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

But notwithstanding this solemn protestation, nothing can be more certain than that Hardouin industriously cherished and propagated his opinions to the last moment of his life. Thus, in 1723, when he reprinted his edition of Pliny in three volumes folio, he greatly augmented it with notes, in which were dispersed many paradoxical conceits, tending to support his general system, which Mr. Crevier and father Desmolets of the oratory thought themselves obliged to point out and refute. Yet, notwithstanding all these circumstances, and the clamour raised against him and his writings, he maintained his credit so well with the clergy of France, that they engaged him to undertake a new edition of“The Councils,” and gave him a pension for that purpose. It was printed, 1715, in 12 vols. folio, at the royal printing-house; but the sale of it was prohibited by the parliament, who commissioned some doctors, among whom was the celebrated Dupin, to examin^ it. These doctors gave in their report, that the edition! should either be suppressed, or at least corrected in a great number of places; because it contained many maxims injurious to the doctrines and discipline of the church in general, and to those of the Gallican church in particular; and because some very essential things were omitted, while others that were spurious were inserted.

, afterwards earl of Oxford and earl Mortimer, and lord high treasurer in the reign of queen Anne, was eldest son of sir Edward Harley, and born at London, in Bow-street, Covent Garden, December 5, 1661. He was educated under the rev. Mr. Birch, at Shilton, near Burford, Oxfordshire, which, though a private school, was remarkable for producing at the same time, a lord high treasurer, viz. lord Oxford a lord high chancellor, viz. lord Harcourt a lord chief justice of the common pleas, viz. lord Trevor and ten members of the house of commops, who were all contemporaries, as well at school as in parliament. Here he laid the foundation of that extensive knowledge and learning, which rendered him afterwards so conspicuous in the world. At the revolution, sir Edward Harley, and this his eldest son, raised a troop of horse at their own expence; and, after the accession of king William and queen Mary, he was first chosen member of parliament for Tregony in Cornwall, and afterwards served for the town of Radnor till he was called to the house of lords. In 1690 he was chosen by ballot one of the nine members of the house of commons, commissioners for stating the public accounts; and also one of the arbitrators for uniting the two India companies. In 1694 the house of commons ordered Mr. Harley, November 19, to prepare and bring in a bill “For the frequent meeting and calling of parliaments;” which he accordingly did upon the 22d, and it was received and agreed to by both houses, without any alteration or amendment. On February 11, 1701-2, he was chosen speaker of the house of commons; and that parliament being dissolved the same year by king William, and a new one called, he was again chosen speaker, December 31st following, as he was in the first parliament called by queen Anne.

On April 17, 1704, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy council; and, May 18th following, sworn in council one of the principal secretaries of state, being also speaker of the house of commons at the same time. In 1706 he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of union with Scotland, which took effect; and resigned his place of principal secretary of state in February 1707-8. August 10, 1710, he was constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, also chancellor and under-treasurer of the exchequer. On the 8th of March following he was in great danger of his life; the marquis of Guiscard, a French papist, then under examination of a committee of the privy council at Whitehall, stabbing him with a penknife, which he took up in the clerk’s room, where he waited before he was examined. Guiscard was imprisoned, and died in Newgate the 17th of the same month: and an act of parliament passed, making it felony, without benefit of clergy, to attempt the life of a privy counsellor in the execution of his office; and a clause was inserted “To justify and indemnify all persons, who in assisting in defence of Mr. Harley, chancellor of the exchequer, when he was stabbed by the sieur de Guiscard, and in securing him, did give any wound or bruise to the said sieur de Guiscard, whereby he received his death.” The wound Mr. Harley had received confined him some weeks; but the house being informed that it was almost healed, and that he would in a few days come abroad, resolved to congratulate his escape and recovery; and accordingly, upon his attending the house on the 26th of April, the speaker addressed him in a very respectful speech, to which Mr. Harley returned as respectful an answer. They had before addressed the queen on this alarming occasion.

Oxford, says Mr. archdeacon Coxe, was unimpeachable in his private character, never offending against morality either in conversation or action, a tender husband, and a good father; highly disinterested and generous. He prided himself in his high descent, was stiff and formal in his deportment, and forbidding in his manner. He was learned and pedantic; embarrassed and inelegant both in speaking and writing. He was equally an enemy to pleasure and business; extremely dilatory and fond of procrastination; timid in public affairs, yet intrepid when his own person was concerned; jealous of power, indefatigable in promoting the petty intrigues of the court, but negligent in things of importance a whig in his heart, and a tory from ambition too ready for temporary convenience to adopt measures he disapproved, yet unwilling wholly to sacrifice his real sentiments to interest or party; affecting the most profound secrecy in all political transactions, and mysterious in the most trifling occurrences. He was liberal in making promises, yet breaking them without scruple, a defect which arose more from facility of temper, than from design. He corresponded at the same time with the dethroned family and the house of Hanover, and was there ­fore neither trusted nor respected by either party. The only pojnt in which he and his colleague Bolingbroke agreed, was the love of literature and the patronage of learned men; which rendered their administration eminently illustrious.

, a learned Greek scholar and teacher, was the son of a father of the same name, who was warden of Winchester, and died in 1613. He was also an able Greek scholar, was employed on the translation of the Bible, and published some of Chrysostom’s homilies from Mss. in the library of New-college, Oxford. His son was born about 1594, at Churchdowne, near Gloucester, and educated at Winchester-school. In 1611 he entered as a demy of Magdalen-college, Oxford, and completed his master’s degree in 1617, the highest Wood says he took, “although he was in his latter days called Dr. Harmar.” His first employment as a teacher was in Magdalen school, about which time he took orders. He was afterwards in succession chief master of the free-school at St. Alban’s, and under-master of Westminster-school. In 1650, when the committee for reforming the university had ejected all the old professors, he was appointed by their authority, Greek professor, and in 1659 was presented to the rectory of Ewhurst, in Hampshire. On account of his connexions with the usurping powers, he was deprived of his professorship and rectory at the restoration, and retired to Steventon, in Hampshire,where he subsisted on his wife’s jointure. He died there Nov. 1, 1670. As a nonconformist Calamy has nothing to say for him, and Neal says “he was an honest, weak man.” He wrote Latin and Greek panegyrics on the leading men of all parties, and complimented Charles II. with as much sincerity as he had Cromwell, and Richard his successor. In the facility of Greek composition he appears to have excelled, and he translated some part of Butler’s Hudibras into Latin, retaining much of the spirit of the original. While engaged as a teacher, he published a “Praxis Grammatica,” Lond. 1622, 1623, 8vo, and a “Janua Linguarum,” of which there were six or seven editions before J 63 1 He published also a “Lexicon Etymologicon Graccum,” which Wood says is “junctim cum Scapula,” Lond. 1637, fol. His other principal works are, 1. “Eclogse sententiarum et similitudinum, e D. Chrysostomo decerptae,” Gr. & Lah with notes, Lond. 1622, 8vo. 2. “Protomartyr Britannus; seu Elogia sacra in conversionem et rnartyrium S. Albani,” ibid. 1630, 4to. 3. “Epistola ad D. Lambertum Osbaldestonum, cui intexitur Apologia pro honoratissimo &c. D. Johanne Williams Arch. Eborac.” ibid. 1649, 8vo. 4. “M. T. Ciceronis vita, ex optimis quibusque scriptoribus delibata,” Ox. 1662, 8vo. He translated from Latin into English, Daniel Heinsius’s “Mirror of Humility;” from English into Greek and Latin, the Assembly’s “Shorter Catechism,” ibid. 1659, 8vo; and from English into Latin, Howell’s “Treatise concerning Ambassadors.”

, a learned dissenter, was born at Norwich in 1715. He received the elements of classical learning in the country, and discovering an inclination for the profession of a dissenting minister, was sent to London to study un'ler the tuition of Mr. Eames. When he had finished his studies, he settled with a small congregation at Wattsfield, in Suffolk, where he improved his acquaintance with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, in each of which he acquired much critical skill. The favourite object of his pursuit was oriental history, which he applied to the illustration of the sacred writings. Observing a striking conformity between the present customs of the eastern nations and those of the ancients, as mentioned or alluded to in various passages of scripture, he conceived a design at a very early period, of making extracts of such passages in books of travels and voyages, as appeared to him to furnish a key to many parts of holy writ. In 1764 he published a volume of “Observations on divers Passages of Scripture,” &c. The favourable reception which this work met with, encouraged Mr. Harmer to proceed in it, and in 1776 he gave the public an enlarged edition of it, in 2 vols. 8vo. By the preface to this impression we learn that Dr. Lowth bishop of London furnished him with some ms papers of sir John Chardin. In 17S7 Mr. Haroier published two other volumes. A new edition of the whole of this most useful work has lately been published by the rev. Adam Clarke. He was author also of the ' Outlines of a new Commentary on Solomon’s Song, drawn by the help of instructions from the East;“an” Account of the Jewish Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead," and some other tracts of less consequence. Mr. Harrner died without a struggle, in November 1788, having passed the preceding day in perfect health.

The reputation he had gained by his various prize essays and poems, and by his “Warwick,” at length opened the doors of the French academy, into which he was admitted in 1776. In 1779 he wrote his “Muses Rivales” in compliment to Voltaire, and the year following an eloge on that celebrated writer, with whom he had been acquainted since 1765. He was not less a favourite, or less connected with the encyclopedists, and was at this time accounted an adept in that audacious philosophy which infected France, and finally dissolved her morals.

About 1779 he undertook an abridgment of the abbe“Prevost’s Histoire des Voyages,” an employment so much beneath his talents, that it was generally considered rather as a bookseller’s job than an effort of literary ambition. In the same year he printed his “Tangu et Felime,” in four cantos, which was reckoned one of the best productions of the voluptuous kind. But that on which his fame is more honourably and solidly established, was his “Cour de Litterature, ancienne et moderne,” which justly entitles him to the appellation of the French Quintilian. Being appointed a professor of literature in the Lyceum, the lectures he had delivered in it during many years were collected and properly arranged by him, and soon after published under the title of “Lyceum; or, Course of Literature,” in 12 vols. 8vo. M. Petitot says of this work, that “he not only labours to give to persons of no great knowledge competent information on the topics of his work, but arrests the attention of the most learned. In his plans, the outline of which alone announces an immense stock of science and learning, he embraces all ages in which literature has flourished. Every celebrated work is analyzed and discussed. The beauties of the several writers are happily displayed, and their faults pointed out with all the ability of the most lively and sound criticism. That which distinguishes La Harpe from other moderns who have treated of literature is, that he always assumes the tone of the work he criticises, a merit which we find in none of the ancients except Cicero, Quintilian, and Longinus. If he speaks of the Iliad, we behold him borrow all the rich colours of the father of poetry to decorate his discourse. If he treats of Demosthenes and Cicero, all the great interests of Athens and Rome are re-produced under his pen. If Tacitus is his theme, we are instantly transported to the age of the emperors; we enter into all the mystery of the dark policy of Tiberius, and tremble at the sight of Nero.” The only regret on this subject is that the author did not live to finish his course of instruction; only some fragments have been left of what he purposed as a continuation.

, an eminent political writer, was born in January 1611, being the eldest son of sir Sapcote Harrington, and Jane the daughter of sir William Samuel of Upton, in Northamptonshire, the place of his nativity. When he had made a progress in classical learning, he was admitted in 1629 a gentleman-commoner of Trinity college, in Oxford, and placed under Mr. Chillingworth, who had lately been elected fellow of that college; from whom he might possibly acquire some portion of that spirit of reasoning and thinking for himself, which afterwards shone forth so conspicuously in his writings. About three years after, his father died; upon which he left the university, and commenced travelling, having previously furnished himself with the knowledge of several foreign languages. His first step was into Holland, then the principal school of martial discipline; and, what may be supposed to have affected him more sensibly, a country wonderfully flourishing, under the auspices of liberty, commerce, strength, and grandeur. Here it is probable that he began to make government the subject of his meditations; for, he was often heard to say, that, “before he left England, he knew no more of anarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, or the like, than as hard words, whose signification he found in his dictionary.” On coming into the Netherlands, he entered a volunteer, and remained in that capacity some months, in lord Craven’s regiment; during which time, being much at the Hague, he had the farther opportunity of accomplishing himself in two courts, those of the prince of Orange, and of the queen of Bohemia, daughter of our James I. who was then a fugitive in Holland. He was taken into great favour by this princess, and also by the prince elector, whom he attended to Copenhagen, when his highness paid a visit to the king of Denmark; and, after his return from travelling, was entrusted by him with the affairs of the Palatinate, so far as they were transacted at the British court.

He stayed, however, but a short time in Holland; no temptations or offers could divert or restrain him from the resolution he had formed to pursue his travels, and therefore, taking Flanders in his way, he set out on a tour through part of Germany, France, and Italy. While he was at Rome, the pope performed the ceremony of consecrating wax-lights on Candlemas-day. When his holiness had sanctified these torches, they were distributed among the people, who fought for them very eagerly. Harrington was desirous to have one of them; but, perceiving that it was not to be obtained without kissing the pope’s toe, he declined to accept it on such a condition. His companions were not so scrupulous, and when they came home spoke of his squeamishness to the king. The king told him, “he might have done it only as a piece of respect to a temporal prince;” but Harrington replied, that “since he had the honour to kiss his majesty’s hand, he thought it beneath him to kiss any other prince’s foot.” He is said to have preferred Venice to all other places in Italy, as he did its government to that of the whole world; it being, in his opinion, immutable by any external or internal causes, and to finish only with mankind. Here he cultivated an acquaintance with all the men of letters, and furnished himself with the most valuable books in the Italian tongue, such especially as were written upon politics and government.

After having thus seen Italy, France, the Low Countries, Denmark, and some parts of Germany, he returned home to England, and in the beginning of the civil war, 1642, he took a decided part with the parliament, and endeavoured to get a seat in the house, but could not. His in, clmation to letters kept him from seeking public employments, so that we hear no more of him till 1646; when attending out of curiosity the commissioners appointed by parliament to Charles I. from Newcastle nearer to London, he was by some of them named to wait on his majesty, as a person known to him before, and engaged to no party or faction. The king approved the proposal, and Harrington, entered on the station of a domestic; but would never presume to come into his presence, except in public, till he was particularly commanded by the king, and made one of the grooms of the bed-chamber in May 1647. He had the good fortune to please the king much: “His majesty loved his company,” says Wood, “and, finding him to be an ingenious man, chose rather to converse with him than, with others of his chamber. They had often;” says he, “discourses concerning government; but, when they happened to talk of a commonwealth, the king seemed not to endure it.” Harrington conceived a high notion of the king, finding him to be a different person from what he had been represented, as to parts, morals, religion, &c. and therefore, after the king was removed out of the Isle of Wight to Hurst-castle, in Hampshire, was forcibly turned out of his service, because he vindicated some of his majesty’s arguments against the parliament commissioners at Newport, and thought his concessions more satisfactory than they did. There is no ground to imagine that he saw the king any more till the day he was brought to the scaffold; whither Harrington found means to accompany him, and where, or a little before, he received a token of hifcmajesty’s affection. The king’s execution affected him extremely. He often said, ft nothing ever went nearer him; and that his grief on that account was so great as to bring a disorder upon him."

After the king’s death, he was observed to keep much in his library, and more retired than usual, which his friends attributed to discontent and melancholy. But, to convince them that this was not the cause of his retirement, he produced a copy of his “Oceana;” which “he had been writing,” he said, “not only because it was agreeable to the studies which he pursued, but because, if ever it should be the fate of England to be, like Italy of old, overrun by a barbarous people, or to have its government and records destroyed by some merciless conqueror, they might not be then left to their own invention in, framing a new government.” This “Oceana” is a kind of political romance, in imitation of Plato’s “Atlantic Story,” where, by Oceana, Harrington means England; exhibiting a plan of republican government, which he would have had erected here, in case these kingdoms had formed themselves into a genuine commonwealth. This work, however, pleased no party, and as it reflected severely upon Oliver’s usurpation, met with many difficulties in the publishing; for, it being known to some of the courtiers that it was printing, they hunted it from one press to another, till at last they found it, and carried it to Whitehall. Ah the solicitations he could make were not able to retrieve his papers, till he bethought himself of applying to lady Claypole, who was a good-natured woman, and Oliver’s favourite daughter; and who, upon his declaring that they contained nothing prejudicial to her father’s government, got them restored to him. He printed it in 1656, and dedicated it, as he promised lady Claypole, to her father; who, it is said, perused it, but declared, agreeable to his principles of policy, that “the gentleman must not think to cheat him of his power and authority; for that what he had won by the sword, he would not suffer himself to be scribbled out of.”

This work was no sooner published, than many undertook a refutation of it. This occasioned him to reply, and to explain his scheme, in several successive pieces, which may be easily seen in the collection of his works. In the mean time, he not only endeavoured to propagate his republican' notions by writing, but, for the more effectually advancing a cause, of which he was enthusiastically enamoured, he formed a society of gentlemen, agreeing with him in principles, who met nightly at Miles’s coffee-house, in New Palace-yard, Westminster, and were called the Rota. Wood has given a very particular account of this association, or gang, as he calls them. “Their discourses about government,” says he, “and of ordering a commonwealth, were the most ingenious and smart that ever were heard; for the arguments in the parliament-house were but flat to those. This gang had a balloting-box, and balloted how things should be carried by way of essay, which not being used, or known in England before on this account, the room was every evening very full. The doctrine there inculcated was very taking; and the more, because as to human foresight there was no possibility of the king’s return. The greatest part of the parliament-men hated this rotation and balloting, as being against their power: eight or ten were for it, who proposed it to the house, and made it out to the members, that, except they embraced that sort of government, they must be ruined. The model of it was, that the third part of the senate or house should rote out by ballot every year, not capable of being elected again for three years to come; so that every ninth year the senate would be wholly altered. No magistrate was to continue above three years, and all to be chosen by the ballot, than which nothing could be invented more fair and impartial, as it was then thought, though opposed by many for several reasons. This club of commonwealthsmen, which began about Michaelmas 1659, lasted till about Feb. 21 following; at which time, the secluded members being restored by general Monk, all their models vanished .”

After the restoration, he lived more privately than he had done before, but still was looked upon as a dangerous person, who maintained and propagated principles which could never be reconciled to monarchical government. He employed himself now in reducing his politics into short and easy aphorisms methodically digested, and freely communicated his papers to all who visited him. While he was putting the last hand to his system, he was, by an order from the king, seized December 28, 1661, and committed to the Tower of London for treasonable designs and practices. He was charged by lord chancellor Hyde, at a conference of the lords and commons, with being concerned in a plot, of which twenty-one persons were the chief managers “that they all met in Bow-street, Coventgarden, and in other places that they were of seven different parties or interests, as three for the commonwealth, three for the long-parliament, three for the city, three for the purchasers, three for the disbanded army, three for the independents, and three for the fifth-monarchy men; that their first consideration was how to agree on the choice of parliament-men against the ensuing session; and that a special care ought to be had about the members for the city of London, as a precedent for the rest of the kingdom to follow; whereupon they nominated the four members after chosen, and then sitting in parliament. Their next care was to frame a petition to the parliament for a preaching ministry; and liberty of conscience; then they were to divide and subdivide themselves into several councils and committees, for the better carrying on their business by themselves or their agents and accomplices all over the kingdom. In these meetings Harrington was said to be often in the chair;. that they had taken an oath of secrecy, and concerted measures for levying men and money.” The chancellor added, that though he had certain information of the times and places of their meetings, and particularly those of Harrington and Wildman, they were nevertheless so fixed in their nefarious design, that none of those they had taken would confess any thing, not so much as that they had seen and spoken to one another at those times or places.

But, notwithstanding these declarations of the chancellor, it is certain, that this plot was never proved, and was probahly imaginary. It is at least easy to account upon political principles, for Harrington’s confinement, and the severe usage he met with, when we consider not only his notions of government, which he every where enforced with the greatest zeal; but also how obnoxious he made himself to the powers then in being, by his treatment of the Stuart family. Nothing can be viler than the picture he has drawn of Mary queen of Scotland; he has also painted her son James I. in the most odious colours, suggesting at the same time, that he was not born of the queen, but was a supposititious impostor, and of course had no right to the crown he inherited. His portrait of Charles I. is an abominable figure t “never was man,” says he, “so resolute and obstinate in tyranny. He was one of the most consummate in the arts of tyranny that ever was; and it could be no other than God’s hand, that arrested him in the height of his designs and greatness, and cut off him and his family.” Such a character very ill accorded with what he had himself observed of that unhappy monarch, and with the grief he felt at his death; but Harrington seems in the latter end of his life to have grown fanatic in politics, and his keeping within no bounds might make it the more expedient to put him under confinement. From the Tower he was conveyed very privately to St. Nicholas’s island opposite to Plymouth; and thence, upon petition, to Plymouth, some relations-obliging themselves in a bond of 5000l. for his safe imprisonment. At this place he became acquainted with one Dr. Dunstan, who advised him to take a preparation of guiacum in coffee, as a certain cure for the scurvy, with whi<& he was then troubled. He drank of this liquor in great quantities, which had probably a very pernicious effect, for he soon grew delirious; upon which a rumour prevailed at Plymouth, that he had taken some drink which would make any man mad in a month; and other circumstances made his relations suspect, that he had foul play shewn him, lest he should write any more “Oceanas.” It was near a month before he was able to bear the journey to London, whither, as nothing appeared against him, he had leave from the king to go. Here he was put under the care of physicians, who could afford little help to the weakness of his body, and none at all to the disorders of his mind. He would discourse of other things rationally enough; but, when his own distemper was touched upon, he would fancy and utter strange things about the operation of his animal spirits, which transpired from him, he said, in the shape of birds, flies, bees, or the like. He talked so much of good and evil spirits, that he even terrified those about him; and to those who objected to him that these chimeras were the fruits of a disordered imagination, he would reply, that 11 he was like Democritus, who, for his admirable discoveries in anatomy, was reckoned distracted by his fellowcitizens." In this crazy condition he married the daughter of sir Marmaduke Dprrel, in Buckinghamshire, a lady to whom he was formerly suitor, and with whom he spent the remainder of his life. Towards his latter end, he was subject to the gout, and enjoyed little ease; but, after drooping and languishing for some time, he was at last seized with a palsy, and died at Westminster, September 11, 1677, and lies buried there in St. Margaret’s church, on the south side of the altar, next the grave of sir Walter Raleigh.

