecessors, although they had deprived him of all power over his diocese.

His works were published at various periods in folio, quarto, and duodecimo. They have lately been collected w a very handsome, correct, and well-arranged edition, by the rev. Josias Pratt, in 10 vols. 8vo. The “Meditations” have been often reprinted. As a moralist he has been entitled the Christian Seneca; his knowledge of the world, depth of thought, and elegance of expression, place him nearer our own times than many of his contemporaries, while he adorned his age by learning, piety, and the uniform exercise of all the Christian graces. It would, indeed, be difficult to mention a prelate of more excellent character, or one, of his time, whose talents and sufferings, whose zeal in prosperity, and courage in adversity, deserve more honourable mention.

, a Roman catholic writer, was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, which his principles obliged him to leave about 1572. He then went to Doway, and thence to Italy, where he resumed his studies and took his degree of D. D. Returning afterwards to Doway, he obtained a professorship and some preferment. He died in 1604-. He wrote some books of controversy; but is chiefly worthy of notice now, as the author of that “Life of bishop Fisher” which goes under the name of Bailey. He left it in manuscript at his death, and it was long preserved as a choice rarity in the library of the English Benedictines at Dieuward in Lorraine; but several transcripts getting abroad, one fell into the hands of Thomas Bailey, D. D. a son of Bailey, or Bayly, bishop of Bangor. This Dr. Bailey, who was a Roman catholic, sold it to a bookseller, by whom it was printed at London in 1655, under the editor’s name. In 1739 another edition was published at London, 12mo, edited by Coxeter. It is valued as a narrative of considerable interest and authenticity.

, a learned nonconformist, was born at Worcester July 22, 1610, and after being educated in grammar at the king’s school there, under Mr. Henry Bright, was entered at Baliol-college in 1624, whence he soon removed to Pembroke, and had for his tutor a Mr. Thomas Lushington, a man eminent for learning. After taking his first degree in arts, he returned home, and for a while taught a private school, and preached at King’sNortou. About this time Wood says he began to adhere to the puritans, but he adds, “was so rigid in his persuasion that he was disliked by the brethren.” This perhaps may he gathered from his works, some of which were written in opposition to unlicensed preachers, fifth-monarchy men, and other extravagancies of the times. He was afterwards master of the free-school at KingVNorton, and curate of the place, the only preferments he had. He appears to have been a man of retired and studious habits, and although averse to episcopacy and the ceremonies, free from turbulence or open interference in the commotions of the times. He died April 13, 1665, and was buried at KingVNorton, to the school of which he was a bountiful benefactor in the establishment of a library there, as well as to the library of Birmingham school. Among his works are many controversial tracts enumerated by Wood, commentaries on some parts of the Scriptures, and some translations, adapted apparently for the use of schools, from Ovid.

Thus improved and instructed by the lectures of the most distinguished teachers of that period, by uncommon natural abilities, and by unremitting industry, he returned to Berne in the twenty-sixth year of his age. Not long after this, he offered himself a candidate, first for the office of physician to an hospital, and afterward for a professorship. But neither the character which he acquired before he left his native country, nor the fame which he had accumulated abroad, were sufficient to combat the interest opposed to him. He was disappointed in both; and it was even with difficulty that he obtained in the following year the appointment of keeper to a public library at Berne. The exercise of this office, however, although ill suited to his great abilities, was agreeable to him, as it afforded him an opportunity for that extensive reading by which he has been so justly distinguished; nor did this neglect of his merit diminish his ardour, or detract from his reputation either at home or abroad. He was soon after nominated a professor in the university of Gottingen, by king George II. The duties of this important office, which he discharged with no less honour to himself than advantage to the public, afforded him an ample field for the exertion of those great talents he possessed. Extensively acquainted with the sentiments of others respecting the ceconomy of the human body, struck with the diversity of opinions which they held, and sensible that the only means of investigating truth was by careful and candid experiment, he undertook the arduous task of exploring the phenomena of human nature from the original source. In these pursuits he was no less industrious than successful, and there was hardly any function of the body on which his experiments did not reflect either a new or a stronger light. Nor was it long necessary for him, in this arduous undertaking, to labour alone. The example of the preceptor inspired his pupils with the spirit of industrious exertion. Zinn, Zimmerman, Caldani, and many others, laboured with indefatigable industry to prosecute and to perfect the discoveries of their great master. And the mutual exertions of the teacher and his students not only tended to forward the progress of medical science, but placed the philosophy of the human body on a more sure, and an almost entirely new basis.

It has been usual for modern infidels to associate with themselves, if at all possible, men of eminent literary talents, and it must be confessed, they have been often too successful, especially with medical professors and practitioners, but Haller disdained such an association. Of this we have a remarkable proof which occurred soon after he had published his discoveries relative to irritability. On this property of animated matter, the unprincipled La Mettrie, the Dr. Sangrado of his day, laid the foundation of a system of materialism; and he had the impudence to dedicate it to Haller, declaring that to him he owed the acquisition of the great truths which it contained. Haller considered what La Mettrie meant for jocularity, as a serious insult; and observed, with horror, that he was held up to Europe as a favourer of materialism, or at least as the inventor of principles which served as a basis for that doctrine. Neither the respect which he had constantly declared for Christianity, in all his works, nor his mode of life, so conformable to the precepts of the Gospel, seemed sufficient to secure him against this imputation. He complained of it bitterly, and La Mettrie, in his answer, assumed the same tone; and Haller had prepared to publish a long and serious refutation of the charge, when he was informed of the death of his antagonist, and discovered, that, deceived by an excess of delicacy, which was, doubtless, laudable, he alone had been made the dupe of La Mettrie’s irony.

In person Haller was tall and majestic, and of a serious and expressive countenance; he had at times an open smile, always a pleasing tone of voice, usually low, and seldom elevated, even when he was most agitated. He was fond of unbending himself in society, and was on those occasions remarkably cheerful, polite, and attentive; he would converse with the ladies on fashions, modes of dress, and other trifles, with as much ease as if he had never secluded himself from the world. Mr. Bonnet informed Mr. Coxe that Haller wrote with equal facility the German, French, and Latin tongues; that he was so well acquainted with all the European languages, except the Russian, Polish, and Hungarian, as to speak with the natives in their respective idioms. When he conversed on any science or subject of literature, his knowledge was so extensive, that he seemed to have made that his particular study. His profound erudition in every branch of science is well known to all who are conversant with his works: but the variety of his information, and the versatility of his talents, are thus delineated by Tscharner Lobrede, who was his particular friend “He possessed a fundamental knowledge of natural history was well read in history, both ancient and modern, universal and particular; and uncommonly versed in the state of agriculture, manufactures, trade, population, literature, and languages of the respective nations of Europe he had read with attention the most remarkable voyages and travels and was particularly conversantin the late discoveries which tend to illustrate the geography of the globe. He had even perused many thousand novels and plays; and possessed such an astonishing memory, that he could detail their contents with the utmost precision. As it was his custom to make extracts, and to give his opinion of every book which came into his hands, as well for his own private use, as for the Gottingen Review (in which his department embraced history, medicine, anatomy, natural history, and several miscellaneous works, especially those which appeared in Italy), he read most new publications; and so eager was he usually in the perusal, that he laid them upon the table even when he was at dinner, occasionally looking into them, and marking those parts with a pencil which he afterward extracted or commented upon. He was accustomed to make his remarks on small pieces of paper, of different sizes, which he placed in order and fastened together; a method he learned from Leibnitz.” It may be added, as one weakness in this great character, that he was always impatient under sickness, as well from his extreme susceptibility of pain, as because he was precluded in that situation from his literary occupations. He was fond, therefore, of taking violent remedies, more calculated to remove the immediate effects of pain, and to check his disorder, than to cure it radically. In his latter years he accustomed himself to opium, which, Zimmerman informs us, he took in so large a dose as eight grains, and which operated as a temporary palliative, but increased his natural impatience. This restlessness of temper, which occasionally disturbed his tranquillity even in his younger clays, and in the full flow of his health and spirits, was considerably heightened by the advances of age, and the disorders which shattered his frame toward the close of his days.