, an ingenious English poet, was the son of John Harrington, esq. who was imprisoned in the Tower, under queen Mary, for holding a correspondence with the lady Elizabeth, with whom he continued in great favour to the time of his death. He also was somewhat of a poet and a translator. Sir John was born at Kelston, near Bath, in Somersetshire, in 1561, and had queen Elizabeth for his godmother. He was instructed in classical learning at Eton-school, and from thence removed to Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. In his thirtieth year, 159J, he published a translation of Ariosto’s “Orlando Furioso,” by which he gained a considerable reputation, and for which he is now principally known. Warton says, that although executed without spirit or accuracy, unanimated and incorrect, it enriched our poetryby a communication of new stores of fiction and imagination, both of the romantic and comic species, of gothic machinery and familiar manners. Mr. Harrington was knighted in the field by the earl of Essex, which gave much offence to the queen, who was sparing of such honours, and chose to confer them herself. In the reign of James, he was created knight of the Bath; and, being a courtier, presented a ms. to prince Henry, levelled chiefly against the married bishops, which was intended only for the private use of his royal highness; but, being published afterwards, created great clamour, and made several of the clergy say, that his conduct was of a piece with his doctrines; since he, together with Robert earl of Leicester, supported sir Walter Raleigh in his suit to queen Elizabeth for the manor of Banwell, belonging to the bishopric of Bath and Wells; on a presumption that the right rev. incumbent bad incurred a pr&munire, by marrying a second wife. Wood’s account of it is this "That sir John Harrington, being minded to obtain the favour of prince Henry, wrote a discourse for his private use, entitled * A brief View of the State of the Church of England, as it stood in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s reign, to the year 1608.' This book is no more than a character and history of the bishops of those times, and was written to the said prince Henry, as an additional supply to the catalogue of bishops of Dr. Francis Godwin, upon occasion of that proverb,

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Oxford, or, as Anthony Wood expresses it, “turn-; bled out of his mother’s womb in the lap of the Oxonian Muses,” in 1560. Having been instructed in grammarlearning in that city, he became a commoner of St. Maryhall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1579. He had then so distinguished himself, by his uncommon skill in mathematics, as to be recommended soon after to sir Walter Raleigh as a proper preceptor to him in that science. Accordingly, that noble knight became his first patron, took him into his family, and allowed him a handsome pension. In 1585 he was sent over by sir Walter with his first colony to Virginia; where, being settled, he was employed in discovering and surveying that country, in observing what commodities it produced, together with the manners and customs of its inhabitants. He published an account of it under this title, “A brief and true Report of the Newfoundland of Virginia;” which was reprinted in the third voyage of Hakluyt’s “Voyages.” Upon his return to England, he was introduced by his patron to the acquaintance of Henry earl of Northumberland who, “finding him,” says Wood, “to be a gentleman of an affable and peaceable nature, and well read in the obscure pan of learning,” allowed him a yearly pension of 120l. About the same time, Robert Hues, well known by his ' Treatise upon the Globes,“and Walter Warner, who is said to have communicated to the famous Harvey the first hint concerning the circulation of the blood, being both of them mathematicians, received pensions from him of less value, ^o that in 1606, when the earl was committed to the Tower for life, Harriot, Hues, and Warner, were his constant companions, and were usually called the earl of Northumberland’s Magi. They had a table at the earl’s charge, who did constantly converse with them, to divert the melancholy of his confinement; as did also sir Walter Raleigh, who was then in the Tower. Harriot lived for some time at Sion-college, and died in London, July 2, 1621, of a cancer in his lip. He was universally esteemed on account of his learning. When he was but a young man, he was styled by Mr. Hakluyt” Juvenis in disciplinis mathematicis excellens;“and by Camden,” Mathematicus insignis.“A ms. of his, entitled” Ephemeris Chryrometrica,“is preserved in Sion-college library and his” Artis Analytic* Praxis“was printed after his death, in a thin folio, and dedicated to Henry earl of Northumberland. Des Cartes is said to have been obliged to this book for a great many improvements in algebra, which he published to the world as his own, a fact that has been amply proved, in the astronomical ephemeris for 17vS8, by Dr. Zach, astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha, from manuscripts which he found in 1784 at the seat of the earl of Egremont at Petworth, a descendant of the above-mentioned earl of Northumberland. These papers also show that Mr. Harriot was an astronomer as well as an algebraist, As to his religion, Wood says, that,” notwithstanding his great skill in mathematics, he had strange thoughts of the Scripture, always undervalued the old story of the Creation of the World, and could never believe that trite position, * Ex nihilo nihil fit.‘ He made a Philosophical Theology, wherein he cast off the Old Testament, so that consequently the New would have uo foundation. He was a deist; and his doctrine he did impart to the earl, and to sir Walter Raleigh, when he was compiling the ’ History of the World,' and would controvert the matter with eminent divines of those times: who, therefore, having no good opinion of him, did look on the manner of his death, as a judgment upon him for those matters, and for nullify, ing the Scripture.“Wood borrowed all this from Aubrey, without mentioning his authority; and it has been answered, that Harriot assures us himself, that when he was with the first colony settled in Virginia, in every town where he came,” he explained to them the contents of the Bible, &c. And though I told them,“says he,” the book materially and of itself was not of such virtue as I thought they did conceive, but only the doctrine therein contained; yet would many be glad to touch it, to embrace it, to kiss it, to hold it to their breasts and heads, and stroke over all their bodies with it, to shew their hungry desires of that knowledge which was spoken of." To which we may add, that, if Harriot was reputed a deist, it is by no means probable that Dr. Corbet, an orthodox divine* and successively bishop of Oxford and Norwich, sending a poem, dated December 9, 1618, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, when the comet appeared, should speak of

His application during fourteen or fifteen years to the best writers of antiquity continued to be almost unremitting, and his industry was such as is not often exceeded. He rose always very early, frequently at four or five o'clock in the morning, especially during the winter, and by these means he was enabled to mix occasionally in the society of Salisbury and its neighbourhood, without too great a sacrifice of his main object, the acquisition of ancient literature. But it was not until many years after his retirement from London, that he began to read Aristotle and his commen-? tators, or to inquire, so deeply as he afterwards did, into the Greek philosophy. He had imbibed a prejudice, very common at that time even among scholars, that Aristotle was an obscure and unprofitable author, whose philosophy had been deservedly superseded by that of Mr. Locke, a notion which his own writings have since contributed to correct, with no small evidence and authority. In the midst, however, of his literary labours he was not inattentive to the public good, but acted regularly and assiduously as a magistrate for the county of Wilts; giving, in that capacity, occasional proofs of a manly spirit and firmness, without which the mere formal discharge of magisterial duty is often useless and inefficient.

The first fruit which appeared to the world of so many years spent in the pursuit of knowledge, was a volume published in 1744, containing “Three Treatises. The first concerning Art. The second concerning Music, Painting, and Poetry. The third concerning Happiness.” These treatises, in addition to their merit as original compositions, are illustrated by a variety of learned notes and observations, elucidating many difficult passages of ancient writers, the study and examination of whom it was his earnest wish to promote and to facilitate. Lord Monboddo, speaking >fr the dialogue upon Art, praises it, as containing “the best specimen of the dividing, or diaeretic manner, as the ancients called it, that is to be found in any modern book with which he is acquainted.”

In July 1745 he was married to miss Elizabeth Clarke, daughter and eventually heiress of John Clarke, esq of Sandford, near Bridgewater, in the county of Somerset, Five children were the issue of this marriage, of whom two daughters, and a son, the present lord Malmsbury, sur-> vived their father. This change in his state of life by no means withdrew his attention from those studies in which he had been used to take so great delight, and which he had cultivated with such advantage and reputation; for in 1751 he published another work, entitled “Hermes, or a philosophical inquiry concerning Universal Grammar,” 8vo. Of this work, Dr. Lowth, the late bishop of London, says, “Those who would enter deeply into the subject (of universal grammar) will find it fully and accurately handled, with the greatest acuteness of investigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance of method, in a treatise entitled Hermes, by James Harris, esq. the most beautiful example of analysis that has been exhibited since the days of Aristotle.” What first led Mr. Harris to a deep and accurate consideration of the principles of universal grammar, was a book which he held in high estimation, and has frequently quoted in his Hermes, the “Minerva” of Sanciius. To that writer he confessed himself indebted for abundance of, valuable information, of which it appears that he knew well how to profit, and to push his researches on the subject of grammar to a much greater length, by the help of his various and extensive erudition. Mr. Harris’s system in this work still maintains its ground in the estimation of most men of taste, notwithstanding the coarse attack made on it by Home Tooke.

From the period of his marriage until 176-1, he continued to live entirely at Salisbury, except in the summer, when he sometimes retired to his house at Darnford, near that city. It was there that he found himself most free from the interruption of business, and of company, and at leisure to compose the chief part of those works which were the result of his study at other seasons. His time was divided between the care of his family, in. which he placed his chief happiness, his literary pursuits, and the society of his friends and neighbours, with whom he kept up a constant and cheerful intercourse. The superior taste and skill which he possessed in music, and his extreme fondness for hearing it, led him to attend to its cultivation in. his native place with uncommon pains and success; inSomuch, that under his auspices, not only the annual musical festival in Salisbury flourished beyond most institutions of the kind, but even the-ordinary subscription-concerts were carried on, by his assistance and directions, with a spirit and effect seldom equalled out of the metropolis. Many of the beautiful selections made from the best Italian and German composers for these festivals and concerts, and adapted by him, sometimes to words selected from Scripture, or from Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” sometimes to compositions of his own, have survived the occasions on which they were first produced, and are still in great estimation. Two volumes of these selections have been lately published by Mr. Corfe, organist of Salisbury cathedral; the rest remain in manuscript in possession of lord Malmsbury.

Before this last volume was entirely concluded, his health began to be very much impaired. He never enjoyed a robust constitution; but for some time, towards the end of his life, the infirmities under which he laboured had gradually increased. His family at length became apprehensive of a decline, symptoms of which were very apparent, and by none more clearly perceived than by himself. This was evident from a variety of little circumstances, but by no means from any impatience or fretfulness, nor yet from any dejection of spirits, such as are frequently incident to extreme weakness of body, especially when it proves to be the forerunner of approaching dissolution. On the contrary, the same equable and placid temper which had distinguished him throughout his whole life, the same tender and affectionate attention to his surrounding family, which he had unceasingly manifested while in health, continued, without the smallest change or abatement, to the very last; displaying a mind thoroughly at peace with itself, and able without disturbance or dismay to contemplate the awful prospect of futurity. After his strength had been quite exhausted by illness, he expired calmly on the 22d of December, 1780, in the $eventy-second year of his age. His remains were deposited in the north aile of the cathedral church of Salisbury, near those of his ancestors, and a monument wassoon after erected to his memory.

"The distinction by which he was most generally known, and by which he is likely to survive to posterity, is that of a Man of Learning. His profound knowledge of Greek, which he applied more successfully, perhaps, than any modern writer has done, to the study and explanation of ancient philosophy, arose from an early and intimate acquaintance with the excellent poets and historians in that language. They, and the best writers in the Augustan age, were his constant and never-failing recreation. By his familiarity with them, he was enabled to enliven and to illustrate his deeper and more abstruse speculations, as every page almost (of his works) will abundantly testify. But his attainments were not confined to ancient philosophy and classical learning. He possessed likewise a general knowledge of modern history, with a very distinguishing taste in the line arts, in one of which, as before observed, he was an eminent, proficient. His singular industry empowered him to make these various acquisitions, without neglecting any of the duties which he owed to his family, his friends, or his country. I am in possession of such proofs, besides those already given to the public, of my father’s laborious study and reflection, as I apprehend, are very rarely to be met with. Not only was he accustomed, through a long series of years, to make copious excts from the different books which he read, and to write critical remarks and conjectures on many of the passages extracted, but he was also in the habit of regularly cammuting to writing such reBections as arose out of his study, which evince a mind carefully disciplined, and anxiously bent on the attainment of self-knowledge and self-government. And yet, though habituated to deep thinking and laborious reading, he was generally cheerful even to playfulness. There was no pedantry in his manners or conversation, nor was he ever seen either to display his learning with ostentation, or to treat with slight or superciliousness those less informed than himself. He rather sought to make them appear partakers of what he knew, than to mortify tnern by a parade of his own superiority. Nor had he any of that miserable fastidiousness about him which too often disgraces men of learning, and prevents their being amused or interested, at least their choosing to appear so, by common performances and common events.

"It was with him a maxim, that the most difficult, and infinitely the preferable, sort of criticism, both in literature and the arts, was that which consists in finding out beauties rather than defects; and although he certainly wanted not judgment to distinguish and to prefer superior excellence of any kind, he was too reasonable to expect id should very often occur, and too wise to allow himself to be disgusted at common weakness or imperfection. He thought, indeed, that the very attempt to please, however it might fall short of its aim, deserved some return of thanks, some degree of approbation; and that to endeavour at being pleased by such efforts, was due to justice, to good-nature, and to good sense.

“My father’s affection to every part of his family was exemplary and uniform. As a husband, a parent, a master, he was ever kind and indulgent; and it deserves to be mentioned to his honour, that he thought it no interruption of his graver occupations, himself to instruct his daughters, by exercising them daily both in reading and composition, and writing essays for their improvement, during many of their younger years. No man was a better judge of what belonged to female education, and the elegant accomplishments of the sex, or more disposed to set a high value upon them. But he had infinitely more at heart, that his children should be early habituated to the practice of religion and morality, and deeply impressed with their true principles. To promote this desirable end, he was assiduous both by instruction and example; being himself a constant attendant upon public worship, and enforcing that great duty upon every part of his family. The deep sense of moral and religious obligation which was habitual to him, and those benevolent feelings which were so great a happiness to his family and friends, had the same powerful influence over his public as his private life. He had an ardent zeal for the prosperity of his country, whose real interests he well understood; and in his parliamentary conduct he proved himself a warm friend to the genuine principles of religious and civil liberty, as well as a firm supporter of every branch of our admirable constitution.”

, the first compiler of a “Dictionary of Arts and Sciences” in this country, was born about 1667, and received his education at St. John’s college, in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1687, and that of master in 1691. Having taken orders in the church, he obtained considerable preferments. He was first instituted into the rectory of Barming, which he resigned for St. Mildred, Bread-street, London; he had also the perpetual curacy of Stroud, near Rochester, in Kent, and he was prebendary of Rochester cathedral. He was a fellow, secretary, and vice-president to the royal society. In 1698 he preached the course of Boyle’s lectures, which was published (see Collection of Boyle’s Lectures, Feb. 1739, vol. I. p. 356—425); and in the next year he took the degree of D. D. Dr. Harris also published several single sermons, viz. a sermon on the Fast, 1701, with another on the Fast, 1703, 4to; a sermon entitled < The Modest Christian’s Duty as to indifferent things in the worship of. God,“1705, 4to; another on” The lawfulness and use of Public Fasting,“1706, 4to;” The evil and mischief of a Fiery Spirit,“a sermon published in 1710, 4to another on the Rebellion in 1715, 8vo; and a sermon on the Accession, 1715, 4-to. He also published a” Collection of Voyages and Travels, with a number of engravings,“afterwards improved and republished by Dr. Campbell a” Treatise on the Theory of the Earth,“in 1697 a” Treatise on Algebra,“in 1702 a” Translation of Pardie’s Geometry into English,“2d edit. 1702. At this time it appears that Dr. Harris” lived and taught mathematics at his house in Amen-Corner.“He published also,” Astronomical Dialogues,“the third edition of which appeared in 1795; but the work for which he was most eminently distinguished, and which entitles him to honourable notice, was his” Lexicon Technicum,“or” An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences,“in 2 vols. fol. published in 1708; from which originated all the other dictionaries of science and cyclopaedias that have since appeared. He was followed, at a considerable interval of time, in this department of literature, by Mr. Ephrairn Chambers, whose Cyclopedia, with all the improvements it has received, has long maintained distinguished reputation. We are concerned to be obliged to add, that though Dr. Harris was a man of unquestionable abilities and attainments, and of great literary application, he was chargeable with culpable imprudence in his conduct, and notwithstanding the preferments he enjoyed, he was generally in distress. He died Sept. 7, 1719, leaving unfinished the 66 History of Kent,” which was published in folio soon after his death, and which, though it had engaged his attention, more or less, for eight years, is extremely inaccurate. Mr. Gough says (British Topography, vol. I. p. 445), “Dr t Harris died an absolute pauper at Norton-court, and was buried in Norton church, at the expence of John Godfrey, esq. who had been his very good friend and benefactor.”

, president of Trinity-college, Oxford, was born at Broad Campden, in Gloucestershire, in 1578, and sent for education to the free-school of Chipping-Campden, where owing to irregular conduct of the masters and their frequent changes, he appears to have profited little. From thence he was removed to the city of Worcester, and lastly to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which was preferred from his relationship to Mr. Robert Lyster, then principal, a man somewhat popishly inclined. Here, however, he had a tutor of a different stamp, a reputed puritan, under whom he studied with great assiduity. Although his parents designed him for the law, as soon as he took his bachelor’s degree, he determined to make trial of his talents for the pulpit, and went to Chipping-Campden, where he preached a sermon which gave satisfaction. He afterwards officiated for a clergyman in Oxfordshire, and in both cases without being ordained. At length he was examined by bishop Barlow, who found him a very accomplished Greek, and Latin scholar, and he had the living of Hanweli given him, near Ban bury, in Oxfordshire. During his residence here he was often invited to London, and preached at St. Paul’s cross, also before the parliament, and on other public occasions. He had also considerable offers of preferment in* London, but preserved his attachment to Hanweli, where he was extremely useful in confirming the people’s minds, then much unsettled, in the reformed religion, as well as in attachment to the church of England, although he afterwards concurred with those who overthrew it so far as to accept preferment under them. On the commencement of the civil war, tjie tranquillity of his part of the country was much disturbed by the march of armies, and himself obliged at last to repair to London, after his premises were destroyed by the soldiery. On his arrival in London, he became a member of the assembly, but appears to have taken no active part in their proceedings.or some time, Hanwell having now been taken from him, he officiated at the parish-church of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate-street, until the rilling powers ordered him to Oxford, as one of the reforming visitors. Here during the visitation of the earl of Pembroke, the chancellor of the university, he was admitted; D. D. and president of Trinity-college in April 1,648, in the room of Dr. Hannibal Potter, who was ejected by the visitors. This situation he retained until his death, Uec. 11, 1658,. in his eightieth year. He was buried in^ Trinity-college chapel, with an inscription from the ele-“gant pen of Dr. Bathurst, one of his successors, and contaming praises of his conduct as a president more than sufficient to answer the charges brought against him by others. The only words Dr. Bathurst is said to have struck out are these in Italics,” per decennium hujus collegii Præses æternum cdebrandus“nor was this alteration made in the epitaph itself, but in Wood’s ms. of the” Hist, et Antiquitates Univ. Oxon.“The only fault of which Dr. Harris can be accused, and which was very common with other heads of houses put in by the parliamentary visitors, was taking exorbitant fines for renewals of college leases, by which they almost sold out the whole interest of >the college in such estates. On the other hand he appears to have made some liberal grants of money to the posterity of the founder, sir Thomas Pope.” One is surprized,“says Warton,” at those donations, under the government of Dr. Robert Harris, Cromwell’s presbytenan president. But Harris was a man of candour, and I believe a majority of the old loyal fellows still remained.“Durham, the author of Harris’s life, gives him the character of” a man of admirable prudence, profound judgment, eminent gifts and graces, and furnished with all qualifications which might render him a complete man, a wise governor, a profitable preacher, and a good Christian." He appears to have very little relished some of the innovations of his time, particularly that easy and indiscriminate admission into the pulpits, which filled them with illiterate enthusiasts of every description. His works, consisting of sermons and pious treatises, were collected in 1 vol. fol. published in 1654.

, a learned English physician, the son of a tradesman at Gloucester, was born there about 1647, and educated at Winchester school. In 1666 he was admitted perpetual fellow of New-college; Oxford, without passing through the year’s probation, in consequence of his being of the founder’s kin. Having, however, embraced the Roman catholic religion, he resigned his fellowship in 1673, and went to France, where, either at Doway or Paris, he took his doctor’s degree. In 1676 he returned to London, and began practice chiefly among the Roman catholics; but when in consequence of Oates’s plot, in 1678, all o.f that persuasion were ordered to leave the metropolis, he renounced the errors of popery, and wrote in 1679 a pamphlet entitled. “A Farewell to Popery,” Lond. 4to, On the revolution, he was appointed physician to king William III. at the recommendation of the celebrated Tillotson. Of his attendance on the king, he himself informs us of this circumstance, that being in his majesty’s chamber, he took the liberty, in the presence of the lords in waiting, to find fault with the custom of binding every morning the king’s feet, which were very much swelled. He said that by this means the humours falling into the feet would be driven back into the viscera. Another anecdote he gives of himself, which perhaps would have come with a better grace from any one else, is, that Dr. Goodall, president of the college of physicians, told him one day that he envied him (Dr. Harris) more than he envied any body else, because he was always easy in his mind, and free from anxious cares. He appears to have had very considerable practice, and was a fellow of the college, and censor in 1689. The time of his death we have not been able to discover, but he was alive in 1725, when he published his “Dissertationes Medicæ et Chirurgicæ, habitæ in amphitheatre collegii regalis,” in the title-­page to which he styles himself “Præses natus, et professor Chirurgiæ.” His other publications were, 1. “Pharmacologia anti-empirica,” Lond. 1683, 8vo. 2. “De morbis acutis infantum,” 1689, 8vo, often reprinted, and translated into English by Cockburn, in 1693, and by IMartyn in 1742, and into French by Devaux. In his “Dissertationes medicæ” are some valuable papers on various medical topics, and he is a strong advocate for inoculation for the small-pox.

His preliminary attempt was on a singular subject, the “Life of Hugh Peters,” which, as he published it without his name, has escaped the notice of the collectors of his works, but is prefixed to the late edition of his “Lives” as the first in the order of time, and essentially connected with one of the subjects of his future inquiries. In this life he professed to follow “the manner of Bayle,” and it might have been thought that its aukward appearance in print would have shown Dr. Harris that his choice was injudicious; but, for whatever reason, he followed the same in his subsequent works. The Life of Peters was published in 1751, and in 1753 appeared his Life of James I.; in 1753, that of Charles I.; in 1761, that of Cromwell and in 1765, that of Charles II. this last in 2 vols. 8vo. It was his design to have completed this series with a Life of James II., but he was interrupted by an illness which terminated fatally in February 1770, in the fiftieth year of his age. His degree of D. D. was procured for him from the university or Glasgow, in 1765, by his friend Mr. Thomas Holiis, who had assisted him in his various undertakings, by many curious and interesting communications, and the use of scarce books and pamphlets. Dr. Birch and other gentlemen in London seem also to have contributed liberally to his stock of historical materials. It is indeed as a collection of such, that these Lives have been principally valued, for Dr. Harris cannot be ranked among elegant writers, nor can it be gravely asserted that he is always impartial. His reasonings are strongly tinged with his early prejudices, but his facts are in general narrated with fidelity, and the evidence on both sides is given' without mutilation.

, a most accurate mechanic, the celebrated inventor of the famous time-keeper for ascertaining the longitude at sea, and also of the compound or gridiron-pendulum; was born at Foulby, near Pontefract in Yorkshire, in 1693. His father was a carpenter, in which profession the son assisted; occasionally also, according to the miscellaneous practice of country artists, surveying land, and repairing clocks and watches; and young Harrison always was, from his early childhood, greatly attached to any machinery moving by wheels. In 1700 he removed with his father to Barrow, in Lincolnshire; where, though his opportunities of acquiring knowledge were very few, he eagerly improved every incident from which he might collect information frequently employing all or great part of his nights in writing or drawing and he always acknowledged his obligations to a clergyman who came every Sunday to officiate in the neighbourhood, who lent him a ms copy of professor Sanderson’s lectures; which he carefully and neatly transcribed, with all the diagrams. His native genius exerted itself superior to these solitary disadvantages; for, in 1726, he had constructed two clocks, mostly of wood, in which he applied the escapement and compound pendulum of his own invention: these surpassed every thing then made, scarcely erring a second in a month. In 1728 he came up to London with the drawings of a machine for determining the longitude at sea, in expectation of being enabled to execute one by the board of longitude. Upon application to Dr. Halley, the astronomer royal, he referred him to Mr. George Graham, who advised him to make his machine before applying to that board. He accordingly returned home to perform his task; and in 1735 came to London, again with his first machine, with which he was sent to Lisbon the next year to make trial of it. In this short voyage he corrected the dead reckoning about a degree and a half; a success which procured him both public and private encouragement. About 17 '69 he completed his second machine, of a construction much more simple than the former, and which answered much better: this, though not sent to sea, recommended Mr. Harrison yet stronger to the patronage of his friends and the public. His third machine, which he produced in 1749, was still less complicated than the second, and more accurate, as erring only 3 or 4 seconds in a week. This he conceived to be the ne plus ultra of his attempts; but, by endeavouring to improve pocket-watches, he found the principles he applied to surpass his expectations so much, as to encourage him to make his fourth time-keeper, which is in the form of a pocket-watch, about six inches diameter. With this time-keeper his son made two voyages, the one to Jamaica, and the other to Barbadoes in which experiments it corrected the longitude within the nearest limits required by the act of the 12th of queen Anne; and the inventor had, therefore, at different times, more than the proposed reward, receiving from the board of longitude at different times almost 24,000l. besides a few hundreds from the East India company, &c. These four machines were given up to the board of longitude. The three former were not of any use, as all the advantages gained by making them, were comprehended in the last: being worthy however of preservation, as mechanical curiosities, they are deposited in the royal observatory at Greenwich. The fourth machine, emphatically distinguished by the name of The Time-keeper, was copied by the ingenious Mr. Kendal; and that duplicate, during a three years circumnavigation of the globe in the southern hemisphere by captain Cook, answered as well as the original.

Like many other mere mechanics, Mr. Harrison found a difficulty in delivering his sentiments in writing (at least in the latter periods of his life, when his faculties were much impaired) in which he adhered to a peculiar and uncouth phraseology. This was but too evident in his “Description concerning such mechanism as will afford a nice or true Mensuration of Time,” &c. 1775, 8vo. This small work includes also an account of his new musical scale; being a mechanical division of the octave, according to the proportion which the radius and diameter of the circle have respectively to the circumference. He had in his youth been the leader of a band of church-singers had a very delicate ear for music and his experiments on sound, with a curious monochord of his own improvement, it has been said, were not less accurate than those he was engaged in for the mensuration of time.

, an English historian, was a native of London, and educated at Westminster school, under the celebrated Alexander Nowell. He afterwards studied at both universities, but in what colleges seems doubtful. Wood suspects Christ Church for Oxford, and Baker mentions one of this name a bachelor of arts of St. John’s, Cambridge; but the date, 1571, is obviously too late for our Harrison. He says himself that both universities “are so clear to him that he cannot readily tell to which of them he owes most good will.” After leaving Cambridge he became domestic chaplain to sir William Brooke, knt. lord-warden of the Cinque Ports, and baron of Cobham in Kent, who is supposed to have given him the living of Radwinter, in Essex, in Feb. 1558, which he held until his death in the end of 1592 or beginning of 1593. He wrote a “Historical Description of the Island of Britain,” published in Holiingshed’s Chronicles; and “A Chronology” mentioned by Hollingshed. He translated also “The Description of Scotland,” from Hector Boethius,^ which is prefixed to Hollingshed’s “Hist, of Scotland.” Wood says he obtained a canonry of Windsor, and was buried there, leaving several children by his wife Manan, daughter of Will. Isebrand, ofAnderne, in Picardy. His turn appears to have been more for compiling ancient history than topography; for in his dedication to lord Cobham he says, “Indeed I must needs confess, that un1 now of late, except it were from the parish where I dwell unto your honour in Kent, or out of London, where I was born, unto Oxford and Cambridge, where I have been brought up, I have never travelled forty miles forth right and at one journey in all my life.”

, a young gentleman high in esteem, and (as Swift expresses it) “a little pretty fellow, With a great deal of wit, good sense, and good nature,” was educated at Winchester, and was afterwards of New college, Oxford, of which he became a fellow. He appears to have been employed in private tuition, which was not a very profitable employment. He had no other income than 40l. a year as tutor to one of the duke of Queensbury’s sons. In this employment he fortunately attracted the favour of Dr. Swift, whose generous solicitations with Mr. St. John obtained for him the reputable employment of secretary to lord Raby, ambassador at the Hague, and afterwards earl of Stafford. A letter of his, whilst at Utrecht, dated December 16, 1712, printed inthedean’s works, informs us that his office was attended with much vexation and little advantage. Even in Jan. 13, 1713, when he brought over the barrier treaty, and, as Swift says, was the queen’s minister, entrusted in affairs of the greatest importance, he had not a shilling in his pocket to pay his hackney coach. He died soon after this, Feb. 14,1712-13. See the “Journal to Stella” of that and the following day, where Dr. Swift laments his loss with the most unaffected sincerity. Mr. Tickell has mentioned him with respect, in his “Prospect of Peace;” and Dr. Young, in the beautiful close of an “Epistle to lord Lansdown,” most pathetically bewails his loss. Dr. Birch, who has given a curious note on Mr. Harrison’s “Letter to Swift,” has confounded him with Thomas Harrison, M. A. of Queen’s college. In the “Select Collection,” by Nichols, are some pleasing specimens of his poetry; which, with “Woodstock-Park” in Dodsley’s “Collection,” and an “Ode to the duke of Marlborough, 1707,” in Duncombe’s “Horace,” are all the poetical writings that are known of this excellent young man, who figured both as an humourist and a politician in the fifth volume of the “Tatler,” of which (under the patronage of Bolingbroke, Henley, and Swift) he was professedly the editor. There was another William Harrison, author of “The Pilgrim, or the happy Convert, a pastoral tragedy,” 1709.

, a learned English prelate, successively bishop of Chichester and Norwich, and archbishop of York, the son of William Harsnet, a baker at Colchester, was born in that town, and baptised June 20, 1561. He was probably sent to the free-school of Colchester, but was admitted Sept. 8, 1576, of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Pembroke-hall, of which he became a scholar, and was elected fellow Nov. 27, 1583. He took his degree of B.A. in 1580, and that of M. A. in 15'84. Three years after, in March 1586-7, he was elected master of the free-school in Colchester, but, preferring the prosecution of his studies at Cambridge, he resigned this office in November 1588, and returned to Pembrdke-hall, where he studied divinity, in which indeed he had made great progress before, and had been admitted into holy orders, as appears by a sermon preached by him at St. Paul’s cross, Oct. 27, 1584, on the subject of predestination. In 1592 he served the office of proctor, and five years after became chaplain to Dr. Bancroft, bishop of London, by whose favour he obtained the rectory of St. Margaret Fish-street, London, which he resigned in 1604; and the vicarage of Chigwell in Essex, which he resigned in 1605, but continued to reside at Chigwell, where he had purchased a house and estate, now the property and residence of his descendant Mrs. Fisher. In 1598 he was collated to the prebend of Mapesbury in St. Paul’s, and Jan. 1602 to the archdeaconry of Essex, all in bishop Bancroft’s disposal. In April 1604, sir Thomas Lucas of Colchester presented him to the rectory of Shenfield in that county. The year following, upon the resignation of bishop Andrews, he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, which he held until 1616, when he resigned in consequence of the society having exhibited to the king an accusation branching into fifty-seven articles. Many of these, Le Neve says, were scandalous, and the proof evident; but, as Le Neve was iiot able to procure a sight of tHem, we are not enabled to judge. They do not, however, appear to have injured his interest at court. He had been consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1609, and was now, in 1619, three years after he quitted Pembroke-hall, translated to Norwich, on the death of Dr. Overall. In 1624 we find him again accused in the house of commons of “putting down preaching setting up images praying to the east;” and other articles which appear to have involved him with the puritans of his diocese, but which he answered to the satisfaction of the parliament as well as of the court. On the death of Dr. Montague, he was translated to the archbishopric of York in 1628, and in Nov. 1629, was sworn of the privy council. These dignities, however, he did not enjoy long, dying atMorton-on-the-marsh, Gloucestershire, while on a journey, May 25, 1631. He was buried at Chigwell church, agreeably to his own desire, where his effigies is still to be seen fixed on the north side of the chancel, against the wall. He left several charitable legacies and a year or two before his death founded and endowed a free school at Chigwell, and some alms-houses the history of his school may be seen in Lysons’s “Environs.” He bequeathed his library to the corporation of Colchester for the use of the clergy. Besides the sermon above noticed, the only other occasion on which Dr. Harsnet appeared as a writer, was in writing some pamphlets to expose the impostures of one John Darrell, who pretended to have the power of casting out devils. Bishop Harsnet’s character, from what we have related, appears to be equivocal it is said he was equally an enemy to puritanism and to popery and, according to Fuller, was the first who used the expression conformable puritans, i. e. those who conformed out of policy, and yet dissented in their judgments.

, an English poet and divine, was the son of a father of both his names, who was fellow of Pembroke college, Oxford, prebendary of Wales, canon, of Bristol, and vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton, Somersetshire. Refusing to take the oaths after that revolution which placed a new family on the throne, he relinquished *all his preferments, in 1691, and retired to Kentbury in Buckinghamshire, where he died Feb. 10, 1736, aged eighty-five. His son informs us, that when judge Jeffries came to Taunton -assizes in 1685, to execute his commission upon the unfortunate persons concerned in Monmouth’s rebellion, Mr. Harte, then minister of St. Mary Magdalen’s, waited on him in private, and remonstrated much against iiis severities. The judge listened to him calmly, and with some attention, and though he had never seen him before, advanced him in a few months to a prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Bristol. Old Mr. Harte was so much respected for his piety and learning, that the prelates Kidder, Hooper, and Wynne, who successively filled the see of Bath and Wells, contrived that he should receive the profits of his prebend of Wells as long as he lived; and Mr. Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, offered him a bishopric in queen Anne’s time, which he declined with grateful acknowledgments. According to his son’s account, he was a most laborious student, employing ten or twelve hours a day, without any interruption, but that of casual sickness, for fifty years successively. His principal business was in referring every difficult part of Scripture to those particular passages in the fathers and eminent modern divines who had explained them expressly or occasionally.

In 1730 he published his “Essay on Satire,” 8vo, and in 1735 the “Essay on Reason,” folio, to which Pope contributed very considerably, although no part of his share can be exactly ascertained, except the first two lines. He afterwards published two sermons, the one entitled “The Union and Harmony of Reason, Morality, and Revealed Religion,” preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, February 27, 1736-7, which excited so much admiration, or curiosity, as to pass through five editions. The other was a “Fastsermon,” preached at the same place, Jan. 9, 1739-40. He was afterwards vice-principal of St. Mary-hall, and in so much reputation as a tutor, that lord Lyttelton, who was one of his earliest friends, recommended him to the earl of Chesterfield, as a private and travelling preceptor to his natural son. With this young man, to whom his lordship addressed those letters which have so much injured his reputation, Mr. Harte travelled from 1746 to 1750. Lord Chesterfield is said to have procured for him a canonry of Windsor, in 1751, “with much difficulty,” arising from his college connections, St. Mary-hall, of which Dr. King was principal, being at that time noted for jacobitism.

His “Life of Gustavus Adolphus,” it must be allowed, was a very unfortunate publication. He had learning, industry, and the spirit of research; and he had acquired a considerable degree of political and military knowledge. He had, besides, access to the most valuable materials, and his work may be considered as in many respects original. But either through affectation, or by means of oaie desultory course of reading in every language but his own, he was led to adopt a style peculiarly harsh and pedantic, and often unintelligible, by the irregular construction of his sentences, by new words of his own coinage, or by old words used in a new sense. The wonder is, that in all this he fancied himself “writing in a style less laboured and ornamental than is usually exhibited by the fluent writers of the present age.” George Hawkins, his bookseller, we are told, sometimes objected to his uncouth words or phrases, while the work was in the press, but Harte refused to change them, and used to add with a complacent sneer, “George, that’s what we call writing” It is such writing, however, as we do not find in liis Sermons printed in 1737 and 1740, far less in his “Essays on Husbandry,” which ought to have been mentioned as printed in 1764, and which, with very few exceptions, are distinguished for perspicuity of style, and far more elegance than that subject is generally supposed to admit.

According to Boswell, Dr. Johnson said “he was excessively vain. He put copies of his book in manuscript into the hands of lord Chesterfield and lord Granville, that they might revise it. Now how absurd was it to suppose that two such noblemen would revise so big a manuscript. Poor man! he left London the day of the publication of his book, that he might be out of the way of the great praise he was to receive; and he was ashamed to return, when he, found how ill his book had succeeded. Itwas unlucky in coming out the same day with Robertson’s History of Scotland.” Not the same day, for Robertson’s history was published a month sooner, but Hume’s “House of Tudor” came out the same week; and after perusing these, poor Harte’s style could not certainly be endured. It was not, however, so very absurd to submit his manuscript to lord Chesterfield or lord Granville, if they permitted him; and the former certainly did peruse it, although he might think it too generally contaminated for a few friendly hints or corrections.

In all the inns of court, or Drury-lane."

Dr. Hartley was industrious and indefatigable in the pursuit of all collateral branches of knowledge^ and lived in personal intimacy with the learned men of his age. The bishops Law, Butler, and Warburton, and Dr. Jortin, were his intimate friends, and he was much attached to bishop Hoadiy. Among his other friends or correspondents may be mentioned Dr. Hales, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Dr. Young, Dr. Byrom, and Mr. Hooke the Roman historian. Pope was also admired by him, not only as a man of genius, but as a moral poet; yet he soon saw the hand of Bolingbroke in the “Essay on Man.” Dr. Hartley’s genius was penetrating and active his industry indefatigable his philosophical observations and attentions unremitting. From his earliest youth he was devoted to the sciences, particularly to logic and mathematics. He studied mathematics, together with natural and experimental philosophy, under the celebrated professor Saunderson. He was an enthusiastic admirer and disciple of sir Isaac Newton in every branch of literature and philosophy, natural and experimental, mathematical, historical, and religious. His first principles of logic and metaphysics he derived from Locke. He took the first rudiments of his own work, the “Observations on Man,' 7 from Newton and Locke; the doctrine of vibrations, as instrumental to sensation and motion, from the former, and the principle of association originally from the latter, further explained in a dissertation by the rev. Mr. Gay. He began this work when about twenty-five years of age, and published it in 1749, when about forty-three years of age, under the title of” Observations on Man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations,“2 vols. 8vo. His biographer informs us that” he did not expect that it would meet with any general or immediate reception in the philosophical world, or even that it would be much read or understood; neither did it happen otherwise than as he had expected. But at the same time he did entertain an expectation that at some distant period it would become the adopted system of future philosophers.“In this, however, he appears to have been mistaken. We know of no” future“philosophers of any name, who have adopted his system. Dr. Priestley, indeed, published in 1775” Hartley’s Theory, &c. with Essays on the subject of it," but all he has done in this is to convince us of his own belief in materialism, and his earnest desire to prove Hartley a materialist, who dreaded nothing so much, although it must be confessed that hie doctrines have an apparent tendency to that conclusion. Since that time, Hartley’s work was nearly forgotten, until 1791, when an edition was published by his Son, in a handsome 4to volume, with notes and additions, from the German of the rev. Herman Andrew Pistorius, rector of Poseritz, in the island of Rugen; and a sketch of the life and character of Dr. Hartley. The doctrine of vibrations, upon which he attempts to explain the origin and propagation of sensation, although supported by much ingenious reasoning, isnot only built upon a gratuitous assumption, but as Haller has shewn, it attributes properties to the medullary substance of the brain and nerves, which are totally incompatible with their nature.