In his youth, during a residence of some time at Bienne in 1723, he composed several pieces in the epic, dramatic, and lyric styles, his genius being awakened by the romantic scenery of the country to poetical enthusiasm. At this period he was so entirely absorbed in his favourite study, that on a fire breaking out in the house in which he lived, he rushed into his apartment, and rescued his poetry from the flames, leaving his other papers, with little regret, to destruction. Afterward, when a more mature age had ripened his judgment, he was frequently heard to say that he had preserved from the flames those composition^ which he then thought the finest productions of human genius, in order at a future period to consign them to destruction, as unworthy of his pen. In the sequel, however, he was more successful in his poetical effusions. In 1729 he composed his poem “On the Alps,” on which critics have been highly lavish of praise. He likewise wrote some ethic epistles on the “The Imperfection of human Virtue, on Superstition and Infidelity, the origin of Evil, and on the vanity of Honour;” also various “Satires,” “Doris 3” a pastoral on his first wife, and his much admired “Elegy on her death.” It is a convincing proof of Haller’s versatile genius and extraordinary mental powers, that be should have so eminently excelled in poetry, which, except in his early youth, he never considered otherwise than as an amusement, either to soothe him under afflictions, or to console him for the envy and neglect of his contemporaries. The soundest German critics place Haller among the most eminent of their poets: and consider sublimity as the grand characteristic of his writings. They acknowledge that he improved the harmony and richness of his native tongue; that he possessed the highest powers of invention and fancy; great originality both in his ideas and language; that he is the true colourist of nature that he sounded the depths of metaphysical and moral science and that he equally excels in picturesque descriptions, in soft and delightful imagery, in elevated sentiments, and philosophical precision. A few supercilious critics have reproached his poetry with occasional obscurities, and accuse him of having introduced a new language affectedly averse to the common modes of diction; but twenty-two successive editions of his German poems, and the translation of them into the principal languages of Europe, prove that they possess the great aim of poetry, that of pleasing and interesting the reader.

His scientific works form an imperishable monument to his memory. The most of his various dissertations on anatomical and physiological subjects, published during his residence at Gottingen, were collected, revised, and reprinted in 1751, under the title of“Opuscula Anatomica, de respiratione, de rnonstris, aliaque minora, quae recensuit, emendavit, auxit. Addidit alia inedita, et novas icones,” Gottingae, 8vo. The principal publications within the period just mentioned were, his great work on the botany of Switzerland, the first edition of which appeared in 1742, under the title of “Enurneratio methodica Stirpium Helvetise indigenarum, &c.” folio which, after undergoing considerable corrections and augmentations, was given under its perfect form, entitled “Historia Stirpium Helvetiae indigenarum,” in 1768, 3 vols. folio, with many plates. This admirable work, which was the most copious then published, was remarkably accurate in specific distinctions, and very full upon the economical and medicinal uses of the plants. The arrangement was peculiar to himself, and he shewed an unwillingness to adopt the improvements of Linnæus. His “Commentarii ad Hermanni Boerhaave Praelectiones Academicas, &c.” appeared in seven successive volumes, 8vo, between 1739 and 1744. Immediately after the death of his venerable preceptor Boerhaave in 1738, Haller undertook to publish his “Prelections,” from a ms copy of his own, collated with others. In 1743, he began to publish fasciculi of anatomical plates in folio, particularly relative to the blood-vessels in situ, which are among the most valuable of these helps to the study of the human frame. They were entitled “Iconum Anatomicarum, quibus praecipuae partes corporis humani delineate continentur, Fascic.” The plates amount to thirty-six in number. The first edition of his excellent little work “PrimsB Lmese Physiologic in usum Praelectionum Academicarum” was published in 1747, 8vo. It passed through many subsequent editions, and several translations, and is an outline of the system afterwards developed in his larger work. In 1751 he published at Amsterdam another work of great labour and research, viz. an edition of Boerhaave’s “Methodus Studii Medici,” with so many additions, that by much the greater part was his own; it may be considered as a prelude to his later “Bibliothecae.” He delivered two academical discourses in 1752, in which he proposed his peculiar opinions respecting the properties of sensibility and irritability in living bodies; they were written in French (of which language he had a perfect commarjd), under the title of “Dissertation sur les parties sensibles et irritables des Animaux,” Lausanne, 12mo. Besides these works, he printed a catalogue of plants growing in the botanic garden, and in the district, of Gottingen; observations made in a journey to the Hercynian forest in 1738, and an “Iter Helveticum, anni 1739;” and likewise a number of botanical papers, which were collected in his “Opuscula Botanica,” 1749, 8vo, or contained in the memoirs of the Gottingen academy, and other periodical works.

Haller was three times married first to Marianne Wytsen, in 1731, who died in 1736; secondly to Elizabeth Buchers, in 1738, who died in childbed the same or the following year; both natives of Berne; and lastly in 1739, to Amelia Frederica Teichmeyer, a German lady, who survived him. He left eight children, four sons and four daughters, all of whom he lived to see established. His eldest son, Gotlieb Emmanuel, who was born in 1735, followed his father’s example in dedicating himself to the service of his country, and to the pursuits of literature, He was elected member of the great council, and obtained various employments under government, particularly the baillage of Nyon, in which situation he died in 1786. He distinguished himself as an author by various publications tending to illustrate the history and literature of Swisserland, and particularly by his “Swiss Library,” in 6 vols. 8vo, of which he lived to publish only the first Another valuable work of his was entitled " Cabinet of Swiss Coins and Medals.

He had from his first admission into college, pursued a general scheme for ascertaining the true places of the fixed stars, and thereby correcting the errors of Tycho Brahe. His original view was to carry on the design of that first restorer of astronomy, by completing the catalogue of those stars from his own observations; but upon farther inquiry, finding this province taken up by Hevelius and Flamsteed, he dropped that pursuit, and formed another; which was, to perfect the whole scheme of the heavens by the addition of the stars which lie so near the south pole that they could not be observed by those astronomers, as never rising above the horizon either at Dantzick or Greenwich. With this view he left the university, before he had taken a degree, and applied himself to sir Joseph Williamson, then secretary of state, and to sir Jonas Moore, surveyor of the ordnance, both encouragers of these studies; who, applauding his purpose, mentioned it to Charles II. The king was much pleased with the plan, and immediately recommended him to the East India Company, who readily promised to supply him with every convenience, and to carry him to St. Helena, then in their possession by a grant from the crown, which he had been told was a proper situation for his design. Accordingly he embarked for that island November 1676, and arriving there safely in three months, began his task; but the frequent fogs which hover over the island made it much more difficult than he expected, and it was only by embracing every opportunity which offered during his abode on the island, that he was enabled to execute his purpose. He ascertained the position of 350 Stars, and published an account of his labours in 1676, under the title of “Catalogus Stellarum Australian.” In honour of his royal patron, he formed a new southern constellation, to which he gave the name of “Kobur Carolinum,” or the “Royal Oak.” During his stay at St. Helena, he had an opportunity of observing the transit of Mercury over the sun’s disk; an observation of some importance, because it could not be completely made in Europe, the sun not being risen in that country at the beginning of the transit. Having returned to England November 1678, the king, greatly satisfied, gave him, at his own request, a letter of mandamus to the university of Oxford for the degree of M. A. the words of which are, that “his majesty has received a good account of his learning as to the mathematics and astronomy, whereof he has gotten a good testimony by the observations he has made during his abode in the island of St. Helena.” This letter was dated November 18, and the same month he was also chosen fellow of the royal society. Indeed his catalogue of these southern stars merited particular honour; it was an entirely new acquisition to the astronomical world, and might not unaptly be called “Ccelum Australe eo usque incognitum;” and thence he acquired a just claim to the title, which by Flamsteed was not long after given him, the Southern Tycho.

In 1679 he was appointed by the royal society to go to Dantzick, for the satisfaction of Hevelius the consul, to adjust a dispute between him and our Hooke, about the preference of plain or glass sights in astroscopical instruments. He set out May 14 of this year, with a letter recommendatory from the society, and arrived at that city on the 26th. He waited on the consul immediately, and after some conversation, agreed to enter upon the business of his visit that same night; on which, and every night afterwards, when the sky permitted, the two astronomers made their observations together till July 18, when Halley left Dantzick, and returned to England. Here he continued till the latter end of the following year, 1680; when he set out upon what is usually called the grand tour, accompanied by the celebrated Mr. Nelson, who had been his school-fellow, and was his friend. They crossed the water in December to Calais; and in the mid-way thence to Paris, Haliey had, first of any one, a sight of the remarkable comet as it then appeared a second time that year in its return from the sun. He had the November before seen it in its descent, and now hastened to complete his observations upon it, in viewing it from the royal observatory of France. That building had been finished not many years before; and Halley’s design in this part of his tour was to settle a friendly correspondence between the two royal astronomers of Greenwich and Paris; embracing in the mean time every opportunity of improving himself under so great a master as Cassini, as he had done before under Hevelius. From Paris he went with his fellow-traveller, by the way of Lyons, to Italy, where he spent a great part of the year 1681; but his affairs then calling him home, he left Mr. Nelson at Rome, and returned to England, after making some stay a second time at Paris.

Soon after his return to England, he married the daughter of Mr. Tooke, auditor of the Exchequer; and took a house at Islington, where he immediately set up his tube and sextant, and eagerly pursued his favourite study. In 1683 he published his “Theory of the Variation of the Magnetical Compass,” in which he supposes the whole globe of the earth to be one great magnet, having four rnagnetical poles or points of attraction, two near the north and two near the south pole. The same year also he entered early upon a new method of finding out the longitude by a most accurate observation of the moon’s motion. His pursuits are said to have been interrupted about this time by the death of his father, who having suffered greatly by the fire of London, as well as by a second marriage, into which he had imprudently entered, was found to have wasted his fortune. He soon, however, resumed his usual occupations; for, January 1684, he turned his thoughts to the theory of the planetary motions; and gravity occurred to him, as it bad done to Dr. Hooke, as the probable cause. But he could not satisfy himself as to the law according to which this power diminishes, and therefore first applied to Dr. Hooke and sir Christopher Wren; who not affording him any assistance, he went to Cambridge to Newton, who supplied him fully with what he had so ardently sought. But Halley having now found an immense treasure, could not rest till he had prevailed with the owner to enrich the public with it, and to this interview the world is in some measure indebted for the celebrated “Principia” of Newton, which were published in 1686; and Halley, who had the whole care of the impression by the direction of the royal society, presented it to James II, with a discourse of his own, giving a general account of the astronomical part of that book. He also wrote some very elegant verses in Latin, which are prefixed to the “Principia.”

In 1685 he became clerk to the royal society, and seems, for several years about that period, to have been the principal person employed in drawing up the “Philosophical Transactions.” In 1687 he undertook to explain the cause of a natural phenomenon, which had till then baffled the researches of the ablest geographers. The Mediterranean Sea is observed not to swell in the least, although there is no visible discharge of the prodigious quantity of water which runs into it from nine large rivers, besides several small ones, and the constant setting-in of the current at the mouth of the Streights. His solution of this difficulty gave so much satisfaction to the society, that he received orders to prosecute these inquiries, in the course of which, having shewn by the most accurate experiments, how that great increase of water was actually carried off in vapours raised by the action of the sun and wind upon the surface, he proceeded with the like success to point out the method used by nature to return the said vapours into the sea. This circulation he supposes to be carried on by the winds driving these vapours to the mountains; where, being collected, they form springs, which uniting, becomte rivulets or brooks, and many of these again meeting in the valleys, grow into large rivers, emptying themselves at last into the sea; thus demonstrating in the most beautiful manner the way in which the equilibrium of receipt and expence is continually preserved in the universal ocean. In 1698 he was candidate for the Savilian professorship at Oxford, but lost it by the intervention of bishop Stillingtteet, who refused to recommend him, on account of his opinions, which were considered as unfavourable to Christianity. We shall find, however, that he was afterwards elected*.

* Whiston, in the Memoirs of his ley should talk with him about it, which own Life, tells us from Dr. Bentlev, he did. But Halley was so sincere in that Halley “being thought of for sue-his infidelity, that he would not so cessor to the mathematical chair at Ox-much as pretend to believe the Chrisford, bishop Stilling&eet was desired tiau religiou, though he thereby was to recommend him at courti; but, hear-likely to lose a professorship; which ing that he was a sceptic and a ban-he did accordingly, and it was the terer of religion, the bishop scrupled given to Dr. Gregory.” fco be concerned, till his chaplain Bent. which, though it was well received both at home and abroad, he found upon a review liable to great and insuperable objections. Yet the phenomena of the variation of the needle, upon which it is raised, being so many certain and indisputed facts, he spared no pains to possess himself of all the observations relating to it, he could possibly come at. To this end he procured an application to be made to king William, who appointed him commander of the Paramour Pink, August 19, 169S; with express orders to seek by observations the discovery of the rule of the variations, and, as the words of his commission run, “to call at his majesty’s settlements in America, and make such farther observations as are necessary for the better laying down the longitude and latitude of those places, and to attempt the discovery of what land lies to the south of the Western ocean.” He set out on this attempt November 24th following, and proceeded so far as to cross the line; but his men growing sickly and untractable, and his first lieutenant mutinying, he returned home in June 1699. After getting his lieutenant tried and cashiered, he sailed September following, a second time, having the same ship with another of less bulk, of which he had also the command. He traversed the vast Atlantic Ocean from one hemisphere to another, as far as the ice would permit him to go; and, in his way back touched at St. Helena, the coast of Brazil, Cape Verd, Barbadoes, Madeiras, the Canaries, the coast of Barbary, and many other latitudes, arriving in England in September 1700. Having thus furnished himself with a competent number of observations, he published in 1701, “A General Chart, shewing at one view the Variation of the Compass in all those seas where the English navigators were acquainted;” and was the first who laid a sure foundation for the discovery of the law or rule whereby the said variation changes all over the world. In 1775 the original journals of Dr. Halley’s two voyages were published by Mr. Alexander Dalrymple, in a thin quarto volume, but they are not of much value, and were obviously never intended for publication by Dr. Halley himself.

, a portrait painter of great celebrity, was born at Mechlin in 1584. He was a pupil of C. Van Mander, and by a careful observation of nature obtained that accurate knowledge of the structure of the human frame, which is so useful in his art. No man ever set the features of a face together with more truth than Frank Hals, or with a readier pencil; and he did it with great truth and spirit also of colour, as well as of execution. He avoided the laboured mode of finish so much admired among his countrymen at the time, and gave his portraits much expression and animation of countenance, particularly of a gay and humourous nature. A decided character of individual nature is remarkable in his portraits, and is not found in an equal degree in any other painter. If he had joined to this most difficult part of the art, a patience in finishing what he had so correctly planned, he might justly have claimed the place which Vandyke, all things considered, so justly holds as the first of portrait painters. This last mentioned artist was so delighted with his works, that he went to Haerlem, where he resided, for no other purpose than to pay him a visit. He introduced himself as a gentleman on his travels, who wished in haste to have his portrait painted. Hals was hurried from the tavern, where he usually passed his leisure time, seized the first canvas he could find, and began his labour. In a short time he had proceeded so far, that he asked Vandyke to look at what he had done, who expressed himself as very well pleased with it, at the same time saying that he thought such work so easy, he was persuaded he could do it himself. Taking the palette and pencils, he desired F. Hals to sit down, and in a quarter of an hour shewed him the portrait. The moment he saw it he recognized his visitor, and embraced him with transport. Vandyke endeavoured to prevail upon Hals to accompany him to England, engaging to enrich him but he was not able to succeed Hals declaring that his happiness consisted in the enjoyment of his friends and his bottle, and while he possessed these he was satisfied with his condition. For his treatment of Brouwer, see our account of that artist. He died in 1666, at the age of eighty-two. He had a brother, Dirk Hals, a painter of animals, merry-makings, conversations, feasts, and subjects of drollery, to whom, however, as an artist, he was far superior in all the better qualities of art: yet Dirk’s works gained him much reputation, and he practised with great success till he was sixty-seven years old, when he died in 1656.

, a very learned French philosopher and divine, was born at Vire in Lower Normandy, 1624. He passed through his first studies at Caen, and his course of rhetoric and philosophy at Paris. At eighteen he wrote a treatise, in which he explained, in a, very simple manner, and by one or two figures, Theodosius’s three books upon spherics; to which he added a tract upon trigonometry, extremely short, yet perspicuous, and designed as an introduction to astronomy. In one of his latter works he observes, that he was prompted by the vanity natural to a young man to publish this book: but, as Fontenelle remarks, there are few persons of that age capable of such an instance of vanity. At nineteen he entered himself in the congregation of the oratory, where he continued ten years, and left it in order to be curate of Neuilli upon the Marne. He applied in the mean time intensely to study, and acquired much reputation' by publishing works upon astronomy and philosophy. In 1666, Colbert proposed to Lewis XIV. a scheme, which was approved by his majesty, for establishing a royal academy of sciences; and appointed our author secretary of it. In 1668, he attended M. Colbert de Croissy, plenipotentiary for the peace at Aix la Chapelle; and, upon the conclusion of it, accompanied him in his embassy to England, where he formed an acquaintance with the most eminent persons of this nation, particularly with Boyle, Hay, and Willis. Thence he went over to Holland, and returned to France, having made a great number of useful observations in his travels. In 1678 his “Philosophia Vetus etNova, ad usum scholae aceommodatain regia Burgundia pertractata,” was printed at Paris in 4 vols. 12mo; and, in 1681, enlarged and reprinted there in six. This work, which was done by the order of M. Colbert, contains a judicious collection of the ancient and modern opinions in philosophy. Several years after its publication, the Jesuits carried it to the East-Indies, and taught it with success; and father Bovet, a missionary in China, wrote to Europe, that when his brethren and himself engaged in drawing up a system of philosophy in the Tartarian language for the emperor, one of their chief aids was Du Hamel’s “Philosophia e't Astronomia;” and they were then highly valued, though the improvements in philosophy since his time have rendered them of little use. In 1697 he resigned his place of secretary of the royal academy of sciences, which by his recommendation he procured for M. de Fontenelle. He had some years before this devoted himself to divinity, and published various works in that science. However, he did not entirely resign his former studies, but published at Paris, in 1698, “Regiae Scientiarum Academiae Historia,” 4to, in four books; which, being much liked, he afterwards augmented with two books more. It contains an account of the foundation of the royal academy of sciences, and its transactions, from 1666 to 1700, and is now the most useful of any of his works relating to philosophy; as perhaps the most useful which he published in theology is his last work printed at Paris, 1706, in folio, and entitled “Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis, una cum selectis ex optimis quib usque interpretibus notis, prolegomenis, novis tabulis chronologicis et geographicis.”