The philosophical character of Dr. Hartley, says his Son, is delineated in his works. The features of his private and personal character were of the same complexion. It may with peculiar propriety be said of him, that the mind was the man. His thoughts were not immersed in worldly pursuits or contentions, and therefore his life was not eventful or turbulent, but placid, and undisturbed by passion or violent ambition. From his earliest youth his mental ambition was pre-occupied by pursuits of science. His hours of amusement were likewise bestowed upon objects of taste and sentiment. Music, poetry, and history, were his favourite recreations. His imagination was fertile and correct, his language and expression fluent and forcible. His natu/al temper was gay, cheerful, and sociable. He was addicted to no vice in any part of his life, neither to pride, nor to sensuality, nor intemperance, nor ostentation, nor envy, nor to any sordid self-interest; but his heart was replete with every contrary virtue. The virtuous principles which are instilled in his works, were the invariable and decided principles of his life and doctrine. His person was of the middle size, and well proportioned. His complexion fair, his features regular and handsome. His countenance open, ingenuous, and animated. He was peculiarly neat in his person and attire. He was an early riser, and punctual in the employments of the day methodical in the order and disposition gf his library, papers. and writings, as the companions of his thoughts, but without any pedantry, either in these habits, or in any other part of his character. His behaviour was polite, easy, and graceful; but that which made his address peculiarly engaging, was the benevolence of heart from which that politeness flowed. He never conversed with a fellow-creature without feeling a wish to do him good. He considered the moral end of our creation to consist in the performance of the duties of life attached to each particular station, to which all other considerations ought to be inferior and subordinate; and consequently that the rule of life consists in training and adapting our faculties, through the means of moral habits and associations, to that end. In this he was the faithful disciple of his own theory; and by the observance of it he avoided the tumult of worldly vanities and their disquietudes, and preserved his mind in sincerity and vigour, to perform the duties of life with fidelity, and without distraction. His whole character was eminently and uniformly marked by sincerity of heart, simplicity of manners, and manly innocence of mind.

He was the issue of a third wife, his father having married two Polonian ladies of noble extraction. This third wife seems to have been an English woman, for she had two sisters very honourably married here; one, first to Mr. Clark, son of a lord mayor, and afterwards to a “veryrich knight, sir Richard Smith, one of the king’s privycouncil, she bringing him a portion of 10,000l.; after his death, she married a third time sir Edward Savage, and was made one of the ladies of honour to the king’s mother. Her daughter married sir Anthony Irby, at Boston,” a knight of 4 or 5000l. sterling a year.“The other sister married Mr. Peak, a younger brother. Warton says, Hartlib came over into England about 1640. In 1641 he published” A relation of that which hath been lately attempted, to procure ecclesiastical peace among Protestants," Lond. 1641.

In 1652 Hartlib published “His Legacy, or an enlargement of the discourse of Husbandry used in Brabant and Flanders,” Lond. 4to. This work was only drawn up at Hartlib’s request; and passing through his correction and revision, was published by him. It consists of one general answer to the following query, namely, “what are the actual defects and omissions, as also the possible improvements, in English husbandry” The real author was Robert Child. To it are annexed various correspondences from persons eminent for skill in agriculture at this time; as C. D. B. W. R. H. T. Underbill, Henry Cruttenden, W. Potter, &c. as also the “Mercurius Laetificans” and twenty large experiments by Gabriel Plattes together with annotations on the legacy by Dr. Arnold Beati, and replies to the animadversions by the author of the Legacy. In the preface Hartlib laments greatly that no public director of husbandry was established in England by authority; and that we had not adopted the Flemish custom of letting farms upon improvement. Cromwell, as Harte says, in consequence of this admirable performance, allowed Hartlib a pension of IQOl. a year; and it was the better to fulfil the intentions of his benefactor, that he procured Dr. Beati’s excellent annotations before-mentioned, with the other valuable pieces from his numerous correspondents.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Goud?, in Holland, March 26, 1656. His father intended him for the ministry, but the young man had an early disposition for contemplating the heavenly bodies, which engrossed his whole attention, and finding, at the age of thirteen or fourteen, that without some knowledge of the mathematics he could make no satisfactory progress in this study, he saved his boyish allowance and presents in money, and applied to a teacher of the mathematics, who promised to be very expeditious, and kept his word. Under him he first learned to grind optic glasses, and at length, partly by accident, was enabled to improve single microscopes by using small globules of glass, melted in the flame of a candle. By these he discovered the animalculse in semine humano, which laid the foundation of a new system of generation.

Hartsoeker being now at Paris, and observing that the telescopical glasses of the observatory there were not large enough, made some attempts to improve them, which, although not successful at first, procured him the good opinion and encouragement of Cassini; flattered by whom he soon made good glasses of all sizes, and at length one of six hundred feet focus, which, on account of its rarity, he never would part with. As to these glasses of so long a focus, he one day told Varignon and the abbe St. Pierre, that he thought it impossible to form them in a bason, but that by trying pieces of glass intended to be quite flat, one might happen to meet with some that were segments of a sphere of a very long radius, and that he had in this manner met with one of twelve hundred feet focus; that this sphericity depended upon some insensible unevennesses in the tables of polished iron upon which the melted glass is stretched out, or on the manner of loading the gFasses to polish them one against another; and that these trials were more tedious than difficult; which was all he chose at this time to communicate.

On the revival of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, in 1699, he was named a foreign associate, and was soon after chosen member of the royal society of Berlin, but he never used either of these titles, or any other, in any of the works he afterwards published. It is probable, however, that they were of some service to his reputation at least, especially on the following occasion. Peter the Great, on his arrival at Amsterdam, having applied to the magistrates of that city for a person capable of instructing him in those branches of learning he was desirous of acquiring, they named Hartsoeker for that purpose; and he became so agreeable to the czar, that that monarch would have prevailed upon him to follow him to Moscovy. But the length of the journey for a numerous family, and the difference between the Russian manners and those of the people among whom he had hitherto lived, hindered him from accepting the proposal. The magistrates of Amsterdam, to acknowledge the honour he had done to their choice of him upon this occasion, erected a small observatory for him on one of their bastions, which was a handsome compliment to him, although at little expence.

In 1704, after very pressing solicitations, he went to the court of the elector Palatine, who appointed him his first ma&ematiciau, and honorary professor of philosophy in the university of Heidelberg. Here he published, in 1707 and 1708, his lectures, under the title of “Conjeetures Physiques,” and then took his leave for a time of the electorate, in order to visit other parts of Germany, or study natural history, and mines in particular. At Cassel he repeated the experiments made by Mr. Hamberg with the landgrave’s burning glass constructed by Mr. Tschirnhaus, but without being able to vitrify even lead, insomuch that he absolutely denied the fact, affirming that what Hamberg took for vitrified gold was a substance issuing from the charcoal tbat supported it, mixed perhaps with some of the heterogeneous parts of the metal itself.

From Hesse Cassel Hartsoeker repaired to Hanover, where Leibnitz, the professed friend of all men of learning, presented him to the elector, afterwards George I. and the electoral princess, the late queen Caroline, who gave him a very gracious reception. About this time, the elector palatine hearing speak of the burning-glass of M. Tschirnhaus, asked Mr. Hartsoeker if he could make him such a one. Upon this he caused three to be cast, and having soon finished them, the elector presented him with the largest, which was three feet and five inches Rhinland measure jn diameter, nine feet focus, and this focus perfectly circular, of the size of a louis d'or, and so ponderous, that two men could with difficulty move it.

In 1710 he published a volume entitled “Eclaircissements sur les conjectures physiques,” being answers to objections, most of which he attributes to Leibnitz; and two years after he published another volume by way of sequel to it, and in 1722 a collection of several separate pieces on the same subject. ^In these three works he attacked, very freely, several celebrated names in the republic of letters, protesting all the while, that if he did not esteem them, he would have given himself no trouble about them, and that they were very welcome to criticize upon him in their turn. But, in spite of this apology, he could not conceal an irritable temper, and considerable virulence in his manner of treating them. Neither Newton, Leibnitz, Huygens, or the other members of the royal academy of sciences at Paris, escaped him on this occasion. The academy, however, notwithstanding such behaviour, tolerated him as one of her members, and considered him as subject to fits of ill humour, while the several members, instead of answering him, pursued their researches. In the second work he takes up and extends his favourite system of plastic souls. In man, according to him, the rational soul issues its orders, and a vegetative soul, which is the plastic, not only intelligent, but more intelligent than even the rational, immediately executes these orders, besides superintending or carrying on the whole animal oeconomy of the circulation of liquids, nutrition and accretion; operations, in his opinion, above the reach of mere mechanics. But it was immediately objected that rational soul, that vegetative soul, is ourselves, and how can we do all these things without knowing it This difficulty he solves by a comparison, which is at least ingenious. Suppose, says he, a dumb man alone in a room, and servants placed in the adjacent rooms to wait upon him. He is made to understand that when he has a mind to eat, he has only to strike the floor with his stick. Accordingly he strikes, and immediately sees his table covered with dishes. Now how can he conceive that this noise, which he has not heard, and of which he has not even any idea, should have brought the servants to him Hartsoeker, not content with attributing these intelligent plastic souls to men and animals, gives them to plants, and even to the celestial bodies.

, a caustic wit of the Elizabethan period, and the butt of the wits of his time, was born about 1545. His father, although a rope-maker by trade, was of a good family, and nearly related to sir Thomas Smith, the celebrated statesman. He was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, and for some time at Pembroke hall, and took both his degrees in arts. He afterwards obtained a fellowship in Trinity-hall, and served the office of proctor in the university. Having studied civil law, he obtained his grace for a degree in that faculty, and in 1585 was admitted doctor of laws at Oxford, which he completed in the following year, and practised as an advocate in the prerogative court of Canterbury at London. As a poet and a scholar, he had great merit. His beautiful poem, signed Hobbinol, prefixed to the “Faerie Queene,” bespeaks an elegant and well-turned mind; and among his works are several productions of great ingenuity and profound research. But he had too much propensity to vulgar abuse; and having once involved himself with his envious and railing contemporaries Nash and Greene, came their equal in this species of literary warfare. He afforded the ai, howe?er, sufficient advantage, by having turned almanack-maker and a prophetic dealer in earthqu ikes and prodigies, things which must not be altogether reierred to the credulity of the times, since they were as aptly ridiculed then by his opponents, as they would be now, did any man of real knowledge and abilities become so absurd as to propagate the belief in them. His highest honour was in having Spenser for his intimate friend; nor was he less esteemed by sir Philip Sidney, as appears by the interesting account Mr. Todd has given of Harvey’s correspondence in his excellent Life of Spenser. For an equally curious account of Harvey’s literary quarrels with Nash, &c. the reader may be referred with confidence to one of the most entertaining chapters in Mr. DTsraeli’s “Calamities of Authors.” He is supposed to have died in 1630, aged about eighty-five. Among his works which provoked, or were written in answer to, the attacks of his contemporaries, we may enumerate, 1. “Three proper and wittie letters touching the Earthquake, and our English reformed versifying,” Lond. 1.080, 4to. 2. “Two other very commendable Letters touching artificial versifying,” ibid. 15SO, 4to. Harvey boasted his being the inventor of English hexameters, which very jnstly exposed him to ridicule. 3. “Foure Letters, and certain Sonnets, touching Robert Greene and others,” ibid. 1592. His uniiKinlv treatment of Greene has been noticed with proper indignation by sir E. Brydges in his reprint of Greene’s *' Groatsworth of Wit,“and by Mr. Haselwood in his life of that poet in the” Censura Literaria.“5.” Pierce’s Supererogation, or a new prayse of the old Asse, with an advertisement for Pap. Hatchet and Martin Marprelate,“ibid. 1593, &c. This war ol scurrility was at length terminated by an order of the archbishop of Canterbury,” that all Nashe’s books and Dr. Harvey’s bookes be taken wheresoever they be found, and that none of the said bookes be ever printed hereafter.“Among his more creditable performances, Tanner has enumerated, 1.” Rhetor, sive dtiorutn dterum oratio de natura, arte et exercitatione rbetorica,“Lond. 1577, 4to. 2.” Ciceronianus, vel oratio post reditum habita Cantabrigise ad suos auditores,“ibid. 1577, <Ko. 3.” Gratulatio Vatdenensium, lib. IV. ad Elizabetham reginam,“ibid. 1578. 4.” Smithus, vel musarum lachrymze pro obitu honoratiss. viri Thorn se Smith," ibid. 1578, 4to.

The private character of this great man appears to have been in every respect worthy of his public reputation. Cheerful, candid, and upright, he lived on terms of great harmony with his friends and brethren, and exhibited no spirit of rivalry or hostility in his career. He spoke modestly of his own merits, and generally treated his controversial antagonists with temperate and civil language, often very different from their own. He wrote in a remarkably perspicuous Latin style, which is flowing and even eloquent where the subject allows of ornament. The college of physicians very properly honoured his memory by a splendid edition of all his works in quarto, 1766, to which a Latin life of the author was prefixed, elegantly written by Dr. Laurence.

, one of the favourite pupils of Linnæus, and eminently distinguished by hisillus“trations of the natural history and medicine of the Levant, was born at Toernvalla, in East Gothland, Jan. 3d, 1722. He was the son of a poor curate, who died at an early age, and whose widow, on account of mental and corporeal infirmities, was obliged to be placed in the hospital at Vadstena. Her brother, a worthy clergyman of the name of Pontin, educated young Hasselquist with his own children, at the school of Linkoeping; but he was soon deprived of this benefactor, and was obliged to become the tutor of young children till he was old enough to go to the university; and by a similar plan he was enabled to support himself after he entered at Upsal, in 1741. Here he soon took a decided turn for physic and natural history, and had some talents for poetry; and such was his diligence, that his superiors procured him, in 1746, a royal stipend or scholarship. In June 1747, he published his thesis, entitled” Vires Plantarum," setting forth the erroneous and often foolish principles on which plants had formerly been employed in medicine, and suggesting a truly philosophical one iii their natural botanical affinities.

At Smyrna Hasselquist nret with the kindest reception from his relation, Mr. Rydelius, the Swedish consul, as well as from the French consul, M. Peysonel, one of the first who suspected the animal nature of corals. He spent the winter in noticing every thing he could meet with respecting the main objects of his pursuit, in this place and its neighbourhood, as well as the religious ceremonies and manners of the people. He visited the house and garden, once occupied by the famous Sherard, at Sedekio, near Smyrna, but found no traces of any great care having been taken to adorn the garden, or to store it with exotic plants. He made an excursion to Magnesia, his quality of physician causing him to be received every where with respect. As the spring advanced he became desirous of extending his inquiries and early in May set sail for Alexandria, where he arrived on the 13th. Here the palm-trees, which now first presented themselves to his notice, excited him to inquire into and to verify the celebrated history of their artificial impregnation, of whicii he wrote a full account to Linnæus. Having spent two months in seeing all he could at Alexandria, Rosetta, and Cairo, he visited the Egyptian pyramids in July, brought from thence Chondrilla juncea, the only plant he could find, which is. now in the herbarium of his preceptor, was hospitably entertained by the Arabs, and returned safe to Cairo, where he had afterwards an opportunity of seeing the caravan depart for Mecca, of which he has given an ample and interesting description, as well as of many other festivals and exhibitions. He visited the catacombs, and examined many mummies of the ancient Ibis, by the size of which he was induced to take this famous bird to be a species of Ardea, common and almost peculiar to Egypt, different from the Tantalus Ibis of Linnæus. The learned Cuvier, however, has recently shewn that naturalists have been widely mistaken on this subject, and Bruce alone has indicated the real Ibis.

Hasselqnist proceeded, in March 1751, to 'Damiata, whence he sailed for Jaffa, or Joppa, and arrived there after a voyage of four days. He had now reached the great theatre of his inquiries, the Holy Land; and he entered upon the examination of its productions, and their sacred as well as medical history, with all the zeal which had at first prompted him to the journey, and which was crowned with eminent success. Having spent near two months in this celebrated country, he sailed from Seide the 23d of May, for Cyprus, from whence he proceeded to Rhodes, and to Stanchio, the ancient Cos, finally returning to Smyrna in the end of July.

In the course of his expensive journeys and his illness, this unfortunate young man had unavoidably incurred debts beyond what his casual supplies from home could liquidate; and the collections and manuscript notes, which still remained at Smyrna, were seized by his creditors, for a sum amounting to 14,000 dollars of copper-money, or about 350l. sterling. This circumstance was no sooner made known, through Linnæus and his friend Bteck, to the accomplished queen of Sweden, Louisa Ulrica, the worthy sister of the great Frederick of Prussia, than she immediately redeemed these treasures out of her own purse, gave Linnæus all the duplicates, and commissioned him to arrange and publish the manuscript journal and remarks of his deceased pupil; a task which he undertook with alacrity, and executed with care and judgment. These papers were given to the public in 1757, in Swedish, except several Latin descriptions, under the title of “Iter Palaestinum,” or a Journey to the Holy Land, in one volume, 8vo, with a biographical preface by Linnseus, who subjoined to the work the very interesting letters of Hasselquist to himself. This book has been translated into several languages, and appeared in English, at London, in 1766; but this translation is in many parts defective, especially with regard to the natural history and the scientific names. In 1758 the above-mentioned Dr. Baeck, physician to the queen, published, at Stockholm, an oration in praise of Hasselquist, in 8vo.

, the historian of Kent, was the only son of Edward Hasted of Hawley, in Kent, esq. barrister at law, descended paternally from the noble family of Clifford, and maternally from the ancient and knightly family of the Dingleys of Woolverton in the Isle of Wight. He was born in 1732, and probably received a liberal education; but we have no account of his early life. At one time he possessed a competent landed property in the county of Kent, and sat in the chair for a little while at the quarter sessions at Canterbury. His laborious “History of Kent” employed his time and attention for upwards of forty years; and such was his ardour in endeavouring to trace the descent of Kentish property, that he had abstracted with his own hand, in two folio volumes, all the wills in the prerogative office at Canterbury. His materials, in other respects, appear to have been ample. He had access to all the public offices and repositories of records in London; to the libraries and archives of the archbishop at Lambeth, the dean and chapter of Canterbury, and that at Surrenden in Kent. He had also the ms collections of Thorpe, Le Neve, Warburton, Edmondson, Lewis, Twisden, and many others, with much valuable correspondence with the gentlemen of the county. This work was completed in four folio volumes, 1778 1799. The whole exhibits more research than taste, either in arranging the information, or in style; and it is very defective in notices of manners, arts, or biographical and literary history. Its highest praise is that of a faithful record of the property of the country, and of its genealogical history. During the latter part of his labours, he fell into pecuniary difficulties, which are thought to have prevented his making a proper use of his materials, and obliged him to quit his residence in Kent. After this he lived in obscure retirement, and for some time in the environs of London. A few years before his death, the earl of Radnor presented him to the mastership of the hospital at Corsham in Wiltshire, to which he then removed; and some time after by a decree in the court of chancery, recovered his estates in Kent. He died at the master’s lodge at Corsham, Jan. 14, 1812. By Anne his wife, who died in 1803, Mr. Hasted left four sons and two daughters, of whom the eldest son is vicar of Hollingborne, near Maidstone in Kent, and in the commission of the peace for that county.

, a lady of high rank and higher virtues, the daughter of Theophilus earl of Huntingdon, was born April 19, 1682. Her mother was the daughter of sir John Lewis, of Ledstone, in the county of York. The accession of a large fortune, after the death wf her brother George earl of Huntingdon, enabled her to afford an illustrious example of active goodness and benevolence. She fixed her principal residence at Ledstonehouse, where she became the patroness of merit, the benefactress of the indigent, and the intelligent friend and counsellor of the surrounding neighbourhood. Temperate, chaste, and simple, in her habits, she devoted her time, her fortune, and the powers of her understanding, which was of a high order, to the benefit and happiness of all around her. “Her cares,” says her biographer, “extended even to the animal creation; while over her domestics she presided with the dispositions of apparent, providing for the improvement of their minds, the decency of their behaviour, and the propriety of their manners. She would have the skill and contrivance of every artificer used in her house, employed for the ease of her servants, and that they might suffer no inconvenience or hardship. Besides providing for the order, harmony, and peace of her family, she kept great elegance in and about her house, that her poor neighbours might not fall into idleness and poverty for want of employment; and while she thus tenderly regarded the poor, she would visit those in the higher ranks, lest they should accuse her of pride or superciliousness.” Her system of benevolence was at once judicious and extensive. Her benefactions were not confined to the neighbourhood in which she lived; to many families, in various parts of the kingdom, she gave large annual allowances. To this may be added her munificence to her relations and friends, her remission of sums due to her in cases of distress or straitened circumstances, and the noble hospitality of her establishment. To one relation she allowed five hundred pounds annually, to another she presented a gift of three thousand pounds, and to a third three hundred guineas. She acted also with great liberality towards a young lady whose fortune had been injured in the Southsea scheme: yet the whole of her estates fell short of three thousand pounds a-year. In the manors of Ledstone, Ledsham, Thorpe-arche, and Colhngham, she erected charity-schools; and, for the support of them and other charities she gave, in her life-time. Collingham, Shadwell, and her estate at Burton Salmon. Sht also gave Wool for building a new church at Leeds; but, that this donation might not hurt the mother church there, she afterwards offered a farm near Leeds, of 23l. per annum, and capable of improvement, to be settled on the vicar and his successors, provided the town would do the like; which the corporation readily agreed to, and to her ladyship’s benefaction added lands of the yearly value of 24l. for the application of which they were to be entirely answerable to her kindred This excellent lady also bequeathed at her death considerable sums for charitable and public uses; amongst which were five scholarships in Queen’s college, Oxford, for students in divinity, of 28l. a year each, to be enjoyed for five years, and, as the rents should rise, some of her scholars to be capable, in time, of having 60l. per annum, for one or two years after the first term. She died Dec. 22, 1739. She was fond of her pen, and frequently employed herself in writing; but, previous to her death, destroyed the greater part of her papers. Her fortune, beauty, and amiable qualities, procured her many solicitations to change her state; but she preferred, in a single and independent life, to be mistress 01 her actions, and the disposition of her income.

, the son of Dr. Hatcher, regius professor of physic in Cambridge, and physician to queen Mary, flourished in the sixteenth century, but of his birth, or death we have no dates. He became a fellow of Eton college in 1555. He is said to have left that fur Gray’s inn, and to have afterwards studied physic. He compiled some memoirs of the eminent persons educated in Eton college, in two books, in a catalogue of all the provosts, fellows, and scholars, to the year 1572. Mr. Harwood acknowledges his obligations to this work, but leaves us at a loss to understand its being compiled “after the manner of Bayle.” Hatcher, however, he informs us, was a very able antiquary, and a learned and pious man. He published the epistles and orations of his fellow-collegian, Walter Haddon, in a book entitled “Lucubrationes.” He died in Lincolnshire.

Bishop Hatfield was the principal benefactor, if not the founder, of the Friary at Northallerton, in Yorkshire, for Carmelites or white friars. The records of his time give large accounts of his charities to the poor, his great hospitality and good housekeeping^ and of the sums he expended in buildings and repairs during the time he held the bishopric. After a life spent in an uniform practice of munificence and charity, he died at his manor of Alfond, or Alford, near London, May 7, 1381, and by his will directed his body to be buried in his own cathedral. ' It is there entombed in the south aile under a monument of alabaster, prepared by himself in his life-time, which is now remaining very perfect, though without any inscription.

, or Atto Vercellensis, bishop of Vercelli, in Italy, of a noble family, was born in Piedmont iri the beginning of the tenth century, and was esteemed a learned divine and canonist. He was promoted to the bishopric of Vercelli in the year 945, and by knowledge and amiable manners proved himself worthy of this rank, It is not mentioned when he died. His works are, I. “Libeilus de pressuris Ecclesiasticis,” in three parts, inserted in D'Achery’s “Spicilegium.” This treatise on the sufferings and grievances of the church, Mosheim says, shews in their true colours the spirit and complexion of the times. 2. “Epistolae.” 3. “Canones statutaque Vercellensis Ecclesiae,” both in the same collection. In the Vatican, and among the archives of Vercelli, are many other productions of this author, all of which were collected by Baronzio, and published as the “Complete works of Hatto,” in. 1768, 2 vols. fol.

, a statesman and lawyer in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was the third and youngest son, of William Hatton, of Holdenby in Northamptonshire, by Alice, daughterof Lawrence Saunders, of Horringworth, in the same county. He was entered a gentleman commoner of St. Mary Hall, Oxford, but removed, without taking a degree, to the society of the Inner Temple, not to study law, but that his mind might be enlarged by an intercourse with those who were at once men of business and of the world, for such was the character of the lawyers of that day. He came on one occasion to the court at a masque, where queen Elizabeth was struck by the elegance of his person, and his graceful dancing. It is not improbable also that his conversation corresponded with his outward appearance. He was from this time, however, in the way to preferment; from one of the queen’s pensioners he became successively a gentleman of the privy chamber, captain of the guard, vice-chamberlain, and privy-counsellor, and by these unusual gradations rose to the office of lord chancellor in 1587, when he was likewise elected a knight of the garter. His insufficiency is said at first to have created strong prejudices among the lawyers against him, founded, perhaps, on some degree of envy at his sudden advancement without the accustomed studies; but his good natural capacity supplied the place of experience and study; and his decisions were not found deficient either in point of equity or judgment. In all matters of great moment he is said to have consulted Dr. Swale, a civilian. “His station,” says one of his biographers, “was great, his dispatches were quick and weighty, his orders many, yet all consistent: being very seldom reversed ijii thartcery, and his advice opposed more seldom in council. He was so just, that his sentence was a law to the subject, and so wise, that his opinion was an oracle to the queen.” When, in 1586, queen Elizabeth sent a new deputation to queen Mary of Scotland, informing her that the plea of that unhappy princess, either from her royal dignity, or from her imprisonment, could not be admitted, sir Christopher Hatton was one of the number, along with Burleigh, and Bromley the chancellor; and it was by Hatton’s advice chiefly, that Mary was persuaded to answer before the court, and thereby give an appearance of legal procedure to the trial.

Sir Christopher did not enjoy his high office above four years, and died unmarried, Sept. 20, 1591, of a broken heart, as usually reported, owing to the stern perseverance with which Elizabeth had demanded an old debt which he was unable to pay. Camden enumerates him among the liberal patrons of learning, and as eminent for his piety towards God, his fidelity to his country, his untainted integrity, and unparalleled charity. In his opinions respecting matters of religion, he appears to have been averse to persecution, which brought upon him the reproach of being secretly affected to popery, but of this we have no proof. As chancellor of Oxford, which office he held from 1588 to his death, he did much to reform the education and discipline of that university. He was buried under a stately monument in the choir of St. Paul’s. Wood says he wrote several things pertaining to the law, none of which are extant 2 but the following has been attributed to him, “A Treatise concerning Statutes or Acts of Parliament, and the exposition thereof,” Lond. 1677, 8vo. Warton thinks he was the undoubted writer of “the fourth act in the tragedy of Tancred and Gismund,” which bears at the end composuit Ch. Hat. This play was the joint production of five students of the Inner Temple, and was acted at that society before the queen in 1568, but not printed till 1592. It is reprinted in the second edition of Dodsley’s collection.

, a classical editor of considerable fame, was born in 1684, but where, or where educated, none of our authorities mention. In 1718 we find him a preacher at the village of Stad aan't Haringvliet,. in the island of Overflacke, between Holland and Zealand, in which year he published “Tertulliani Apologeticus,” Leyden, 8vo, with a commentary. In 1721 he was appointed professor of Greek in the university of Leyden, and afterwards filled the chair of history and rhetoric. He died in that city, April 25, 1742. He translated many of the writings of the Italian antiquaries into Latin for Vander Aa’s “Thesaurus Italiae,” and for Polenus’s “Supplementa nova utriusque Thesauri Romanarum Grsecarumque Autiquitatum.” His principal separate publicationsare, 1. “Dissert, de Alexandri magni numismate,” Leyden, 1722, 4to. 2. “Oratio cle actione oratoris, sive corporis eloquentia,” ibid. 1724, 4to. 3. “Series numismatum antiquorum Henr. Adriani a Mark,” 1727, 8vo. 4. “Museum Hilenbroekianum,” without date or place. 5. “Thesaurus Morellian us: familiarum Romanarum numismata,” with a commentary, Amst. fol. 1734. 6. “A History of Asia, Africa, and Europe, from the end of the fabulous ages,” in Dutch, three parts, 1736 39, fol. with plates of coins. 7. “Sylloge scriptorum de pronunciations Grascae Linguae,” Leid. 1736 and 1740. 8. “Reguin et imperatorum Romanorum numismata, ducis Croyiaci, et Arschotani, &c.” Amst. 1738, 4to, &c. The classics he edited were, 1. “Lucretius,” Leyden, 1725, 2 vols. 4to, a very splendid, learned, and critical edition some have given it the preference to all former editions, and it appears as yet doubtful whether it be excelled by that of the late Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. 2. “Josephus,” fol. Amst. 1726. By this he seems to have lost almost as much reputation as he gained by his Lucretius, it being shamefully incorrect.

Hawes’s principal work is his “Pastime of Pleasure,” first printed by Wynkyn de Worde in 1517, with wooden cuts. This, Mr. Warton says, contains no common touches of romantic and allegoric fiction. The personifications are often happily sustained, and indicate the writer’s familiarity with the Provincial school: he also says that “Hawes has added new graces to Lvdgate’s manner.” Mr. Ellis, however, seems to be of a different opinion, and thinks that he has copied Lydgate’s worst manner; and that he is diffuse, fond of expletives and epithets which add nothing to the sense. Hawes’s other works are, “The Temple of Glass,” in imitation of Chaucer’s “Temple of Fame;” “The Conversyon of Swerers,” and one or two other rarities, described in our authorities.

In 1773 he became deservedly popular, from his incessant zeal in calling the attention of the public to the resuscitation of persons apparently dead, principally by drowning. In this laudable attempt he encountered much opposition, and some ridicule. The practicability of resuscitation was denied. He ascertained its practicability by advertising rewards to persons, who, between Westminster and London bridges, should, within a certain time after the accident, rescue drowned persons from the water, and bring them ashore to places appointed for their reception, where means might be used for their recovery, and give immediate notice to him. The public mind being thus awakened to the subject, greater exertions were made by individuals than had ever before been known; and many lives were saved by himself and other medical men, which would otherwise have certainly been lost; and Mr. Hawes, at his own expence, paid the rewards in these cases for twelve months, which amounted to a considerable sum. His excellent friend, Dr. Cogan (then somewhat known to the public, and since much better known, by several valuable publications), who had long turned his thoughts to this subject, remonstrated with him on the injury which his private fortune would sustain from a perseverancein these expences and he at last consented to share them with the public. Dr. Coganancl he agreed to join their strength; and each of them bringing forward fifteen friends to a meeting at the Chapter coftee-house in 1774, the Humane Society was instantly formed. From this period the weight and organization of the infant institution devolved in great measure on Mr. Hawes, whose undeviating labours have, it is hoped, established it for ever; and without which, there would very probably not have been at this time a similar establishment in Europe, America, or India; where Humane societies have now multiplied with every great stream that fructifies the soil of those different regions.

In 1780 was published, his third edition of an “Examination of the Reverend John Wesley’s Primitive Physick;” in which the absurdities and dangerous remedies recommended by that venerable and (on many other accounts) respectable writer were acutely exposed by a combination of irony and serious argument. In 1780, or 1731, he removed to Palsgrave-place, and commenced practice as a physician; the degree of doctor of medicine having been conferred upon him some time before.

Dr. Hawes was a man totally without guile; and self never entered into his contemplation. There was a simplicity in his manners, the result of an innocent and unsuspecting heart. Without possessing, or affecting to possess, any very superior literary talents, he contrived to furnish to the public an acceptable work in his “Annual Reports.” His practice had been considerable; and his medical knowledge was respectable. In the resuscitative part he was eminently skilled. He was an honorary member of the Massachusetts Humane Society; and of many others, at Edinburgh, Manchester, Bath, &c. &c. and a vice-president of the London Electrical Dispensary.

, an eminent naval officer, was the son of Edward Hawke, esq. barrister at law, by Elizabeth, daughter of Nathaniel Bladen, esq. He was from his youth brought up to the sea, and passed through the inferior stations till, in 1713—4, he was appointed captain of the Wolf. His intrepidity and conduct were first of all distinguished in the memorable engagement with the combined fleets of France and Spain on Toulon, in 1744, when the English fleet was commanded by the admirals Matthews, Lestock, and Rowley. If all the English ships had done their duty on that day as well as the Berwick, which captain Hawke commanded, the honour and discipline of the navy would not have been so tarnished. He compelled the Pader, a Spanish vessel of 60 guns, to strike; and, to succour the Princessa and Somerset, broke the line without orders, for which act of bravery he lost his commission, but was honourably restored to his rank by the king. In 1747 he was appointed rear-admiral of the 'white; and on the 14th of October, in the same year, fell in with a large French fleet, bound to the West Indies, convoyed by nine men of war, of which he captured seven. This was a glorious day for England, and the event taught British commanders to despise the old prejudice of staying for a line of battle. “Perceiving,” says the gallant admiral in his letters to the Admiralty, “that we lost time in forming our line, I made the signal for the whole squadron to chase, and when within a proper distance to engage.” On October the 31st, admiral Hawke arrived at Portsmouth with his prizes, and as a reward of his bravery, he was soon afterwards made knight of the bath. In 1748 he was made vice-admiral of the blue, and elected an elder brother of the Trinity-house; in 1755 he was appointed viceadmiral of the white, and in 1757 commanded the squadron which was sent to co-operate with sir John Mordaunt in the expedition against Rochfort. In 1759, sir Edward commanded the grand fleet opposed to that of the French equipped at Brest, and intended to invade these kingdoms. He accordingly sailed from Portsmouth, and, arriving off Brest, so stationed his ships that the French fleet did not dare to come out, and had the mortification of beholding their coast insulted, and their merchantmen taken. The admiral, however, being by a strong westerly wind blown from his station, the French seized this opportunity, and steered for Quiberon-bay, where a small English squadron lay under the command of commodore Duff. Sir Edward Hawke immediately went in pursuit of them, and on the 20th of November came up with them off Belleisle. The wind blew exceedingly hard at the time, nevertheless the French were engaged, and totally defeated, nor was the navy of France able to undertake any thing of consequence during the remainder of the war. This service, owing to the nature of the coast, was peculiarly hazardous; but when the pilot represented the danger, our gallant admiral only replied, “You have done your duty in pointing out the difficulties; you are now to comply with my order, and lay me along the Soleil Royal.” For these and similar services, the king settled a pension of 2000l. per annum on sif Edward and his two sons, or the survivor of them; he also received the thanks of the house of commons, and the freedom of the city of Cork in a gold box. In 1765 he was appointed vice-admiral of Great Britain, and first lord of the admiralty; and, in 1776, he was made a peer of England, under the title of Baron Hawke, of Towton, in the county of York. His lordship married Catharine the daughter of Walter Brooke, of Burton-hall, in Yorkshire, esq. by whom he had four children. He was one of the greatest characters that ever adorned the British navy; but most of all remarkable for the daring courage which induced him on many occasions to disregard those forms of conducting or sustaining an attack, which the rules and ceremonies of service had before considered as indispensable. He died at his seat at Shepperton in Middlesex, October 14, 1781.

, an elegant and ingenious English writer, was born either in 1715, or 1719, in London, and was, as some report, brought up to the trade of a watchmaker. Sir John Hawkins, however, informs us that he was, when very young, a hired clerk to one Harwood, an attorney in Grocers’-alley in the Poultry. His parents were probably dissenters, as he was a member of the celebrated Mr. Bradbury’s meeting, from which, it is said, he was expelled for some irregularities. It does not appear that he followed any profession, but devoted himself to study and literary employment. So early as 1744 he succeeded Dr. Johnson in compiling the parliamentary debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine, to which he afterwards contributed many of his earlier productions in verse. In 1746, he wrote in that publication, under the' name of Greville, the “Devil Painter, a tale;” the “Chaise Percee,” from the French; “Epistle to the King of Prussia;” “Lines to the Rev. Mr. Layng” (who was at this time a writer in the Magazine), and to the celebrated Warburton “On a series of theological inquiries” “A Thought from Marcus Antoninus” “The Smart.” In- 1747 he contributed “The Accident” “Ants’ Philosophy” “Death of Arachne;” “Chamontand Honorius” “Origin of Doubt;” “Life,” an ode “Lines to Hope” “Winter,” an ode“”The Experiment,“a tale. In 1748,” The Midsummer Wish“” Solitude“” The two Doves,“a fable” Autumn“in 1749,” Poverty insulted“”Region allotted to Old Maids;“” The Nymph at her Toilet;“” God is Love;“” Cloe’s Soliloquy." Some of these are signed H. Greville. Whether he wrote any prose compositions is doubtful. Mr. Duncombe, on whose authority the above list is given, says nothing of prose.

In 1756, at Garrick’s desire, Dr. Hawkesworth altered the comedy of “Amphytrion, or the two Sosias,” from Dryden, and in 1760 wrote “Zimri,” an oratorio, set to music by Stanley, which appears to have been approved by the public. About the same time he altered for Drurylane theatre, Southern’s tragedy of“Oroonoko,” by some omissions and some additions, but the latter, in the opinion of the critics, not enough to supply the place of the former. In 1761 he appeared to more advantage as the author of a dramatic fairy tale, “Edgar and Emtneline;' acted at Drury-lane theatre with great success. Dr. Hawkes worth, having gained much popularity from the eastern stories introduced in the Adventurer, this year gave to the public, in two volumes, his line tale of” Almoran and Hainet," which, notwithstanding some inconsistencies and improbabilities of fable, is entitled to very high praise for its moral tendency, and was long a favourite with the public.

In 1766, Dr. Hawkesworth was the editor of three additional volumes of Swift’s Letters, with notes and illustrations. In this publication he discovers an uncommon warmth against infidel publications, and speaks of Bolingbroke and his editor Mallet with the utmost detestation: that 4 in this he was sincere, will appear from the following proof. We have already mentioned, that in 1744 he succeeded Dr. Johnson as the writer or compiler of the parliamentary debates in the Gentleman’s Magazine; in this office, if it maybe so termed, he continued until 1760, when the plan of the Magazine was improved by a Review of New Publications. Mr. Owen Ruffhead was the first who filled this department, and continued to do so about two years, according to sir John Hawkins, when he was succeeded by Dr. Hawkesworth; but there must have been an intermediate reviewer, if sir John be correct in the time when Mr. Ruffhead ceased to write, as Dr. Hawkesworth’s first appearance as a critic 'is ascertained, upon undoubted authority, to have been April 1765. In the month of October of that year, there appeared in the Magazine an abstract of Voltaire’s “Philosophical Dictionary,” by a correspondent. Dr. Hawkesworth’s friends, to vyhom it appears his connection with the Magazine was no secret, were alarmed to see an elaborate account of so impious a work; and one of them wrote to him on the subject. An extract from his answer, now before us, and dated Nov. 8, 176:5, will perhaps fill up a chasm in his personal as well as literary history.

“I am always sorry when I hear anonymous performance, not expressly owned, imputed to particular persons, that which a man never owned either privately or in public, I think he should not be accountable for. J speak feelingly on this subject, for though Mr. Duncombe assured you that the Magazine was solely under my direction, I must beg leave to assure you that it is not, nor ever was, there being in almost every number somethings that I never see, and some things that I do not approve. There is in the last number an account of Voltaire’s ‘ Philosophical Dictionary,’ a work of which I never would give any account, because I would not draw the attention of the public to it. It is true that the extracts exhibited in this article do not contain any thing contrary to religion or good morals; but it is certain that these extracts will carry the book into many hands that otherwise it would never have reached; and the book abounds with principles which a man ought to be hanged for publishing, though he believed them to be true, upon the same principle that all states hang rebels and traitors, though the offenders think rebellion and treason their duty to God. I beg, Sir, that you would do me the justice to say this whenever opportunity offers, especially with respect to the political part of the Magazine, for I never wrote a political pamphlet or paper, or ever directly or indirectly assisted in the writing of either in my life.”

This account, chiefly from the pen of Dr. Kippis, captain Cook’s biographer, in the Biographia Britannica, is too favourable: the public was not satisfied with this work. The literary journals, indeed, examined it with candour, and rather with favour; but men of science were disappointed, and the friends of religion and morals were shocked/ No infidel could have obtruded opinions more adverse to the religious creed of the hation, than what Dr. Hawkesworth advanced in his preface. He denied a special providence; he supposed that providence might act in some general way in producing events, but contended that one event ought not to be distinguished, or accounted an extraordinary interposition more than another. He asks, “If the deliverance of the Endeavour was an extraordinary interposition, why did not Providence interpose to prevent the ship from striking at all, rather than to prevent her from being beaten to pieces after she had struck?” a question which was considered as much fitter for the mouth of a professed scoffer than that of a man whose regard for revealed religion approached, in the opinion of some, to intemperate zeal. In his “Almoran and Hamet,” his notions of providence are confused and perplexed; but in this he has attacked revealed religion, by striking off one of its principal duties, and one of its most consoling hopes, the duty and efficacy of prayer, of which he was not, however, insensible when he wrote No. 28 of the Adventurer.

That such a reception given to a work of which he thought he might be proud, and from which he drew so great an emolument, should have irritated his mind, can excite little surprize. No respect for the services he had rendered to religion or virtue could obliterate the memory of his declension; and it certainly aggravated the pain his friends felt, when they considered that whatever was objectionable in this work, had come from his pen without provocation and without necessity, either from the nature of the undertaking, or the expectation of the public. He was, indeed, so sensible that his opinions would shock the feelings of his readers, that he thought it necessary to apologize for them in a very respectful, although unsatisfactory manner.

Of his personal character the following friendly sketch appeared in the Annual Register for 1773, and was no doubt intended to counteract some disadvantageous reports respecting his principles, which were circulated about the time of his death. “Nature had endowed him with an uncommonly fine understanding, which had been improved not only by long study, but by converse with mankind. His fertile mind teemed with ideas> which he delivered in so clear, and yet concise a manner, that no one could be at a loss perfectly to comprehend his meaning, or ever tired by hearing him speak; especially as his diction was so unaffectedly pure, and his language so simply elegant, that the learned and unlearned attended with equal pleasure to that unstudied flow of eloquence, which, without seeming to look for them, always adopted those words which were most suitable to the subject, as well as most pleasing to his hearers. It has been objected to him, that he suffered his passions to hold too strong a dominion over him; and it must be confessed a too keen sensibility seemed to him, as indeed it ever is to all who possess it, a pleasing but unfortunate gift. Alive to every tender sentiment of friendship, his heart dilated with joy whenever heaven put it in his power to be beneficial to those he loved; but this feeling disposition was the means of leading him into such frequent, though transient gusts of passion, as were too much for his delicate constitution to bear, without feeling the effects of them. Yet with all these quick sensations, he was incapable of lasting resentment or revenge; and had he never found an enemy till he had done an injury, he would, we may venture to pronounce, have left the world without having known one.”