, an excellent painter, descended from the ancient family of the Hamiltons of Murdieston, originally of Fife, but now of Lanarkshire, in Scotland, was born at Lanark, and having discovered from his infancy a great predilection for historic painting, went young to Rome, where he became the scholar of Augustine Massuchi. With the exception of a few occasional visits to Britain, he resided the whole of his life at Rome, where he died in 1797. He had not perhaps the genius of an inventor; but the advantages of liberal education, and of a classic taste in the choice of his subjects, and the style at which he always, and often successfully, aimed, made him at least equal to his most celebrated contemporaries. Some of the subjects which he painted from the Iliad bear ample evidence of this. Achilles grasping the body of Patroclus, and rejecting the consolation of the Grecian chiefs, and Hector tied to his chariot, have something of Homeric sublimity and pathos; the moment chosen is the crisis of the fact, and the test of the hero’s character. But in this last he is not always happy, as in Achilles dismissing Briseis, where the gesticulation of an actor supplants the expression of the man. Of his women the Briseis in the same subject is the most attractive. Neither his Andromache mourning over Hector, nor the Helen in the same, or the scene with Paris, reach our ideas of the former’s dignity and anguish, or the form and graces of the latter. Indeed, what idea can be supposed to reach that beauty, which, in the confession of age itself, deserved the ten years’ struggle of two nations And yet, in the subject of Paris, those graces and that form are to be subordinate to the superior ones of Venus. He would rank with the first names in art, who from such a combination should escape without having provoked the indignation, contempt, or pity of disappointed expectation.

A considerable part of the latter periods of this artist’s life was dedicated to the discovery of antique monuments. He opened scavos in various places of ttye Roman state, at Centumcellue, Velletri, Ostia* and above all at Tivoli, among the ruins of Adrian’s Villa; and it must be owned that the success which attended most of his researches made amply up to art in general for the loss which painting perhaps may have suffered by the intermission of his practice and example. In the collection of the Museo Clementino, next to the treasures of Belvedere, the contributions of Hamilton in statues, busts, and basso relievos, were by far the most important to the progress of art and classic learning; and the best collections scattered over Russia, Germany, and this country, owe many of their principal ornaments to his discoveries. Nor was he less attentive to modern art; he published his “Schola Italica Picture” to trace the progress of its styles from Lionardo da Vinci to the successors of the Caracci. It yet remains to be said Hamilton, that however eminent his talents or other qualities were, they were excelled by the liberality, benevolence, and humanity of his character.

, bishop of Ossory, and an eminent mathematician, was born in the county of Dublin, March 26, 1729. He entered of Trinity-college, Dublin, Dublin, Nov. 17, 1742, and in 1751 was elected a fellow that college. In 1758 he published his treatise on conic ions, < De Sectionibus Conicis," and in 1759 was elected Erasmus Smith’s professor of natural philosophy. In 1764 he resigned his fellowship, having accepted a college living; and in 1767 obtained the living of St. Anne’s, Dublin, which in the following year he resigned at the proposal of the primate Robinson, for the deanery of Armagh. In 1772 he married an Irish lady of good family of the name of Wood. In 1796 he was consecrated 'bishop of Clonfert, having been recommended to that dignity without his solicitation or knowledge; and in 1799 was removed to the see of Ossory, where he continued till his death, Dec. 1, 1805.

Dr. Hamilton’s works have lately been collected and published by his son, in 1809, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains his treatise on conic sections already mentioned; the second, “An Essay on the existence and attributes of the Supreme Being;” “An Essay on the permission of Evil;” three philosophical essays on the ascent of vapours, the aurora borealis, and the principles of mechanics;“Remarks and hints on the improvement of Barometers;” “On the power of fixed alkaline salts to preserve flesh from putrefaction;” and “Four introductory Lectures on Natural Philosophy,” written originally in discharge of his duty as professor of natural philosophy; and received at their first publication, as the work of an acute and sound philosopher. In every office, whether ecclesiastical or otherwise, he seems to have been anxious to perform all the duties it imposed with fidelity and care.

, usually reckoned the first Scotch reformer, is said by all the Scotch ecclesiastical writers to have been of royal descent, as by his father, he was nephew to James Hamilton, earl of Arran, and by his mother, nephew to John Stewart, duke of Albany: Mackenzie, however, who cannot be suspected of any wish to degrade his countryman, maintains that his father was only a bastard brother of the earl of Arran, and his mother a bastard sister of the duke of Albany. Whatever truth there may be in this, it appears that he had great family interest, and being possessed of uncommon abilities, was intended for the higher offices in the church, had he not become its decided enemy. He was born in 1503, and after completing the usual course of studies at the university of St. Andrew’s, went to Germany, where he was, according to Dempster, made a professor in the university of Marpurg, which was newly erected by Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. During his residence abroad he imbibed the opinions of Luther, Melanchthon, and other reformers; and on his return to his own country, where he had been made abbot of Ferme, or Feme, in Ross-shire, he spared no pains in exposing what he considered as the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and the many errors, both in doctrine and practice, that had crept into the Christian religion.

, “a skilful physician, was born at Edinburgh, Dec. 6, 1721, and educated at the high school there. He was afterwards apprenticed to Mr. William Edmonston, a surgeon and apothecary at Leith, and after continuing in that station three years, studied* medicine at the university of Edinburgh. In 1741, he went as surgeon’s mate on board the Somerset, and for some time had the care of the military hospital at Port Mahon. In 1744, he was appointed surgeon to the Wolf sloop of war. The four following years were divided between his occupations at sea, and his attendance upon the lectures of Drs. Hunter and Smellie in London. In 1748, he went to Lynn in Norfolk, invited thither by his brother, a merchant in that town. He afterwards accepted an offer of settling at Lynn; and in 1766, having received the degree of M. D. from the university of St. Andrew’s, he succeeded to the practice of Dr. Lidderdale, who died about that time. In this situation he continued to the time of his death, which happened Nov. 9, 1793. As he was of an inquisitive and industrious turn of mind, the time that could be spared from his practice he employed in endeavouring to make improvements in his profession, and of his success several valuable monuments remain. He was a frequent, correspondent of the royal societies of London and Edinburgh. In 1791, he published a” Treatise on the Scrofula,“which has been well received. He invented a machine for reducing dislocated shoulders, and an apparatus for keepiug the ends of fractured bones together, to prevent lameness and deformity from those accidents. In 1801, was published a posthumous work, entitled” Observations on the marsh remittent fever; also on the water canker, or cancer aquaticus of Van Swieten, with some remarks on the leprosy," 8vo. Prefixed to this volume is an account of the author, from which we have extracted the preceding sketch.

Among the revivers of his fame, professor Richardson, and lord Woodhouslee, are entitled to the highest respect. The latter, in his elaborate life of lord Kames, says, “With the elegant and accomplished William Hamilton of Bangour, whose amiable manners were long remembered with the tenderest recollection by all who knew him, Mr. Home (lord Kames) lived in the closest habits of friendship. The writer of these memoirs has heard him dwell with delight on the scenes of their youthful days; and he has to regret, that many an anecdote to which he listened with pleasure, was not committed to a better record than a treacherous memory. Hamilton’s mind is pictured in his verses. They are the easy and careless effusions of an elegant, fancy and a chastened taste; and the sentiments they convey are the genuine feelings of a tender and susceptible heart, which perpetually owned the dominion of some favourite mistress; but whose passion generally evaporated in song, and made no serious or permanent impression. His poems had an additional charm to his contemporaries, from being commonly addressed to his familiar friends of either sex, by name.”

It appears from Hamilton’s letters, that he communicated his poems to his friends for their critical remarks, and was easily induced to alter or amend them by their advice. He had sent the piece entitled “Contemplation*” one of the most laboured of his productions, to Mr. Home, who suggested some alterations. In a letter from Hamilton, in July 1739, he says, “I have made the corrections on the moral part of Contemplation, and in a post will send it to Will. Crawford, who has the rest, and will transmit it to you. I shall write to him fully on the subject.” It is pleasing ^to remark, that the Will. Crawford here mentioned, was the author of the beautiful pastoral ballad of Tweed-side, which, with the aid of its charming melody, will probably live as long as the language is understood. Hamilton may be reckoned among the earliest of the Scotch poets who wrote English verse with propriety and taste, and with any considerable portion of the poetic spirit. Thomson, Mallet, and he, were contemporaries. “The poems of Hamilton,” says professor Richardson, “display regular design, just sentiments, fanciful invention, pleasing sensibility, elegant diction, and smooth versification, His genius was aided by taste, and his taste was improved by knowledge. He was not only well acquainted with the most elegant modern writers, but with those of antiquity. Of these remarks, his poem entitled c Contemplation, or the Triumph of Love,' affords sufficient illustration.”

, a statesman of some note, was the only son of William Hamilton, esq. an advocate of the court of session in Scotland, who after the union came to London, and was admitted to the English bar. His son was born in Lincoln’s-inn Jan. 28, 1728-9, and was educated at Winchester school, and at Oriel college, Oxford, where he was admitted a gentleman commoner, March 1, 1744-5. During his residence at Oxford, it is supposed he wrote those poems which were printed in 1750, 4to> for private distribution only, but have lately been published by Mr. Malone. On leaving Oxford, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to study the law; but on his father’s death in 1754, he betook hifnself to a political life, and in the same year was chosen, member of parliament for Petersfield in Hampshire. His first effort at parliamentary eloquence was made Nov. 13, 1755, when, to use the words of Waller respecting Denham, “he broke out, like the Irish rebellion, threescore thousand strong-, when nobody was aware, or in the least suspected it.” Certainly no first speech in parliament ever produced such an effect, or acquired such eulogies, both within and without the house of commons. Of this speech, however, no copy remains. For many years it was supposed to have been his only attempt, and hence the familiar name of Single-speech was fixed upon him; but he spoke a second time, Feb. 1756, and such was the admiration which followed this display of his talents, that Mr, P\>jc, then one of the principal secretaries of state, procured him to be appointed, in April of the same year, one of the lords of trade. At this board he sat five years without ever exerting his oratorical talents; and in 1761 accepted the office of principal secretary to George earl of Halifax, then appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland. In the Irish parliament, as he filled an office of responsibility, it was necessary for him to support the measures of administration; and accordingly in 1761 and 1762, he made five speeches on various occasions, which fully gratified the expectations of his auditors. Mr. Hamilton continued secretary to the succeeding lord lieutenant, Hugh earl of Northumberland, in 1763, but it is believed his exertions in that session were less splendid and less frequent; and before it concluded, on some disgust he resigned his office. On his return to England, and for a long time afterwards, he meditated taking an active part in the political warfare of the house of commons, but he never again addressed the chair, though he was chosen into every new parliament that was summoned from that time till May 1796, a little before his death. In this period, the only office hg filled was that of chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, which he held from Sept. 1763 to April 1784. During this interval he was one of those on whom common rumour bestowed the authorship of Junius’s letters, and perhaps never was any rumour so completely devoid of a probable foundation. He died at his house in Upper Brook-street, July 16, 1796, and was buried in the chancel vault of the church of St. Martin in the Fields. In 1803, Mr. Malona published his works under the title of “Parliamentary Logic; to which are subjoined two Speeches delivered in the House of Commons in Ireland, and other pieces,” 8vo f with a life of the author prefixed. These speeches give us but a faint idea of the splendid abilities which once so enraptured his hearers, nor does his poetry entitle him to rank above the elegant versifiers of his time. His Parliamentary Logic“is a performance of a more singular cast. It consists of a string of maxims, or rules, for managing a debate in parliament, in which the author appears serious, else we should have supposed parliamentary logic” to imply a ridicule on the language of that house. These maxims, however, seem admirably qualified to make a partizan; although we much doubt whether they have a tendency to make that more valuable character, an honest man.

Mr. Hamilton was appointed ambassador to the court of Naples in 1764; and from that time to 1800, in which he was recalled, it may be said, with the strictest justice, that he did much more for the advancementof the fine arts, natural history, and antiquities, than any individual or corporation in that metropolis; perhaps, or even the government itself. In Naples the state of those branches of knowledge, which constituted Mr. Hamilton’s pursuits, was at this time very low, and as far as early and intense application may be considered proofs of a predominant passion, it appears that the objects of natural history chiefly engaged his attention. In a short period from his arrival, he had already collected a vast number of articles connected with this science, and had thus formed a valuable cabinet, of which, according to the expression of one of his friends, “he could be himself the ablest demonstrator.” Between 1764, and the middle of 1767, he visited Vesuvius no less than twenty-two times, and had as often observed the different spots around Naples affected by volcanic eruptions; and it was universally remarked by those who had the pleasure, to accompany him in these excursions, that he was the best and most instructive “Cicerone” that could possibly be found for such occasions. He also visited Mount Etna, and the Eolian islands, places which had not been examined with such attention before. The phenomena which their surface presented to his view did not satisfy his curiosity: he observed the interior parts of the soil, and every minute circumstance that attended the operations of nature: not one of the different substances which had ever issued from these volcanoes was left unnoticed. In all his excursions he was constantly accompanied by an artist of great merit, Mr. Fabris, who drew plans and delineated such objects as were most interesting and striking.

These observations, though since reduced to systematic, works, were first communicated in partial letters to the royal society, from 1766 to 1779; in whose Transactions for the above years, and also in the Annual Register, these letters are preserved; the perusal of which will amply gratify those who are fond of curious incidents, and personal anecdotes relating to the subject of this memoir, The works themselves were two: viz. “Observations on Mount Vesuvius, Mount Etna, and other Volcanoes of the Two Sicilies,” which appeared in 1772, London, 8vo, and the “Campi PhJegraei,” published at Naples in 1776, in 2 vols folio. In the former his chief position was, “that volcanoes lie dormant for several years, nay even for centuries.” “When 1 arrived,” says he, “at Naples, Vesuvius was quiet, very seldom was smoke visible on its top; in the year 1766, it seemed to take fire, and has never since been, three months without either throwing up red hot stones, or disgorging streams of lava; nor has its crater been ever free from smoke. At Naples, when a lava appears, and not till then, it is styled an eruption; whereas I look upon the five nominal eruptions I have been witness to, from March 1766 to May 1771, as in effect but one continued eruption. It is certain, that by constant attention to the smoke that issues from the crater, a very good guess may be given as to the degree of fermentation within the volcano. By this alone 1 foretold the two last eruptions; and by another very simple observation, I pointed out, some time before, the very spot from whence the lava has issued. When the cone of Vesuvius was covered with snow, I remarked a spot on which it would not lie.”

The “Campi Phlegraei” were chiefly calculated to exhibit the view of the several spots already described. The drawings, by Mr. Fabris, were coloured with surprising art and great force of expression, and represented nature with the utmost accuracy and truth. Each plate was accompanied by concise and perspicuous explanations in English, and French. In the first volume, a large map was Also exhibited of the gulph of Naples and the country contiguous, which is unrivalled for its beauty and splendour. And in the author’s letter to sir John Pringle, dated Naples, May 2, 1776 (which may be considered as a dedication of the Work to the royal society), some additional observations on the subject were communicated, which had not been inserted either in the partial letters to the late Mr. Maty, or in the 8vo edition of them in 1772. In short, the publication was so accurate, so splendid, and so magnificent, as to have excited a surprise how such an invaluable performance could make its appearance in the south of Italy.

We are informed in the abbe Winkelman’s Letters, that the above-mentioned work was intended to be comprised in four large folio volumes. Of these, the two former only appeared at the stated time. The two latter volumes (as we are informed by a note in the last edition of the Letters of Winkelnian) were published in Naples in 1775; but the writer of this article has never been able to procure a sight of them, or even to gain the least information on the subject. The two former volumes were reduced to a smaller size, and republished at Paris, by Mr. David, in 1787, in five 8vo volumes. The adventurer D‘Hancarville, editor of the work, as we are told by Winkelman, expected, by that publication, to acquire a fortune of twenty thousand pounds. It is not probable that he ever realized this expectation, but we know from D’Hancarville himself, that Mr. Hamilton allowed him to reap the emolument which might arise from the work. Of the particulars of which, he himself says, that “long since Mr. Hamilton had taken pleasure in collecting those precious monuments, and had afterwards trusted them to him for publication, requiring only some elegance in the execution; and the condition, that the work should appear under the auspices of his Britannic majesty.” “It answers no purpose to have of the ancient vases that general and vague idea which is given of them by the books of Caylus, or Montfaucon. There are few antiquaries and scholars who have not entertained a wish to see such a collection executed with care and precision. They can now compare the present with that of cardinal Gualtieri, reported by Montfaucon, and with all the others which have hitherto appeared. Mr. Hamilton, justly apprehensive that the vases, already destined for England, might be damaged in their way, has resolved to have them engraved at Naples.”