, a recent English writer, the son of a man, who, though descended from the preceding sir John Hawkins, followed at first the occupation of a house-carpenter, which he afterwards exchanged for the profession of a surveyor and huijder. He had married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Gwatkin of Tou nhope, co. Hereford, gentleman; and the issue of this marriage were several children. Of these the present object of this article was the youngest, and was born in the city of London, on the 30th day of March, 1719. After fcaving been sent first to one school, and afterwards to a second, where he acquired a tolerable knowledge of Latin, he was placed under the tuition of Mr. Hoppus, the author of a well-known and useful architectural compendium, published in 1733, 8vo, and entitled “Proportional Architecture, or the Five Orders regulated by equal Farts.” Under this person he went through a regular course of architecture and perspective, in order to fit him for his father’s profession of a surveyor, for which he was at first intended; but his first cousin, Mr. Thomas Gwatkin, being clerk to Mr. John Scott of Devonshire-street, Bishopsgate, an attorney and solicitor in full practice, persuaded him *to alter his resolution, and embrace that of the law, which he did, and was accordingly articled as a clerk to Mr. Scott. In this situation his time was too fully employed in the actual dispatch of business, to permit him without some extraordinary means to acquire the necessary knowledge of his profession by reading and study; besides that, his master is said to have been more artxious to render him a good copying-clerk, by scrupulous attention to his hand-writing, than to qualify him by instruction to conduct business. To remedy this inconvenience, therefore, he abridged himself of his rest, and rising at four in the morning, found opportunity of reading all the necessary and most eminent law-writers, and the works of our mos% celebrated authors. By these means, before the expiration of his clerkship, he had already rendered himself a very able lawyer, and had possessed himself of a taste for literature in general, but particularly for poetry and the polite arts; and the better to facilitate his improvement, he from time to time furnished to “The Universal Spectator,” “The Westminster Journal,” The Gentleman’s Magazine,“and other periodical publications of the time, essays and disquisitions on several subjects. The first of these is believed to have been an” Essay on Swearing;“but the exact time of its appearance, and the paper in which it was inserted, are both equally unknown. It was, however, re-published some years since (without his knowledge till he saw it in print) in one of the newspapers. His next production was an” Essay on Honesty," inserted in the Gentleman’s Magazine for March, 1739; and which occasioned a controversy, continued through the magazines for several succeeding months, between him and a Mr. Calamy, a descendant of the celebrated Dr. Edmund Calamy, then a fellow-clerk with him.

Without friends or family connections, or at least without such as could advance him in the profession to which he had betaken himself, he was now (his clerkship being expired, and he himself admitted an attorney and solicitor) to seek for the means of procuring business by making for himself reputable and proper connections.

On occasion of actual tumults or expected disturbances, he had more than once been called into service of great personal danger. When the riots at Brentford had arisen, during the time of the Middlesex election in 1768, he and some of his brethren attended to suppress them; and, in consequence of an expected riotous assembly of the journeymen Spitalfields weavers in Moorfields, in 1769, -the magistrates of Middlesex and he at their head, with a party of guards, attended to oppose them, but the mob, on seeing them prepared, thought it prudent to disperse. In these and other instances, and particularly in his conduct as chairman, having given sufficient proof of his activity, resolution, abilities, integrity, and loyalty, he, on the 23d of October, 1772, received from his present majesty the honour of knighthood.

Not long after this publication, in November 1777, he was induced, by an attempt to rob his house, which, though unsuccessful, was made three different nights with the interval of one or two only between each attempt, to quit his house in Hatton-street and, after a temporary residence for a short time in St. James’s-place, he took a lease of one, formerly inhabited by the famous admiral Vernon, in the street leading up to Queen-square, Westminster, and removed thither. By this removal, he became a constant attendant on divine worship at the parish church of St. Margaret, Westminster; and having learnt, in December 177S, that the surveyor to the board of ordnance was, in defiance of a proviso in the lease under which they claimed, carrying up a building at the east end of the church, which was likely to obscure the beautiful painted glass window over the altar there, sir J. H. with the concurrence of some of the principal inhabitants, wrote to the surveyor, and compelled him to take down two feet of the wall, which he had already carried up above the sill of the window, and to slope off the roof of his building in such a manner as that it was not only no injury, but, on the contrary, a defence, to the window.

Upon the conclusion of the peace between the English and French by the treaty of Bretigni 1360, sir John, finding his estate too small to support his title and dignity, associated himself with certain companies called, by Froissart, “Les Tard Venus;” by Walsingham, “Magna Comitiva.” These were formed by persons of various nations, who, having hitherto found employment in the wars between England and France, and having held governments, or built and fortified ho.uses in the latter kingdom which, they were now obliged to give up, found themselves reduced to this desperate method of supporting themselves and their soldiers by marauding and pillaging, or by en-, gaging in the service of less states, which happened to be at war with each other. Villani, indeed, charges Edward III. with secretly authorizing these ravages in France, while outwardly he affected a strict observance of the peace. At this time, in the summer, continues this historian, ah English tailor, named John della Guglea, that is, John of the needle, who had distinguished himself iri the war, began to form a company of marauders, and collected a number of English, who delighted in mischief, and hoped to live by plunder, surprizing and pillaging first one town, and then another. This company increased so much that they became the terror of the whole country. All who had not fortified places to defend them were forced to treat with him, and furnish him with provision and money, for which he promised them his protection. The effect of this was, that in a few months he acquired great wealth. Having also received an accession of followers and power, he roved from one country to another, till at length he came to the Po. There he made all who came in his way prisoners. The clergy he pillaged, but let the laity go without injury. The court of Rome was greatly alarmed at these proceedings, and made preparations to oppose these banditti. Upon the arrival of certain Englishmen on the banks of the Po, Hawkwood resigned his command to them, and professed submission to the king of England, to whose servants he presented a large share of his ill-gotten wealth.

Peace being now re-established abroad, the city of Florence was, in 1393, distracted with civil feuds, which were not terminated by the execution and exile of some principal citizens. But at the close of this year they sustained a greater loss in sir John Hawkwood, who died March 6, advanced in years, at his house in the street called PulveYosa, near Florence. His funeral was celebrated with -reat magnificence, and the general lamentation of the whole city. His bier, adorned with gold and jewels, was supported by the first persons of the republic, followed by horses in gilded trappings, banners, and other military ensigns, and the whole body of the citizens. His remains were deposited in the church of St. Repar.ita, where a statue (as Poggio and Rossi call it, though it is well known to be a portrait) of him on horseback was put np by a public decree. If the Florentine historians did not distinguish between a statue and a portrait, no wonder our countryman Stowe talks of an “image as great as a mighty pillar,” erecteci to the memory of sir John Hawkwood at Florence or that Weever, copying him, calls it “a statue.”

In the representation of this hero painted on the dome of the church, he appears mounted on a pacing gelding, whose bridle, with the square ornament embossed on it, is covered with crimson velvet or cloth, and the saddle is red, stuffed or quilted. He is dressed in armour with a surcoat flowing on from his shoulders, but girt about his body; his greaves are covered with silk or cloth, but the kneepieces may be distinguished under them: his shoes, which are probably part of his greaves, are pointed according to the fashion of the times. His hands are bare in his right he holds a yellow baton of office, which rests on his thigh in his left the bridle. His head, which has very short hair, is covered with a cap not unlike our earls’ coronets, with a border of wrought work.

Sir John had a cenotaph in the church of his native town, erected by his executors Robert Rokeden senior and junior, and John Coe. It is described by Weever, as “a tomb arched over, and engraven to the likeness of hawks flying in a wood,” which, Fuller says, was “quite flown away.” It is plain the last of these writers never took any pains to visit or procure true information about this monument, which still remains in good preservation near the upper end of the fourth aile of Sible Hedingham church. The arch of this tomb is of the mixed kind, terminating in a sort of bouquet, on both sides of which, over the arch, are smaller arches of tracery in relief. The arch is adorned with hawks and their bells, and other emblems of hunting, as, a hare, a boar, a boy sounding a conch-shell, &c. The two pillars that support it are charged with a dragon and lion. Under this arch is a low altar-tomb with five shields in quatrefoils, formerly painted. In the south window of the chantry chapel, at the east end of this aile, are painted hawks, hawks bells, and escallops, which last are part of the Hawkwood arms, as the first were probably the crest, as well as a rebus of the name; and we find a hawk volant on sir John’s seal. In the north and west side of the tower are two very neat hawks on perches in relief, in rondeaux hollowed in the wall: that over the west door is extremely well preserved. They probably denote that some of the family built the tower. Mr. Morant imagines some of them rebuilt this church about the reign of Edward III. but none appear to have been in circumstances equal to such munificence before our hero; and perhaps his heirs were the rebuilders.

, an English lawyer, the son of Thomas Hawles, gent, was born at Salisbury in 1645, and educated at Winchester school, whence he entered as a commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1662, but, like most men intended for the study of the law, left the university without taking a degree. He removed to Lincoln’s Inn, and after studying the usual period, was admitted to the bar, and, as Wood says, became “a person of note for his profession.” On the accession of king William, he more openly avowed revolution-principles, and published “Remarks upon the Trials of Edward Fitzharris, Stephen Coiledge, count Coningsmarke, the lord Russel, &c.” Lond. 1689, foho; and a shorter tract called “The Magistracy and Government of England vindicated; or a justification of the English method of proceedings against criminals, by way of answer to the Defence of the late lord Russel’s innocence,” ibid. 1689, fol. In 1691 he stood candidate for the recordership of London against sir Bartholomew Shower, but was unsuccessful. In 1695, however, he was appointed solicitor general, which office he held until 1702. He was one of the managers against Dr. Sacheverel in his memorable trial. He died Aug. 2, 1716.

When lord Hardwicke was called up to the house of lords in 1734, he was chosen to succeed him in representing the borough of Seatbrd in the Commons; and he represented this borough for the remainder of his life. He defended the measures of sir Robert Walpole in general, but was far from being subservient or indiscriminate in his approbation of public measures. In 1728 he published his 1 Essay on Civil Government;“in 1730 his poem entitled” Mount Caburn,“dedicated to the duchess of Newcastle, in which he celebrates the beauties of his native country, and the virtues of his friends. In 1735 he published” Remarks on the Laws relative to the Poor, with proposals for their better relief and employment; and at the same time brought in a bill for the purpose. He made another attempt of this kind, but without effect. In May 1738, he was appointed a commissioner of the victualling-office. In 1753 appeared “Religio Philosophi; or, the principles of morality and Christianity, illustrated from a view of che universe, and of man’s situation in it.” This was followed, in 1754, by his “Essay on Deformity;” in which he rallies his own imperfection in this respect with much liveliness and good humour. “Bodily deformity,” says he, “is very rare. Among 558 gentlemen in the House of commons, I am the only one that is so. Thanks to my worthy constituents, who never objected to my person, and I hope never to give them cause to object to my behaviour.” The same year he translated Hawkins Browne “De Immortalitati Animse.” In 1755 he translated and modernized some “Epigrams of Martial;” but survived this publication only a short time, dying June 22, the same year. A little time before, he had been appointed keeper of the records in the Tower; and it is said that his attention and assiduity, during the few months he held that office, were eminently serviceable to his successors.

The first time we meet with his name in the German catalogues of music, is in that of Breitkopf of Leipsic, 1763, to a Divertimento a Cembalo, 3 Concern a Cembalo, 5 Trios, 8 Quadros or quartets, and 6 Symphonies in four and eight parts." The chief of his early music was for the chamber. He is said at Vienna to have composed, before 1782, a hundred and twenty-four pieces for the bariton, a species of viol di gamba, for the use of his prince who was partial to that instrument, and a great performer upon it.

Besides his numerous productions for instruments, he has composed many operas for the Esterhazi theatre, and church music that has established his reputation us a deep contrapuntist. His “Stabat Mater” has been performed and p imed in England, but his oratorio of “II Ritorno di Tobia,” composed in 1775, for the benefit of the widows of musicians, has been annually performed at Vienna ever since, and is as high in favour there as Handel’s “Messiah” in England. His instrumental “Passione,” in sixteen or eighteen parts, was among his later and most exquisite productions previous to his arrival in England. It entirely consists of slow movements, on the subject of the last seven sentences of our Saviour, as recorded in the Evangelists. These strains are so truly impassioned and full of heart-felt grief and dignified sorrow, that though the movements are all slow, the subjects, treatment, and effects, are so new and so different, that a real lover of music will feel no lassitude, or wish for lighter strains to stimulate attention.

The la>t of his compositions which were received in England subsequent to the “Creation,” were, two sets of quartets, of which the first violin, calculated to display Salomon’s powers of execution and expression, is very difficult; and his “Seasons.” There is a general cheerfulness and good-humour in Haydn’s allegros, which exhilarate every hearer. But his adagios are often so sublime in ideas and the harmony in which they are clad, that though played by inarticulate instruments, they have a more pathetic effect on our feelings than the finest opera air united with the most exquisite poetry. He has likewise movements and passages that are sportive, playful, and even grotesque, for the sake of variety; but they are often so striking and pleasant, that they have the eifect of bon mots in speaking or writing.

, a learned schoolmaster, the son of Robert Hayne, of Thrussington, in Leicestershire, was born probably in that parish, in 1581, and in 1599 was entered of Lincoln-college, Oxford, where, being under the care of an excellent tutor, he obtained great knowledge in philosophy, to which, and his other studies, he was the more at leisure to give diligent application, as he was, by a lameness almost from his birth, prevented from enjoying the recreations of youth. In 1604 he took his bachelor’s degree, and became one of the ushers of merchant taylors’ school, London: and after taking the degree of master, was usher at Christ’s hospital. He was a noted critic, an excellent linguist, and a solid divine, highly respected by men of learning, and particularly by Selden. He died July 27, 1645, and was buried in Christ-church, London, where a monument was erected over his grave, (destroyed in the fire of London) with an inscription to his memory, as an antiquary, a teacher, and a man of peace. He bequeathed his books to the library at Leicester (which is commemorated in an inscription in that place), except a few which he left to the library at Westminster. He gave also 400l. to be bestowed in buying lands or houses, in or near Leicester, of the yearly value of 24l. for ever, for the maintenance of a schoolmaster in Thrussington, or some town near thereto, to teach ten poor children, &c. Fifteen are now educated in this school. He founded also two scholarships in Lincoln-college, the scholars to come from the free-school at Leicester, or in defect of that, from the school at Melton, &c. Several other acts of charity are included in his will. His works are, I. “Grammatices Latinae Compendium, 1637, reprinted in 1649, 8vo, with two appendices. 2.” Linguarum cognatio, seu de linguis in genere,“&c. Lond. 1639, 8vo. 3.” Pax in terra; seu tractatus de pace ecclesiastica,“ibid. 1639, 8vo. 4.” The equal ways of God, in rectifying the unequal ways of man,“ibid. 1639, 8vo. 5.” General View of the Holy Scriptures or the times, places, and persons of the Holy Scripture,“&c. ibid. 1640, fol. 6.” Life and Death of Dr. Martin Lutlier," ibid. 1641, 4to.

, an English historian, was educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of LL. D. In 1599 he published, in 4to, The first Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV. extending to the end of the first yeare of his raigne,“dedicated to Robert earl of Essex; for which he suffered a tedious imprisonment, on account of having advanced something in defence of hereditary succession to the crown. We are informed, in lord Bacon’s” Apophthegms,“that queen Elizabeth, being highly incensed at this book, asked Bacon, who was then one of her council learned in the law,” whether there was any treason contained in it?“who answered,” No, madam for treason, I cannot deliver my opinion there is any but there is much felony.“The queen, apprehending it, gladly asked,” How and wherein“Bacon answered,” because he had stolen many of his sentences and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus.“This discovery is thought to have prevented his being put to the rack. Carnden tells us, that the book being dedicated to the earl of Essex, when that nobleman and his friends were tried, the lawyers urged, that” it was written on purpose to encourage the deposing of the queen;“and they particularly insisted on these words in the dedication* in which our author styles the earl” Magnus & present! judicio, & futuri temporis expectatione.“In 1603 he published, in quarto,” An Answer to the first part of a certaine Conference concerning Succession, published not long since under the name of R. Doleman.“Tais R. Doleman was the Jesuit Parsons. In 1610 he was appointed by king James one of the historiographers of Chelsea college, near London, which, as we have often had occasion to notice, was never permanently established. In 1613, he published in 4to,” The Lives of the Three Normans, kings of England; William I; William II.; Henry I.“and dedicated them to Charles prince of Wales. In 1619, he received the honour of knighthood from his majesty, at Whitehall. In 1624, he published a discourse entitled” Of Supremacie in Affaires of Religion,“dedicated to prince Charles, and written in the manner of a conversation held at the table of Dr. Toby Matthews, bishop of Durham, in the time of the parliament, 1605. The proposition maintained is, that supreme power in ecciesiasticaJ affairs is a right of sovereignty. He wrote likewise,” The Life and Raigne of King Edward VI. with the beginning of the Raigne of queen Elizabeth,“1630, 4to, but this was posthumous; for he died June 27, 1627. He was the author of several works of piety, particularly” The Sr.nctuarie of a troubled soul,“Lond. 1616, 12mo;” David’s Tears, or an Exposition of the Penitential Psalms,“1622, 8vo. and te Christ’s Prayer on the Crosse for his Enemies,” 1623. Wood says that “he was accounted a learned and godly man, and one better read in theological authors, than in those belonging to his profession; and that with regard to his histories, the phrase and words in them were in their time esteemed very good; only some have wished that in his” History of Henry IV.“he had not called sir Hugh Lynne by so light a word as Mad-cap, though he were such; and that he had not changed his historical style into a dramatical, where he introduceth a mother uttering a woman’s passion in the case of her son.” Nicolson observes, that “he had the repute in his time, of a good clean pen and smooth style; though some have since blamed him for being a little too dramatical,” Strype recommends that our author “be read with caution that his style and language is good, and so is his fancy but that he uses it too much for an historian, which puts him sometimes on making speeches for others, which they never spake, and relating matters which perhaps they never thought on.” In confirmation of which censure, Kennet has since affirmed him to be “a professed speech-maker through all his little history of Henry IV.”

What Headley might have produced, had he lived to persevere in the line of study in which he had engaged, may he easily conjectured from the “Select Beauties of Ancient English Poetry,” which he published in 1787, 2 vols. 8vo. It may be said to have given a new direction to the public taste, and to have pointed out to poetical antiquaries those objects of research which they have since pursued with equal avidity and success. These volumes soon became popular, and certainly possess various claims to attention, whether we consider the taste and judgment with which the selection was made, or the neatness, point, and felicitous discrimination of character with which the biographical sketches are universally marked. Previous to the appearance of this work, Mr. Headley had published a small volume of original poems, and is said to have contributed some papers to the “Olla Podrida,” and to a less known periodical paper, entitled “The Lucubrations of Abel Slug,” of which a few numbers only were printed.

, an enterprising English navigator, was born in 1745; he was the son of Mr. Hearne, secretary to the water-works, London-bridge, a very sensible man, and of a respectable family in Somersetshire; he died of a fever in his fortieth year, and left Mrs. Hearne with this son, then but three years of age, and a daughter two years older. Mrs. H. finding her income too small to admit her living in town as she had been accustomed, retired to Bimmister, in Dorsetshire (her native place), where she lived as a gentlewoman, and was much respected. It was her wish to give her children as good an education as the place afforded, and accordingly she sent her son to school at a very early period: but his dislike to reading and writing was so great, that he made very little progress in either. His masters, indeed, spared neither threats nor persuasion to induce him to learn, but their arguments were thrown away on one who seemed predetermined never to become a learned man; he had, however, a very quick apprehension, and in his childish sports shewed unusual activity and ingenuity; he was particularly fond of drawing; and though he never had the least instruction in the art, copied with great delicacy and correctness even from nature. Mrs. Hearne’s friends, finding her son had no taste for study, advised tier fixing on some business, and proposed such as they judged most suitable for him; but he declared himself utterly averse to trade, and begged he might be sent to sea. His mother very reluctantly complied with his request, took him to Portsmouth, and remained with him till he sailed. His captain (now lord Hood) promised to take care of him, and gave him every indulgence his youth required. He was then but eleven years of age. They had a warm engagement soon after he entered, and took several prizes: the captain told him he should have his share; but he begged, in a very affectionate manner, it might be given to his mother, and she would know best what to do with it. He was a midshipman several years under the same commander; but on the conclusion of the war, having no hopes of preferment, he left the navy, and entered into the service of the Hudson’s Bay company, as mate of one of their sloops. He was, however, soon distinguished from his associates by his ingenuity, industry, and a wish to undertake some hazardous enterprize by which mankind might be benefited. This was represented to the company, and they immediately applied to him as a proper person to be sent on an expedition they had long had in view, viz. to find out the north-west passage: he gladly accepted the proposal, and how far he succeeded is shewn to the public in his Journal. On his return he was advanced to a more lucrative post, and in a few years was made commander in chief, in which situation he remained till 1782, when the French unexpectedly landed at Prince of Wales’ s Fort, took possession of it, and after having given the governor leave to secure his own property, seized the stock of furs, &c. &c. and blew up the fort. At the company’s request Mr. H. went out the year following, saw it rebuilt, and the new governor settled in his habitation (which they took care to fortify a little better than formerly), and returned to England in 1787. He had saved a few thousands, the fruits of many years’ industry, and might, had he been blessed with prudence, have enjoyed many years of ease and plenty; but he had lived so long where money was of no use, that he seemed insensible of its value here, and lent it with little or no security to those he was scarcely acquainted with by name; sincere and undesigning himself, he was by no means a match for the duplicity of others. His disposition, as may be judged by his writing, was naturally humane; what he wanted in learning and polite accomplishments, he made up in native simplicity; and was so strictly scrupulous with regard to the property of others, that he was heard to say, a few davs before his death, “he could lay his hand on his heart and say, he had never wronged any man of sixpence.”