Among the several persons whom Mr. Hamilton honoured with his patronage at Naples, we shall only mention the celebrated engraver, Morghen; as it was owing to his encouragement that this eminent artist, in 1769, published that elegant collection of views at Pozzuoli and other spots in the neighbourhood of Naples. It is pleasing to say that Mr. Morghen soon evinced his gratitude towards his patron, and the nation to which the latter belonged the collection was dedicated to the Society of arts in London and the greatest part of the views were inscribed to some individuals of our nobility who then happened to be in Naples. Ever since the year 1770, Mr. Hamilton had established a regular correspondence with various intelligent persons 4n the several provinces of the kingdom, concerning such monuments of arts or antiquities as might happen to be found near their respective residences, and which might answer his further purposes. This correspondence was carried on with a peculiar activity in the province of Campania, that province being indeed the spot in which the greatest number of ancient vaseshas been found, and which for this reason is thought to have possessed the chief manufactures of that article.

A few days after the breaking of this treaty, a canonry of Christ Church in Oxford becoming vacant, the king bestowed it upon him about March 1645; and the university chose him their public orator. His majesty also, coming to reside in that city, made him one of his chaplains in ordinary: notwithstanding all which employments, he did not remit from his studies, or cease to publish books, principally contrived to do service in the times when they were written. When Oxford surrendered, his attendance as cbaplain was superseded; but when the king came into the power of the army, he was permitted to attend him again, in his several confinements and removes of Woburn, Caversham, Hampton-court, and the Isle of Wight: at which last place he continued till Christmas, 1647, when all his majesty’s servants were removed from him. He then returned again to Oxford, where he was chosen sub-dean of Christ Church in which office he continued till March 30, 1648, and was then forcibly turned out of it by the parliamentary visitors. The accusations against him were, his refusing to submit to the visitors’ power; his being concerned in drawing up the reasons which were presented to the convocation against the authority of that visitation; and his refusing to publish the visitors’ orders for the expulsion of several of the members of Christ Church. Instead, however, of being commanded immediately to quit Oxford, as others were, a committee of parliament voted him and Dr. Sheldon to be prisoners in that place, where they continued in restraint for about ten weeks. During this confinement he began his “Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament;” the ground-work of which is said to be this. Having written in Latin two large volumes of the way of interpreting the New Testament, with inference to the customs of the Jews, and of the first heretics in the Christian church, and also of the heathens, especially in the Grecian games and, above all, of the importance of the Hellenistical dialect he began to consider, that it might be more useful to the English render, to write in our vulgar language, and set every observation in its natural order, according to the direction of the text. And having some years before collated several Greek copies of the New Testament, and observed the variation of our English from the original, and made an entire translation of the whole for his own private use, he cast his work into that form in which it now appears. It came out first in 1653; in 1656, with additions and alterations; and, in 1698, Le Clerc put out a Latin translation of it, viz. of the “Paraphrase and Annotations,” with the text of the Vulgate, in which he has intermixed many of his own animadversions, explained those points which Dr. Hammond had but slightly touched, and corrected many of his mistakes.

Dr. Hammond was a man of great temperance; his diet was of the plainest kind, and he frequently practised fastng. He seldom went to bed until midnight, or remained in it beyond five or six o'clock. By these means he was enabled to endure cold and fatigue, and in the severest weather sat at a distance from a fire. His studious industry was unceasing. He not only avoided, but had a strong aversion to idleness. “To be always furnished with somewhat to do” he considered as the best expedient both for innocence and pleasure, saying, that no burthen was more heavy, or temptation more dangerous, than to have time lie on one’s hand.“His piety was fervent, and from his youth he spent much of his time in secret devotion. Bishop Burnet says of him, that” his death was an unspeakable loss to the church; for as he was a man of great learning, and of most eminent merit, he having been the person that during the bad times had maintained the cause of the church in a very singular manner; so he was a very moderate man in his temper, though with a high principle, and would probably have fallen into healing counsels. He was also much set on reforming abuses, and for raising the clergy to a due sense of the obligations they lay under."

Hampden, if we form our judgment of him only from the account of those who were engaged in the opposite party to him, was, perhaps, one of the most extraordinary men that ever lived; and is thus delineated by the noble historian already quoted. “He was a man of much greater cunning, and it may be of the most discerning spirit, and of the greatest address and insinuation to bring any thing to pass which he desired, of any man of that time, and who laid the design deepest. He was not a man of many words, and rarely began the discourse, or made the first entrance upon any business that was assumed, but a very weighty speaker; and after he had heard a full debate, and observed how the house was like to be inclined, took up the argument, and shortly, and clearly, and craftily, so stated it, that he commonly conducted it to the conclusion he desired. He was of that rare affability and temper in debate, and of thatseeming humility and submission of judgment, as if he brought no opinion of his own with him, but a desire of information and instruction; yet he had so subtle a way, and under the notion of doubts insinuating his objections, that he infused his own opinions into those from whom he pretended to learn and receive them. And even with them who were able to preserve themselves from his infusions, and discerned those opinions to be fixed in him with which they could not comply, he always left the character of an ingenuous and conscientious person. He was, indeed, a very wise man, and of great parts, and possessed with the most absolute spirit of popularity, and the most absolute faculties to govern the people, of any man I ever knew. For the first year of the parliament he seemed rather to moderate and soften the violent and distempered humours than to inflame them. But wise and dispassionate men plainly discerned, that that moderation proceeded from prudence, and observation that the season was not ripe, rather than that he approved of the moderation and that he begot many opinions and notions, the education whereof he committed to other men so far disguising his own designs, that he seemed seldom to wish more than was concluded. And in many gross conclusions, which would hereafter contribute to designs not yet set on foot, when he found them sufficiently backed by a majority of voices, he would withdraw himself before the question, that he might seem not to consent to so much visible unreasonableness; which produced as great a doubt in some as it did approbation in others of his integrity. After he was among those members accused by the king of high treason, he was much altered; his nature and carriage seeming much fiercer than it did before: and without question, when he first drew his sword, he threw away the scabbard. He was very temperate in diet, and a supreme governor over all his passions and affections; and had thereby a great power over other men’s. He was of an industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious and of parts not to be imposed upon by the most subtle and sharp and of a personal courage equal to his best parts so that he was an enemy not to be wished wherever he might have been made a friend and as much to be apprehended where he was so, as any man could deserve to be. And therefore his death was no less pleasing to the one party than it was condoled in the other. In a word, what was said of Cinna might well be applied to him: he had ahead to contrive, a tongue to persuade, and a hand to execute, any mischief, or,‘-’ as the historian says elsewhere,” any good." Thus is Hampden described by Clarendon, agreeably to the notions usually formed of his character after the restoration; which was that of a great, rather than a good man. But as the characters of statesmen, commanders, or men acting in a public capacity, always vary with the times and fashions of politics, at the revolution, and since, he has been esteemed a good man as well as a great.

, the greatest musical composer of his time, or perhaps of any time or country, was born at Halle, in the duchy of Magdeburgh, February 4, 1684, by a second wife of his father, who was an eminent physician and surgeon of the same place, and then above sixty years of age. From his very childhood he discovered such a propensity to music, that his father, who always intended him for the civil law, took every method to oppose this inclination, by keeping him out of the way of, and strictly forbidding him to meddle with, musical instruments of any kind. The son, however, found means to get a little clavicord privately conveyed to a room at the top of the house; and with this he used to amuse himself when the family was asleep. While he was yet under seven years of age, he went with his father to the duke of Saxe Weisenfels, where it was impossible to keep him from harpsichords, and other musical instruments. One morning, while he was playing on the organ, after the service was over, the duke was in the church; and something in his manner of playing affected his highness so strongly, that he asked his valet-de-chambre (who was Handel’s brother-in-law) who it was that he heard at the organ? The valet replied, that it was his brother. The duke demanded to see him; and after making proper inquiries about him, expostulated very seriously with his father, who still retained his prepossessions in favour of the civil law. He allowed that every father had certainly a right to dispose of his children as he should think most expedient; but that in the present instance he could not but consider it as a sort of crime against the public and posterity to rob the world of such a rising genius. The issue of this conversation was, not only a toleration for music, but consent also that a master should be called in to forward and assist him.

From conducting the performance he became composer to the Chouse; and “Almeria,” his first opera, was composed when he was not much above fourteen years of age. The success of it was so great, that it ran for thirty nights without interruption; and this encouraged him to compose others, as he did also a considerable number of sonatas during his stay at Hamburgh, which was about four or five years. He contracted an acquaintance at this place with many persons of note, among whom was the prince of Tuscany, brother to the grand duke. The prince, who was a great lover of the art for which his country was famous, would often lament Handel’s not being acquainted with the Italian music; shewed him a large collection of it,; and was very desirous he should return with him to Florence. Handel plainly answered, that he could see nothing in the music answerable to the prince’s character of it; but, on the contrary, thought it so very indifferent, that the singers, he said, must be angels to recommend it. The prince smiled at the severity of his censure, yet pressed him to return with him, and intimated that no convenience should be wanting. Handel thanked him for the offer of a favour which he did not chuse to accept; for he resolved to go to Italy on a speculation of his own, as soon as he could raise a sum sufficient for the purpose. He had in him from his childhood a strong spirit of independence, which was never known to forsake him in the most distressful seasons of his life; and it is remarkable that he refused the greatest offers from persons of the first distinction, because he would not be cramped or confined by particular attachments.

Soon after, he went to Italy, and Florence was his first destination; where at the age of eighteen, he composed the opera of “Rodrigo,” for which he was presented with 100 sequins, and a service of plate. This may serve to shew what a reception he met with at a place where the highest notions were conceived of him before he arrived. Vittoria, a celebrated actress and singer, bore a principal part in this opera. She was a fine woman, and had been some time in the good graces of his serene highness; yet Handel’s youth and comeliness, joined with his fame and abilities in music, had raised emotions in her heart, which, however, we do not find that Handel in the least encouraged. After about a year’s stay at Florence, he went to Venice, where he was first discovered at a masquerade, while he was playing on a harpsichord in his vizor. Scarlatti happened to be there, and affirmed it could be no one but the famous Saxon or the devil. Being earnestly importuned to compose an opera, he finished his “Agripjpina” in three weeks; which was performed twenty-seven nights successively, and with which the audience were enraptured. From Venice he went to Rome, where his arrival was no sooner known than he received polite messages from persons of the first distinction. Among his greatest admirers was the cardinal Ottoboni, a man of reiined taste and princely magnificence; at whose court he met with the famous Corelli, with whom he became well acquainted. Attempts were made at Rome to convert him to Popery; but he declared himself resolved to die a member of that communion, whether true or false, in which he had been born and bred. From Rome he went to Naples; and after he quitted Naples, made a second visit to Florence, Rome, and Venice. The whole time of his abode in Italy was six years; during which he had composed a great deal of music, and some in almost every species of composition. These early fruits of his studies would doubtless be great curiosities, could they be met with.

He now returned to his native country, but could not prevail on himself to settle while there was any musical court which he had not seen. He accordingly visited Hanover, where he met with Steffani, with whom he had been acquainted at Venice; and who was then master of the chapel to George I. when elector of Hanover. There also was a nobleman who had taken notice of him in Italy, and who afterwards did him great service when he came to Kngland for the second time, baron Kilmansegge, who now introduced him at court, and so well recommended him to his electoral highness, that he immediately offered him a pension of 1500 crowns per annum, as an inducement to stay. Handel excused his not accepting this high favour, because he had promised the court of the elector palatine, and had also thoughts of going to England, whither he had received strong invitations from the duke of Manchester. On this he obtained leave to be absent for a twelvemonth or more at a time, and to go whithersoever he pleased; and on these conditions he thankfully accepted the pension.

The academy being now firmly established, and Handel appointed principal composer, all things went on prosperously for a course of ten years. Handel maintained an absolute authority over the singers and the band, or rather kept them in total subjection. What, however, they regarded for some time as legal government, at length appeared to be downright tyranny; on which a rebellion commenced, with Senesino at the head of it, and all became tumult and civil war. Handel perceiving that Senesino was grown less tractable and obsequious, resolved to subdue him. To manage him by gentle means he disdained; yet to controul him by force he could not, Senesino’s interest and party being too powerful. The one, therefore, was quite refractory, the other quite outrageous. The merits of the quarrel are not known; but, whatever they were, the nobility would not consent to his design of parting with Senesino, and Handel had resolved to have no farther concerns with him. And thus the academy, after it had gone on in a flourishing state for above nine years, was at once dissolved.

Handel still continued at the Haymarket, but his audience gradually sunk away. New singers must be sought, and could not be had any nearer than Italy, to which, however, he was obliged to go, and returning with several singers, he carried on the opera for three or four years without success. Many of the nobility raised a new subscription for another opera at Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and sent for Farinelli and others; and in short, the opposition was so strong, that in spite of his great abilities, his affairs declined, and his fortune was not more impaired than his health and his understanding. His right arm was become useless to him from a stroke of the palsy; and his senses were greatly disordered at intervals for a long time. In this unhappy state, it was thought necessary that he should go to the vapour-baths at Aix-la-Chapelle; and thence he received a cure, which from the manner, as well as quickness of it, passed with the nuns for a miracle.

As a composer, it would be affectation to attempt any character of Handel after what Dr. Burney has given. “That Handel was superior in the strength and boldness of his style, the richness of his harmony, and complication of parts, to every composer who has been most admired for such excellencies, cannot be disputed; and while fugue, contrivance, and a full score were more generallyreverenced than at present, he remained wholly unrivalled. We know it has been said that Handel was not the original 3-nd immediate inventor of several species of music for which his name has been celebrated; but with respect to originality, it is a term to which proper limits should be set before it is applied to the productions of any artist. Every invention is clumsy in its beginning; and Shakspeare was not the first writer of plays, or Corelli the first composer of violin solos, sonatas, and concertos, though those which he produced were the best of his time; nor was Milton the inventor of epic poetry. The scale, harmony, and cadence of music being settled, it is impossible for any composer to invent a genus of composition that is wholly and rigorously new, any more than for a poet to form a language, idiom, and phraseology for himself. All that the o-reatest and boldest musical inventor can do, is to avail himself of the best effusions, combinations, and effects of his predecessors; to arrange and apply them in a new manner; and to add from his own source, whatever he can draw, that is grand, graceful, gay, pathetic, or in any other way pleasing. This Handel did in a most ample and superior manner; being possessed in his middle age and full vigour, of every refinement and perfection of his time; uniting the depth and elaborate contrivance of his own country with Italian elegance and facility; as he seems while he resided south of the Alps, to have listened attentively in the church, theatre, and chamber, to the most exquisite compositions and performers of every kind that were then existing. We will not assert that his vocal meTodies were more polished and graceful than those of his countryman and contemporary Hasse; or his recitatives or musical declamation, superior to that of his rivals Buononcini and Porpora. But in his instrumental compositions there is a vigour, a spirit, a variety, a learning, and invention, superior to every other composer that can be named; and in his organ fugues and organ playing, there is learning always free from pedantry; and in his choruses a grandeur and sublimity which we believe has never been equalled since the invention of counterpoint.”

The figure of Handel was large, and he was somewhat corpulent and unwieldy in his motions, and his general cast of countenance seemed rather heavy and sour; yet, when animated in conversation, his visage was full of fire and dignity, and such as impressed ideas of superiority and genius; and when he smiled, there was an uncommon sudden flash of intelligence, wit, and good-humour beaming in his countenance. Though he was generally rough and peremptory in his manners and conversation, he was totally devoid of ill-nature or malevolence; indeed, there was an original humour and pleasantry in his most lively sallies of anger or impatience, which, with his broken English, were extremely risible. His natural propensity to wit and humour, and happy manner of relating common occurrences in an uncommon way, enabled him to throw persons and things into very ridiculous attitudes. Had he been as great a master of the English language as Swift, his bon-mots would have been as frequent, and somewhat of the same kind.

It has been said of him, that out of his profession he was ignorant and dull, but, if the fact was as true as it is severe, it must be allowed in extenuation, that to possess a difficult art in the perfect manner in which he did, and to be possessed by it, seems a natural consequence, and all that the public had a right to expect, as he pretended to nothing more. So occupied and absorbed was Handel by the study and exercise of his profession, that he had little time to bestow, either on private amusements or the cultivation of friendship. Indeed, the credit and reverence arising from these, had Handel possessed them, would have been transient, and confined to his own age and acquaintance; whereas the fame acquired by silent and close application to his professional business is universal. Dr. Burney thinks it probable that his name, like that of many of his brethren, will long survive his works. The most learned man can give us no information concerning either the private life or compositions of Orpheus, Amphion, Linus, Olympus, Terpander, or Timotheus, yet every school-boy can tell us that they were great musicians, the delight of their several ages, and many years after, of posterity. Though totally free from the sordid vices of meanness and avarice, and possessed of their opposite virtues, charity and generosity, in spite of temporary adversity, powerful enemies, and frequent maladies of body, which sometimes extended to intellect, Handel died worth upwards of 20,000l.; which, except 1000l. to the fund for decayed musicians and their families, he chiefly bequeathed to his relations on the continent.