His patron, Mr. Cherry, pleased with the happy effects of his care, determined to take our young antiquary into his house, and maintain him as his son. In this it is said he partly followed the advice of the learned Mr. Dodwell, who then lived in the neighbourhood, and had probably watched the progress of Hearne’s education. He was accordingly taken into Mr. Cherry’s house about Easter 1695, and his studies in classical learning promoted by this gentleman, or by Mr. Dodwell, both taking that trouble with him, which, from his diligence and apt memory, they foresaw would not be lost. With the same benevolent views, Mr. Cherry sent him to Oxford, where, in Michaelmas term of the above year, he was entered of Edmundhall, but returned immediately after his matriculation, and pursued his studies both at Mr. Cherry’s, and at the school of Bray.

In January 1714-15, he was elected architypographus, and esquire beadle of civil law in the university of Oxford, which post he held, together with that of under-librarian, till November following; but then, finding they were not tenable together, he resigned the beadleship, and very soon after the other place also, by reason of the oaths to government, with which he could not conscientiously comply. He continued a nonjuror to the last, much at the expence of his worldly interest; for, on that account he refused several preferments which would have been of great advantage and very agreeable to him. So many indeed were the offers made, that his motives for refusal must have been urgent and conscientious. His enemies took some pains to bring a charge of inconsistency against him, by publishing <; A Vindication of those who take the Oath of Allegiance to his present majesty.“This he wrote when a very young man, in king William’s reign, but, as he very justly remarks, it proves no more than that he had viewed the question in another light, and surely must be accounted sincere, when we find him refusing so many profitable situations. In the latter part of his life he appears to have resided in Edmund-hall, preparing and publishing his various works, but not, as will be noticed in our catalogue of them, without interruption from what he thought the candid declaration of his political sentiments clashing with those of the university, and of the nation at large. This, in one or two instances, occasioned serious prosecutions, and considering himself as an injured man, he was not sparing in his censures of some of his most learned contemporaries, who, in their turns, were equally disrespectful in their notices of him. With these disputes the present age has little to do, and it owes too much to the industry of Hearne to trace his failings with anxious care, or treat them with the animosity that might have been natural in his own times. How useful his industry was, may be estimated from the number of valuable pieces which he hid in public or private repositories, of no utility even to the possessors of them, for want of persons who have perseverance enough to travel through the drudgery, or spirit enough to hazard the expence of printing them. By a life of the greatest regularity and ceconomy, Hearne was enabled in a great measure to prevent this injury to literature: and his endeavours were assisted by the encouragement of many noble and opulent patrons. It might therefore be matter of surprize, though no reflection upon his character, that a sum amounting to upwards of 1000l. was found in his room after his decease. His death, which happened June 10, 1735, was occasioned by a severe cold and a succeeding fever, which, being improperly treated, terminated in a violent flux. He was buried in the church yard of St. Peter’s in the East, where is erected over his remains a stone with an inscription written by himself:” Here lyeth the body of Thomas Hearne, M. A. who studied and preserved Antiquities. He died June 10, 1735, aged 55 years. Deut. xxxii. 7. * Remember the clays of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy father, and he will shew thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee.' Job viii. 8, 9, 10. “Enquire I pray thee,' &c.” -This stone was repaired by Dr. Rawlinson in 1754. As the value of Hearne' s labours have been much underrated, and indeed grossly misrepresented, in the Biog. Britannica, and its servile copyists, we shall make no apology for adding the sentiments of his Oxford biographer, Mr. Huddesford: “Since that kind of study pursued by Mr. Hearne is more general now than it was in his time, to praise and speak well of him will of consequence be more safe, as it will be better received. His chief excellence, so often celebrated, but to the misfortune of learning so little imitated, was unwearied industry, which began almost with his life, and continued in full vigour till within a few weeks of his death. By means of this industry, and of a good disposition, he raised himself from the lowest state of dependence to a station of ease and honour. When his worth was in some sort acknowledged, by the offer of the best offices the university had to bestow, he manifested uncommon integrity in declining those offers, because the acceptance of them appeared to him inconsistent with the principles which he had adopted. If there was a singularity in his exterior behaviour or manner which was the jest of the man of wit and polite life, he secretly enjoyed the approbation, favour, and correspondence of the” greatest men of the age. Succeeding times have given testimony to his abilities, which the age in which he lived so lightly esteemed. It is, at least, not flattery, to consider him as a pattern to all whose duty it is, as well as inclination, to unite much learning and erudition, with the greatest plainness and simplicity of manners."

His publications were, 1. “An Index to L'Estrange’s translation of Josephus,” 1702, fol. 2. “Reliquiae Bodleianae, or some genuine remains of sir Thomas Bodley, &c.” 1703. 3. “Plinii Fpistolae et Paneg\ricus, &c.” 1703. 4. “Eutropius.' Messala Corvinus. Julius Obsequens, &c.” 1703. 5. “Indices tres locupletissimi in Cyrilli opera,” Ox. 1733. 6. “Ductor Historicus,” 2 vols. They did not come out together; a second edition of the first was published in 1705, and the second volume was published in 1704. Our author was not solely concerned in this work, some parts of it being written by another hand, as was the preface. He had made great collections for a third volume, but laid aside this design upon the appearance of the English translation of Puffendorf’s introduction, which begins where the second volume of the “Ductor Historicus” ends, and continues the history to the present times. 7. “Index to Dr. Edvards’s Preservative against Socinianism,” 1740, 4to. 8. “Index to Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion,” fol. 1704. This “little work,” or opella, he informs us, he undertook at the request of dean Aldrich. 9. An edition of “Justin,” 1705, a very good one, compiled from four Mss. but not equal in value to his “Eutropius.” 10. “Livy,” 1708, 6 vols. 8vo, a very accurate edition, which, in the opinion of Dr. Harwocd, does honour to Hearne, It has of late risen very much in price. 11. “A Letter containing an account of some Antiquities between Windsor and Oxford, with a list of the several pictures in the school gallery adjoining to the Bodleian library,” printed in 1708, in the “Monthly Miscellany, or Memoirs for the Curious;” and reprinted at the end of the fifth volume of Leland’s “Itinerary,” but without the list of the pictures; for which, however, there being a demand, he reprinted 100 copies of the whole in 1725. 12. “The Life of Alfred the Great, by sir John Spelman, from the original ms. in the Bodleian library, 1710” 13. “The Itinerary of John Leland the antiquary, intermixed with divers curious discourses, written by the editor and others, 1710,” 9 vols. A new edition was printed in 1744. 14. “Henrici Dodwell de Parma Equestri Wood ward iana dissertatio,” 1713. Some expressions in his preface to this brought upon him a serious loss, as the work was prohibited until he had cancelled the offensive parts. Of this some no* ice has already been taken in our account of Dodwell. 15. “Lelandi de rebus Bntannicis collectanea,” 17 15, 6 vols. 16. “Acta Apostolorum, Grasco Latine, literis majusculis. E codice Laudiano, &c. 1715.” 17. “Joannis Rossi antiquarii Warwicensis historia regum Anglue, 1716.” It was printed again with the second edition of Leland’s “Itinerary,” and now goes along with that work. 18. “Titi Livii Foro-Juliensis vita Henrici V. regis Anglire. Accedit sylloge epistolarum a variis Angliae principibus scriptarum, 1716.” 19. “Aluredi Beverlacensis annales; sive historia de gestis regum Brittannin, &c. 1716.” 20. “Gulielmi Roperi vita D. Thomse Mori equitis aurati, lingua Anglicana coutexta,” 1716. 21. “Gulielmi Camdeni Annales rerum Anglicarum et Hibernicarum, regnante Elizabetha,” 1717, 3 vols. 22. “Gulielmi Neubrigensis historia sive chronica rerum Anglicarum,” 1719. 23. “Thomas Sprotti Chronica, &c.” 1719. 24. “A Collection of curious Discourses written by eminent antiquaries upon several heads in our English antiquities,” 1720. 25. “Textus RorTensis,' &c.” 1720. 26. “Roberti de Avesbury historia de mirabiliKus gestis Edwardi III. &c. Appendicem etiam subnexuit, in qua inter alia continentur Letters of king Henry VIII. to Anne Boleyne,” 1720. 27. “Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon genumum, una cum ejusdem supplemento ac continuatione,” 1722. 28. “The History and Antiquities of Glastonbury, &c.” 1722. 29. “Hemingi Chartularium ecclesis; Wigorniensis, &c.” 1723. 30. “Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle,” 1724, &c. in 2 vols. 31. “Peter Langtoft’s Chronicle, as illustrated and improved by Robert of Brune, from the death of Cadwaladon to the end of king Edward the Ist’s reign, c.” 1720, 2 vols. 32. ' Johannis, confratris et monachi Glustoniensis, chronica: sive historia de rebus Glastoniensibus, &c.“1726. 33.” Adami de Domerham. historic de rebus gestis Glastoniensibus, &c.“1727, 2 vols. 34.” Thomas de Elmham vita et gesta Henrici V. Anglorum regis,“&c. 1727. 35.” Liber niger Scaccarii, &c.“1728, 2 vols. 36.” Historia vitae et regni Richardi II. Anglioe regis, a monacho quodam de Evesham consignata,“1729. 37.” Thomae Caii vindiciae antiquitatisacademiseOxoniensis, &c.“1730, 2 vols. 38.” Walteri Hemingforde, canonici de Gisseburne, historia de rebus gestis Edvardi I. II. III. &c.“1731, 2 vols. 39.” Duo rerurn Anglicarum scriptores veteres, videlicet, Thomas Otterbourne et Johannes Wethamstade, ab oriine gentis Britannicae usque ad -Edvardum IV. &c.“1733, 2 vols. 40.” Chronicon sive annaies prioratus du Dunstable, &c.“1733. 41.” Benedictus, abbas Petroburgensis, de vita et gestis Henrici II. Richardi I. &c." 1735, 2 vols.

Such are the general titles of Hearne’s works, but it must be understood that almost every one of these volumes contains various articles relating to antiquities and biography, perfectly distinct, and indeed generally nowise connected with the principal subject; many of which have been acknowledged the most useful of his productions. It cannot be denied, however, th:it he would have been more generally useful had he now and then questioned the importance of what he was about to publish; but with Hearne an old ms. seemed to possess an infallible claim to public attention merely because it was old and unknown. Nobody, says Mr. Gough, will condemn him for the pains he took to preserve Leland’s pieces; but Ross’s compendium contains very little that is interesting, and Alfred of Bevcrley, if genuine, is legendary. Hearne himself seems almost ashamed of Sprott’s Chronicle, to which, however, he has tacked a valuable anonymous fragment relating to the first eight years of Edward IVth’s teign. Avesbury and Elmham’s relations of Edward III. and Henry V. are accurately and methodically put too ether. Livius Koro-juliensis’s life of this last prince is an elegant abridgment of Elmham’s too pompous work. Healing’s Chartulary and the “Textus Roffensis” are valuable collections of the most ancient monuments of their respective churches. Robert of Gloucester’s Chronicle takes precedence of all English poets. The two monks of Glastonbury are historians of their own house, of which its English history by an anonymous later hand gives a tolerable account. Death, adds Mr. Gough, prevented Hearne from encumbering our libraries with a meagre history of England, or additions, to Martin Polanus’s Annals, ascribed to one John Murelynch, a monk of Glassenbury, and another from Brute or Ina to Edward I. by John Bever, a monk of Westminster, borrowed from the “Flores Historiarum.” His friend Thomas Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, “often cautioned him against fatiguing himself too much, and overloading his constitution; but he was not to be advised, and so died a martyr to antiquities.” It appears from some of his correspondence, that even in his own time his works rose very much in price, and it is well known that of late years they have been among the most expensive articles brought to market, the best of them being now beyond the reach of common purchasers. A few years ago, Mr. Bagster, of the Strand, with a spirit of liberality and enterprize, published one or two of them in an elegant and accurate manner, as the prelude to a reprint of the whole series; but it is to be regretted that this scheme was soon obliged to be abandoned for want of encouragement.

, a lawyer of eminence of the last century, and recorder of Exeter, was a celebrated scholar and an author. He wrote, 1. “An Essay towards a demonstrative proof of the Divine Existence, Unity, and Attributes; to which is premised, a short defence of the argument commonly called a priori,” 17iO. This pamphlet was dedicated to Dr. Oliver of Bath, and is to be ranked amongst the ablest defences of Dr. Clarke’s, or rather Mr. Howe’s, hypothesis; for it appears to be taken from Howe’s “Living Temple.” 2. “The case of the county of Devon with respect to the consequences of the new Excise Duty on Cyder and Perry. Published by the direction of the committee appointed at a general meeting of that county to superintend the application for the repeal of that duty,” 1763, 4to. To this representation of the circumstances peculiar to Devonshire, the repeal of the act is greatly to be ascribed; and very honourable notice was taken of it at a general meeting or the county. 3. “Notre sive Lectiones ad Tragicorum Graecorum veterum, JEschyli, &c.” 1752, 4to a work which places the author’s learning and critical skill in a very conspicuous light a principal object of which was to restore the metre of the Greek tragic poets. It is highly valued by all sound critics of our own and foreign countries. He also furnished the notes on the Eton Greek tragedies. The same solidity of judgment distinguished the author’s last production, 4. “A Revisal of Shakspeare’s Text, wherein the alterations introduced into it by the more modern editors and critics are particularly considered,” 1765, 8vo. It appears from the list of Oxford graduates, that he was created D. C. L. by diploma, March 31, 1762. He died Sept. 13, 1766. The brother of this author, Mr. Thomas Heath, an alderman of Exeter, published “An Essay towards a new Version of Job,” &c. in 1755. This gentleman was father to John Heath, esq. one of the judges of the common pleas.

, an English historian, was born 1629, in London, where his father, who was the king’s cutler, lived. He was educated at Westminster-school, and was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1646. In 1648 he was ejected thence by the parliament-visitors, for his adherence to the royal cause lived upon his patrimony till it was almost spent and then married, which prevented his return to Christ Church at the restoration, where he might have qualified himself for one of the learned professions. To maintain his family he now commenced author, and corrector of the press. He died of a consumption and dropsy, at London, in August 1664, and left several children to the parish. He published, 1. “A brief Chronicle of the late intestine War in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c.” 1661, 8vo, afterwards enlarged by the author, and completed from 1637 to 1663, in four parts, 1663, in a thick 8vo; a work which, on account of the numerous portraits, rather than its intrinsic value, bears a very high price. To this edition was again added a continuation from 1663 to 1675 by John Philips, nephew by the mother to Milton, 1676, folio. 2. “Elegy upon Dr. Thomas Fuller,” 1661. 3. “The glories and magnificent triumphs of the blessed Restoration of king Charles II. &c. 1662,” 8vo. 4. “Flagellum or, the Life and Death, Birth and Burial, of Oliver Cromwell, the late usurper,” 1663, of which a third edition came out with additions in 1665, 8vo. 5. “Elegy on Dr. Sanderson, bishop of Lincoln,” 1662. 6. “A new book of loyal English Martyrs and Confessors, who have endured the pains and terrors of death, arraignment, &c. for the maintenance of the just and legal government of these kingdoms both in church and state,” 1663, 12mo. 7. “Brief but exact Survey of the Affairs of the United Netherlands, &.c.” 12mo. Heath, as a historian, is entitled to little praise on account of style or argument, but his works contain many lesser particulars illustrative of the characters and manners of the times, which are interesting to a curious inquirer. In the meanest historian there will always be found some facts, of which there will be no cause to doubt the truth, and which yet will not be found in the best; and Heath, who perhaps had nothing but pamphlets and newspapers to compile from, frequently relates facts that throw light upon the history of those times, which Clarendon, though he drew every thing from the most authentic records, has omitted.

These were published without his name, but his pamphlets on the Middietonian controversy attracted the notice of Dr. War-burton, who discovered the author, and sending him his compliments, offered him the place of assistant preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, with the stipend of half a guinea for each sermon. This was little, but he accepted it, as affording him an opportunity of living in London, and cultivating learned society. He accordingly removed to town in June 1753, and became one of a club of literati who met once a week, as he says, “to talk learnedly for three or four hours.” The members were Drs. Jortin, Birch, and Maty, Mr. Welstein, Mr. De Missy, and one or two more.

In 1763-4-5, Mr. Heathcote preached the Boy lean lectures, twenty-four in number, at St. James’s, Westminster, by the appointment of the trustees, archbishop Seeker and the duke of Devonshire. He published, however, only two of them, in 1763; on the “Being of a God,” which soon passed into a second edition. In 1765, on the death of his father, he succeeded to the vicarage of Sileby, and in 1766 was presented to the rectory of Sawtry-All-Saints, in Huntingdonshire 5 and in 1768 to a prebend in the collegiate church of Southwell. “These,” he says, “in so short a compass, may look pompous; but their clear annual income, when curates were paid, and all expences deducted, did uot amount to more than 150l.” In 1771 he published “The Ireuarch, or Justice of the Peace’s Manna!,” a performance which, witii some singularities of opinion, was accounted both sensible and seasonable. He was now in the commission of the peace. A second edition of this work appeared in 1774, with a long dedication, to lord Mansfield, with a view to oppose the invectives levelled against that illustrious character in a time of political turbulence; and in 1781 he published a third edition, to which he gave his name.

To the preceding list of Dr. Heathcote’s works, we may add that, at the request of Mr. Whiston, he wrote the life of Dr. Thomas Burnet, the learned master of the Charterhouse, prefixed to the edition of his works printed in 175y and in 1761, on the recommendation of Dr. Jortin, was engaged as one of the writers in the ftrst edition of this Dictionary, and contributed also some articles for the second, printed in 1784. In 1767 he published “A Letter to the hon. Horace Walpole, concerning the dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr, Rousseau,” 12mo, which in some of the Reviews wu*> supposed to be by Mr. Walpole himself. He also published an te Assize Sermon,*' and a pamphlet called “Memoirs of the late contested election for the county of Leicester,” 1775. His “Irenarch,” and the dedication and notes, he scattered up and down, but without alteration, in a miscellaneous work, published in 1786, entitled “Sylva, or the Wood;' 1 an entertaining collection of anecdotes, &c. which was reprinted in 1783; and in 1789, he had begun anothervolume of miscellanies, including some of his separate pieces, and memoirs of himself, of which last we have availed ourselves in the preceding sketch, from Mr. Nichols’s” Literary Anecdotes."

, a celebrated physician and philologer of Leipsic, was born at Neuenhoff in the diocese of Neustadt, in 1702. In 1719, he went to the university of Jena, but, not finding a subsistence there, removed to Leipsic. He piassed the greater part of his life in the latter university, and finally died there in 1756. Besides his academical and physiological tracts, he published, in 1739, 1, “Carmen de usu partinm,” or Physiologia metrica, in 8vd. 2. “De homine sano et ajgroto Carmen, sistens Physiologiam, Pathologiam, Hygienen, Therapiam, materiam medicam, cum pnefatione deantiqua medicina,” Leipsic, 1753, 8vo. 3. “Oratio de Antiquitatibus Romanis per Africam repertis,” 1733, 4to. 4. “Museum Richterianum,” &c. Leips. 1743. And, 5. A posthumous work, entitled “Palasologia therapirc,” Halae, 1779, 8vo. This author had also an elder brother, John Christian Hebenstreit, who was a celebrated divine, and profoundly versed in the Hebrew language. Ernesti has published an eulogium of each, in his “OpuscuhiOratoria.”