, an English divine of a very mixed character, was son to Thomas Hanmer of Porkington, in Shropshire, where he was born in 1543, though Fuller says he was born in Flintshire. He became chaplain of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, where he took a degree in arts in April 1567. He afterwards was presented to the living of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, during his holding of which his conduct was such as to bring great odium on him. Out of avarice he tore away the brass plates from the gravestones and monuments, and sold them; and he also appears by Fleetwood’s Diary to have paid very little regard to his oath in a court of justice. In 1581 or 1582, betook his degrees in divinity, and in Nov. 4th, 1583, was presented to the vicarage of Islington, which he resigned in 1590. Two or three years afterwards he resigned Shoreditch, went to Ireland, and at length became treasurer to the church of the holy Trinity, in Dublin, which he kept until his death in 1604. Weever says he committed suicide; and there is still a tradition to this effect among the inhabitants of Shoreditch parish. Whatever his errors, he was esteemed an exact disputant, and a good preacher; an excellent Greek scholar, and well versed in ecclesiastical and civil history. Besides some tracts against the Jesuits, he published “A Chronography,” &c. Lond. 1585, folio, which Harris says was added to his translation of “The Ancient Ecclesiastical Histories of the first 600 years after Christ, originally written by Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius,” 1576, folio, reprinted 1585. With this were printed the lives of the prophets and apostles, &c. by Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre; the Ephemeris of the Saints of Ireland; and “The Chronicle of Ireland, in two parts,” the third part of which was published in 1633, at Dublin, fol. He published also, “A Sermon on the Baptising of a Turk,” preached in the collegiate church of St. Katherine, 1586, 8vo.

, a distinguished statesman and polite writer, was born about 1676, and had his education at Westminster-school, and Christ-church, Oxford. When he arrived at years of maturity, he was chosen knight of the shire for the county of Suffolk, and sat in parliament near thirty years, either as a representative for that county, or for Flintshire, or for the borough of Thetford. In this venerable assembly he was soon distinguished; and his powerful elocution and unbiassed integrity drew the attention of all parties. In 17 13 he was chosen speaker of the house of commons; which office, difficult at all times, but at that time more particularly, he discharged with becoming dignity. All other honours and emoluments he declined. Having withdrawn himself by degrees from public business, he spent the remainder of his life in an honourable retirement amongst his books and friends; and there prepared an elegant and correct edition of the works of Shakspeare. This he presented to the university of Oxford; and it was printed there 1744, in 6 vols. 4to, with elegant engravings, by Gravelot, at the expence of sir Thomas. He died at his seat in Suffolk, April 5, 1746.

Actively as Harding was engaged in public life, he found time to gather materials lor his “Chronicle,”, and appears to have finished the first composition of it toward the latter en4 of the minority of king Henry VI. The Lansdowne manuscript closes with the life of sir Robert Umfravile, who died, according to Dugdale, Jan. 27, 1436, and under whom Harding seems to have lived in his latter years as constable of Kyme castle in Lincolnshire. Of the rewards which he received for his services, we find only a grant for life often pounds per annum out of the manor or alien preceptory of Wyloughton in the county of Lincoln, in the eighteenth year of Henry VI.; and in 1457 he had a pension of twenty pounds a year for life by letters patent, charged upon the revenues of the county of Lin., coin. During his latter days he appears to have re-composed his “Chronicle” for Richard duke of York, father to king Edward IV. who was slain in the battle of Wakefield, Dec. 31, 1460. It was afterwards presented to king Edward IV. himself. The history comes no lower than the flight of Henry VI. to Scotland, but from “the excusacion” touching his “defaultes,” in which the q‘ueen’is mentioned, it is evident that Harding could not have finished his work before 1465. How long he survived its completion is unknown, but he must then have been at least eighty-seven years of age. His “Chronicle of England unto the reign of king Edward IV.” is in verse, and as a metrical composition is beneath criticism, but, as a record of facts, is highly interesting to the English historian and antiquary. It was first printed by Grafton in 1543, with a continuation by the same, to the thirty-fourth year of Henry VIII. This has been long ranked among the most rare and expensive of our Chronicles, but those who prefer use to mere antiquity, will set a higher value on the edition printed in 1812 by the booksellers of London, Henry Ellis, esq. the learned editor of this edition, has prefixed a biographical and literary preface, to which the preceding account is much indebted, and has carefully collated Harding' s part of the “Chronicle” with two manuscripts of the author’s own time, the Lansdowne and the Harleian, both which are in the British Museum; and Grafton’s addition has been collated with his duplicate edition.^ It is noticed by Mr. Ellis as a very singular fact, that there should be two editions of Harding, both printed by Grafton in the month of January 1543, differing in almost every page, and one, in Grafton’s own portion of the work, containing (in the reign of Henry VIII.) no less than twenty-nine pages more than the other.

At Eton and Cambridge, he had the fame of the most eminent scholar of his time, and wrote Latin verse with great elegance. When at Cambridge he was at the head of the whig party, which happened to prevail in a contest respecting the expulsion of a student, who, in one of the college exercises had offended the tories. In this contest he made himself master of the law and custom of visitatorial power, which he discussed in a very masterly essay; but this, although intended for publication, has not yet appeared. He was a very profound and judicious antiquary, particularly in what concerned English law and history. At the request of William duke of Cumberland (to whom he had been appointed, in Dec. 1732, law-reader, and was afterwards his attorney-general), he wrote a very learned memorial upon the regency (when that subject was agitated in the last reign), which lord Hardwicke called “an invaluable work.” It was by Mr. Hardinge' s advice and encouragement that Mr. Stuart undertook his journey to Athens, with a view of illustrating the history of that city. His diligence, accuracy, knowledge, and skill, in the office of clerk to the House of commons, were never exceeded. He put the “Journals” into their present form; and drew up a very able report of the condition in which he found them. In his office of secretary he was laborious, able, and zealous; and so honest, that he had many enemies. He was chosen representative for the borough of Eye in parliament in 1748 and 1754, and was a very useful member; but had no talents or courage for eloquence, though his taste in estimating it was exquisite.

Still persisting in his opinion, in some letters, written to Mons. Ballanfaux, and printed at Luxemburg in 1700, he speaks of “an impious faction begun a long while ago, which still subsists, and which by forging an infinite number of writings, that seem to breathe nothing but piety, appears to have no other design than to remove God out of the hearts of mankind, and to overturn all religion.” Mr. La Croze refuted his notion concerning the forgery of the ancient writings, in a Dissertations historiques sur divers sujets, Rot. 1707;“and in” Vindiciae veterum Scriptorum contra J. Harduinum.“La Croze imagined, that Hardouin advanced his notions in concert with the society of Jesuits, or at least with his superiors, in order to set aside the ancient Greek and Latin sacred and profane writers, and so leave all clear to infallibility and tradition only; but Le Clerc was of opinion, that there was no ground for this supposition. In 1700 there was published at 4sterdam a volume in folio, entitled” Joannis Harduini opera selecta,“consisting of his” Nummi antiqui populorum et urbium illustrati;“” De Baptismo quaestio triplex;“edition of” St. Chrysostom’s Letter to Caesarius,“with the dissertation” De Sacramento Altaris;“” De nummis Herodiadum;“his” Discourse on the Last Supper,“which had been printed in 1693 a treatise in which he explains the medals of the age of Constantine” Chronology of the Old Testament, adjusted by the Vulgate translation, and illustrated by Medals“” Letters to M. de Ballanfaux“and other pieces. This volume made a great deal of noise before it was published. The author had corrected what he thought proper in the works he had already published; and then put them into the hands of a bookseller, who undertook to print them faithfully from the copy he had received. He began the impression with the author’s consent, and was considerably advanced in it, when the clamour raised against the paradoxes in those works obliged Hardouin to send an order to the bookseller to retrench the obnoxious passages. But the bookseller refused to do it, and wrote an answer to him, alleging the reasons of his refusal. This immediately produced” A Declaration of the father provincial of the Jesuits, and of the superiors of their houses at Paris, concerning a new edition of some works of father John Hardouin of the same society, which has been actually made contrary to their will hy the Sieur de Lorme, bookseller at Amsterdam,“&c. At the bottom of this was Hardouin’s recantation, which runs in these curious terms” I subscribe sincerely to every thing contained in the preceding declaration I heartily condemn in my writings what it condemns in them, and particularly what I have said concerning an impious faction, which had forged some ages ago the greatest part of the ecclesiastical or profane writings, which have hitherto been considered as ancient. I am extremely sorry that I did not open my eyes before in this point. I think myself greatly obliged to my superiors in this society, who have assisted me in divesting myself of my prejudices. I promise never to advance in word or writing any thing directly or indirectly contrary to my present recantation. And if hereafter I shall call in question the antiquity of any writing, either ecclesiastical or profane, which no person before shall have charged as supposititious, I will only do it by proposing my reasons in a writing published under my name, with the permission of my superiors, and the approbation of the public censors. In testimony of which I have signed, this 27th of December, 1708, J. Hardouin, of the society of Jesus.' 5