In 1766 he recommended to the college of physicians the first design of the “Medical Transactions,” in which he proposed to collect together such observations as might have occurred to any of their body, and were likely to illustrate the history or cure of diseases. The plan was soon adopted, and three volumes have successively been laid before the public, in 1768, 1772, and 1785. Among the useful communications contained in these volumes, the papers of Dr. Heberden himself are most prominent in number and value. His account of a fatal disorder of the chest, which he denominated Angim pectoris, first called the attention of physicians to it, as an idiopathic disease: and the numerous cases of it, which have since been promulgated, evince its frequency and importance. In this work, also, Dr. Heberden first gave an accurate descrip*. tion of the chicken-pox, pointing out its diagnostic symptoms with precision, chieHy with a view to prevent the very easy mistake of confounding it with a mild small-pox. Dr. Heberden communicated some other papers to the royal society, which were printed in its Transactions.

To this character, part of a sketch of his life prefixed to his “Commentaries, published in 1802, much might be added. No physician, indeed, was ever more highly or more deservedly respected. His various and extensive learning, his modesty in the use of it, his freedom from jealousy or envy, his independent spirit, his simple yet dignified manners, and his exemplary discharge of all the relative duties, are topics on which all who knew him delight to dwell. Mr. Cole, who bestows very high praise on him, an article in which that gentleman was in general penurious, gives us the following anecdote of Dr. Heberden, which corresponds with the above account of his reverence for religion.” Understanding that Dr. Con. Middleton had composed a book on the ‘ Inefficacy of Prayer,’ he called upon his widow soon after the Dr.‘s death, and asked her if she was not in possession of such a tract? She answered that she was; he then asked her, if any bookseller had been in treaty with her for it? She said that a bookseller had offered her 50l. for it. He then demanded, if there was a duplicate ’ No' upon that he requested to see it, and she immediately brgught it, and put it into his hands. The Dr. holding it in one hand, and giving it a slight perusal, threw it into the fire, and with the other hand gave her a 50l. note.“This anecdote Mr. Cole had from Dr. Newton, bishop of Bristol. It is certain that Dr. Middleton’s widow bequeathed her husband’s remaining Mss. to Dr. Heberden, from which, in, 1761, he obliged the learned world with a curious tract, entitled” Dissertations de servili Medicorum conditione Appendix,“&c. with a short but elegant advertisement of his own. In 1763, a most valuable edition of the” Supplices Mulieres“of Euripides, with the notes of Mr. Markland, was printed entirely at the expence of Dr. Heberden; and, in 1763, the same very learned commentator presented his notes on the two Jphigenix,” Doctissimo, & quod longe prastantius est, humanissimo viro Wilhelmo Heberden, M. D. arbitratu ejus vel cremandtE, vel in publicum emittendae post obiturn scriptoris,“&c. He wrote the epitaph in Dorking church on Mr. Markland, who had” bequeathed to him all his books and papers. One of these, a copy of Mill’s Greek Testament in folio, the margin filled with notes, was kindly lent by Dr. Heberden, “with that liberal attention to promote the cause of virtue and religion which was one of his many well-known excellences,” to the publisher of the last edition of Mr. Bowyer’s “Conjectures on the New Testament, 1782,” 4to. To Dr. Heberden Mr. Bowyer also bequeathed his “little, cabinet of coins, a few books specifically, and any others, which the doctor might chuse to accept.” To Dr. H.'s other publications, we may add his “Αντιθηριακα, an Essay on Mithridatium and Theriaca,” 1745, 3vo. He was also a writer in the “Athenian Letters,” and in his early life contributed some notes to Grey’s “Hudibras,” as acknowledged by that editor in his preface.

, a French physician of singular merit and skill, hut a strong partizan of the use of warm water and of Weeding, for which reason he was ridiculed by Le Sage in his Gil Bias, under the name of Dr. Sangrado, was born at Abbeville, in 1661, and practised first in that city, then at Port-royal, and lastly at Paris. He was not properly san grado, for he took the degree of doctor in 1697; and in 1698 had more business than he could attend. Though attached to the most simple mode of life, he was obliged to keep his carriage, in which he studied with as much attention as in his closet. In 1712, he was appointed dean of the faculty of medicine, and superintended the publication of a sort of dispensary, called, “The New Code of Pharmacy,” which was published some time afterwards. Hecquet was no less zealous in religious matters than studious in his own profession, and is said never to have prescribed in doubtful cases, without having a previous recourse to prayer. He lived in the most abstemious manner, and in 1727 retired to a convent of Carmelites in Paris, where he continued accessible only to the poor, to whom he was a friend, a comforter, and a father. He died April 11, 1737, at the age of seventy-six. He was interred in the church of the Carmelites, where is a monument with a Latin inscription by Rollin. This able physician published several works, nene of them devoid of merit. They are thus enumerated: 1. “On the indecency of men-midwives, and the obligation of women to nurse their own children,” 1728, 12mo. The reasons he adduces on these subjects are both moral and physical. 2. “A Treatise on the Dispensations allowed in Lent,” 1705, and 1715, 2 vols. 12mo. His own abstemious system inclined him very little to allow the necessity of any indulgence; and it is said that when he visited any of his wealthy patients, he went into the kitchen, and embraced the cooks and officers of that department, acknowledging that they were the best friends the faculty had. 3. “On Digestion, and the Disorders of the Stomach,” in 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Treatise on the Plague,” 12mo. 5. “Novus Medicine conspectus,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “Theological Medicine,” 7 vols, 12mo. 7. “Natural Medicine,” ditto. 8. “De purganda Mediciftl a curarum sordibus,” 12mo. 9. “Observations on Bleeding in the Foot,” 12mo. 10. “The Virtues of common Water,” 2 vols. 12mo. This is the work in which he chiefly supports the doctrines ridiculed by Lft Sage. 1 I. “The abuse of Purgatives,” 12mo. 12. “The roguery of Medicine),” in tlm-e parts, 12:no. 13. “The Medicine, Surgery, and Pharmacy of the Poor,” 3 vols. 12mo; the best edition is in 1742. 1 *. “The Natural History of Convulsions,” in which he very sagaciously referred the origin of those disorders to roguery in some, a depraved imagination in others, or the consequence of some secret malady. The life of this illustrious physician has been written at large by M. le Fevre de St. Marc, and is no less edifying to Christians than instructive to medical students.

, at first an advocate, afterwards an ecclesiastic, and abbé of Auhignac and Meimac, was born at Paris in 1604. Cardinal Richelieu, whose nephew he educated, bestowed on him his two abbeys, and the protection of that minister gave him consequence both as a man of the world and as an author. He figured by turns as a grammarian, a classical scholar, a poet, an antiquary, a preacher, and a writer of romances; but he was most known by his book entitled “Pratique du Theatre,” and by the quarrels in which his haughty and presumptuous temper engaged him, with some of the most eminent authors of his time. The great Corneille was one of these, whose disgust first arose from the entire omission of his name in the celebrated book above mentioned. He was also embroiled, on different accounts, with madame Scuderi, Menage, and Richelet. The warmth of his temper exceeded rhat of his imagination, which was considerable; and yet he lived at court a good deal in the style of a philosopher, rising early to his studies, soliciting no favours, and associating chiefly with a few friends, as unambitious as himself, he describes himself as of a slender constitution, not capable of taking much exercise, or even of applying very intensely to study, without suffering from it in his health; yet not attached to any kind of play. “It is,” ays he, “too fatiguing for the feebleness of my body, or too indolent for the activity of my mind.” The abbé d'Aubignac lived to the age of seventy-two, and died at xnours in 1676. His works are, 1. “Pratique du Theatre,” Amsterdam, 1717, two vols. 8vo; also in a 4to edition published at Paris; a book of considerable learning, but little calculated to inspire or form a genius. 2. “Zenobie,” a tragedy, in prose, composed according to the rules laid down in his “Pratique,” and a complete proof of the total inefficacy of rules to produce an interesting drama, being the most dull and fatiguing performance that was ever represented. The prince of Condé said, on the subject of this tragedy, “We give great credit to the abbé d'Aubignac for having so exactly followed the rules of Aristotle, but owe no thanks to the rules of Aristotle for having made the abbé produce so vile a tragedy.” He wrote a few other other tragedies also, which are worse, if possible, than Zenobia. 3. “Macaride; or the Queen of the Fortunate Islands,” a novel, Paris, 1666, 2 vok 8vo. 4. “Conseils d'Ariste à Celimene, 12mo. 5.” Histoire da terns, ou Relation du Royaume de Coqueterie,“12mo, 6.” Terence justifié,“inserted in some editions of his” Pratique.“7.” Apologie de Spectacles," a work of no value. A curious book on satyrs, brutes, and monsters, has been attributed to him; but, though the author’s name was Hedelin, he does not appear to have been the same.

, of Haiti, or Grossen-hayn, in Misnia, was born in 1675. His first publication was an edition of Empedocles “de Sphsera,” xvith his own notes, and the Latin version of Septimius Florens, in 1711, Dresden, 4to. He then published a “Notitia Auctorum,” 1714, 8va. His celebrated “Greek Lexicon” was published, first at Leipsic, in 1722, 8vo, and has been republished here with many additions, by Young, Patrick, and Morell. It was also much improved by Ernesti, and republished at Leipsic in 1767. Hedench published other lexicons on different subjects, and died in 1748. Erncsti says of him, that he was a good man, and very laborious, but not a profound scholar in Greek, nor well qualified for compiling a lexicon for the illustration of Greek authors.

, a civilian and statesman of some note, was educated both at Magdalen-hall and college, Oxford, where he commenced M. A. May 31, 1673, and LL. D. June 26, 1675. Engaging in the profession of the civil law, he acquired considerable eminence, and in March 1686 was appointed chancellor and vicar-general of Rochester, by a patent, for life, probably upon the resignation of sir William Trumball, who was going as ambassador to the Ottoman court. This promotion was soon after followed by his acquisition of the mastership of the faculties, and the dignity of judge of the high court of admiralty, of which sir Richard Raines was dispossessed, and on whose demise some years afterwards, he became judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury. His progress in political life was equally successful, for he received the honour of knighthood, and served in parliament for Orford in Suffolk in 1698, for Malmsbury in Wilts in 1701 and 1702; for Calne, in 1702; and for two Cornish boroughs from 1705 to 1713. He was advanced to be one of the principal secretaries of state, Nov. 5, 1700, under king William, and again, May 2, I 1 ) 02, under queen Anne. It was he that drew up the much-debated act of abjuration in 1701. In parliament, it is said, he voted with the whigs or tories, as his interest prompted, but his attachment was to the tories, who procured his promotion to the office of secretary of state. The whigs, however, prevailed on queen Anne to dismiss him from tliat trust in 1706, with a proviso that he should be judge of the prerogative court on the death of sir Richard Raines, which, we have already said, he lived to enjoy, although for a short time. He died at Richmond, June 10, 1714.

, a celebrated botanist, was born Oct. 8, 17 So, at Cronstadt, in Transylvania, where his fatbi-r was one of the magistrates. After the first rudiments of domestic education at home, he studied for four years at the public school of his native town. On the death of his father in 1747, he went for further improvement to the university of Presburg in Hungary, where he remained two years, and then proceeded toZittau in Upper Lusatia. In 1752 he removed to Leipsic, where his diligence and talents, as well as his personal character, procured him the favour and friendship of the celebrated Ludwig in particular, by whose lectures of various kinds, as well as those of Hebenstreit, Boehmer, and others, he rapidly and abundantly profited. In 1756, he was taken into the house of professor Bose, to assist him in the demonstration of plants-in his botanical lectures, as well as in the care of patients at the infirmary; and it is supposed that this engagement was full as advantageous to the master as to the pupil. Having at length finished his studies, he was defcirons of settling as a physician in Ills native place, but was prevented by an exclusive law in favour of such as are educated in some Austrian school. In 1759 he took his degree of doctor of physic at Leipsic, and was induced to establish himself at Chemnitz. He was now so far master of his own time, that he found himself able to alleviate the labours of his profession by almost daily attention to his favourite studies. His morning hours in summer, from five till breakfast-time, were spent in the fields and woods, and his evenings in the investigation of what he had collected, or else in the care of a little garden of his own. To pursue with success his inquiries, he found it necessary, at forty years of age, to learn drawing, which enabled him to publish some of the most curious and authentic botanical figures. The first and greatest fruit of Hedwig’s labours, was the determination of the mule and female Mowers of mosses, the theory of which was h'rst clearly detailed by him. He also first beheld the bladder-like anther, of the Liuneeaii Biyum pulvinaliun, discharging its pollen, on the 17th of January, 177O. He was already satisfied that what Linnteus, misled by Dillenius against his own previous opinion, had taken for anthers, were in fact the capsules of mosses, and produced real (seed. A history of his discoveries was published in a German periodical work at Leipsic in 1779. In 1782 appeared his valuable “Fuiuiamentum Historise Nuturalis Muscorum Frondosorum,” a baudsome Latin quarto, in two parts, with 20 coloured microscopical plates. The earliest account given of Hedwig’s opinions in England, was from the communications of the late professor J. Sibthorp, who had just then visited him, to Dr. Smith, in 1786, and is annexed to a translation of Limiaeus’s “Dissertation on the Sexes of Plants,” published that year. Hedwig lost his first wife in 1776, and again married a very accomplished lady the following year, who was, like the former, a native of Leipsic. By her persuasion he removed to Leipsic in 1781, and the following year the work above mentioned was there published. The same subject is happily followed up in his “Theoria generationis et fructificationis plant arum cryptogamicarum Linnaet,” published at Petersburgh in 1784. This work gained its author the prize from that academy in 1783, of 100 gold ducats. In it the fructification and germination of mosses is further illustrated, and a view is also taken of the fructification of the other cryptogam ic families, the author being very naturally desirous of extending his discoveries throughout that obscure tribe of plants. A new and encreased edition of this work appeared in 1798.

The literary fame of Hedwig, und his medical practice, were now every day increasing. He was made physician to the town guards, and professor of physic and of botany at Leipsic. The latter appointment, in which he succeeded Dr. Pohl removed to Dresden in 1789, was accompanied with a house, and the superintendance of the public garden. In 1791 the senate appointed him physician to the school of St. Thomas. The duties of all these various stations might be supposed to have fully occupied his time, yet he still found leisure ta attend to new communications from his friends. Many nondescript mosses were sent him from Pennsylvania by the rev. Dr. Muhienberg, and many West-Indian ones by Dr. Swartz. A fine collection of new or rare ferns, in full fructification, was forwarded to him by sir Joseph Banks, at the suggestion of Dr. Smith, in hopes that he might be induced to take up their examination; it not being then known in this country, that he was already intent on the subject, and preparing his essay for the Petersburgh academy. The fruits of these communications were not given to the world in his life-time. But the former ones contributed, with other matter, to a posthumous work, pablished by his able pupil Dr. Schwaegrichen, entitled “Species Muscorum,” in 4to, with 77 coloured plates; and the latter to some subsequent works of his son; but his great work is his “Cryptogamia” 1787—1797, 4 Vols. fol. the figures in which are given with a fidelity rarely to be seen. Hedwig died Feb. 17, 1799. As an observer and faithful describer, he cannot be ranked too high; as a vegetable physiologist, if not always infallible, he stands in the first order; and his knowledge was enhanced by modesty, candour, affability, the strictest probity, and the most elevated piety. His scientific character in other respects is well delineated in our authority.

, a native of Groningen, was one of the most elegant Latin poets that part of Europe has produced for a century past. Of his early life we have no memorials. In 1760 he went to Italy, and became acquainted with the most eminent scholars of that period, and seems to have joined the cultivation of the modern Italian, with that of the ancient classical taste, which he had before imbibed, and of which be gave an excellent specimen in his work “De Valetudine Literatorum,” Leyden, 1749, 8vo, and again more decidedly in his “Satyra de moribus Parhisiorumet FrUiae,” 1750, 4to; “De Oflicio mectici poema, dedicated to cardinal Quirini,” Groningen, 1752, 8vo; “Iter Veiietum,” which he published at Venice, when on his tour in 1760, and which displays the feeling, tajte, and sentiment of a refined scholar. At Rome he was elected a member of the Arcadi, and under the name which he assumed in compliance with the usual practice of that society, he published in the above-mentioned year “Marii Curulli Groningensia satyræ,” 8vo. In this his satire is free and poignant, yet without merciless severity, and his Latin uncommonly pure. In 1764, after his return home, he published his “Notabilia,” 2 books, and two more under the same title in 1770, containing many anecdotes of the Italian literati, and notices of his own history and opinions. His other publications are, “Anni rustici Januarius,” Groningen, 1767; and “Aves Frisicse,” Rotterdam, 1787, in which he describes in Ovidian style, and with a happy imitation of that poet, ten different birds; the lark, the crossbill, the inagpy, &c. The notes to this poem evince a great knowledge of natural history, and many facts respecting these birds which are not generally known. Heerkens was a physician, but of his character or practice in that profession we have no information. The Diet. Hist, mentions is death as having taken place in 1780, which must be wrong, as in the last-mentioned publication he promises a continuation. It does not appear that he was dead in 1803, when Saxius published his last volume.

, an ecclesiastical historian of the second century, lived before or near the time of Justin Martyr. He came to Home about the year 157, while Anicetus was bishop there, and continued in that capital till the year 185, in friendship and communion with Anicetus, and with Soter and Eleutherus, his two successors in office, and is accounted to have been sound in the orthodox faith respecting the divinity of Christ. He is thought to have died about the year 180. He wrote an ecclesiastical history from the commencement of the Christian aera to his own time, of which a few fragments only have been preserved by Eusebius. As to five books of the Jewish war which have been ascribed to him, and which are in the “Bibl. Patrum,” as well as separately printed at Cologn, in 1559, 8vo, they are generally allowed to have been the production of some later author.

The late facetious duke of Montagu (the memorable contriver of the bottle-conjuror at the theatre in the Haymarket) gave an entertainment at the Devfl tavern, Templebar, to several of the nobility and gentry, to whom he imparted his plot. Heidegger was invited, and a few hours after dinner was made drunk, and laid insensible upon a bed. A profound sleep ensued; when the late Mrs. Salmon’s daughter was introduced, who took a mould from his face in plaster of Paris. From this a. mask was made, and a few days before the next masquerade (at which the king promised to be present, with the countess of Yarmouth) the duke made application to Heidegger’s valet de chambre, to know what suit of clothes he was likely to wear; and then procuring a similar dress, and a person of the same staturehe gave him his instructions. On the evening of the masquerade, as soon as his majesty was seated (who was always known by the conductor of the entertainment and the officers of the court, though concealed by his dress from the company), Heidegger, as usual, ordered the music to play “God save the King;” but his back was no sooner turned, than the false Heidegger ordered them to strike up “Charly over the Water.” The whole company were instantly thunderstruck, and all the courtiers not in the plot were thrown into a stupid consternation. Heidegger flew to the music-gallery, stamped and raved, and accused the mumusicians of drunkenness, or of being set on by some secret enemy to ruin him. The king and the countess laughed so immoderately, that they hazarded a discovery. While Heidegger stayed in the gallery, “God save the King” was the tune; but when, after setting matters to rights, he retired to one of the dancing-rooms, to observe if decorum was kept by the company, the counterfeit stepping forward, and placing himself upon the floor of the theatre, just in front of the music gallery, called out in a most audible voice, imitating Heidegger, and asked them if he had not just told them to play “Charly over the Water?” A pause ensued; the musicians, who knew his character, in their turn thought him either drunk or mad; but, as he continued his vociferation, “Charly” was played again. At this repetition of the supposed affront, some of the officers of the guards, who always attended upon these occasions, were for ascending the gallery, and kicking the musicians out; but the late duke of Cumberland, who could hardly contain himself, interposed. The company were thrown into great confusion. “Shame! Shame!” resounded from all parts, and Heidegger once more flew in a violent rage to that part of the theatre facing the gallery. Here the duke of Montagu, artfully addressing himself to him, told him “the king was in a violent passion; that his best way was to go instantly and make an apology, for certainly the musicians were mad, and afterwards to discharge them.” Almost at the same instant hq ordered the false Heidegger to do the same. The scene now became truly comic in the circle before the king. Heidegger had no sooner made a genteel apology for the insolence of his musicians, but the false Heidegger advanced, and in a plaintive tone cried out, “Indeed, Sire, it was not my fault, but that devil’s in my likeness.” Poor Heidegger turned round, stared, staggered, grew pale, and could not utter a word. The duke then humanely whispered in his ear the sum of his plot, and the counterfeit was ordered to take off his mask. Here ended the frolic; but Heidegger swore he would never attend any public amusement, if that witch the wax-work woman did not break the mould, and melt down the mask before his face.

Being once at supper with a large company, when a question was debated, which nation of Europe had the greatest ingenuity; to the surprise of all present, he claimed that character for the Swiss, and appealed to himself for the truth of it. “I was born a Swiss,” said he, “and came to England without a farthing, where I have found means to gain 5000l. a year, and to spend it. Now I defy the most able Englishman to go to Switzerland, and, either to gain that income, or to spend it there.” He died Sept. 4, 1749, at the advanced age of ninety years, at his house a: Richmond, in Surrey, where he was buried. He left behind him one natural daughter, miss Pappet, who was married Sept. 2, 1750, to captain (afterwards admiral sir Peter) Denis. Part of this lady’s fortune was a house at the north-west corner of Queen -square, Ormond -street, which sir Peter afterwards sold to the late Dr. Campbell, and purchased a seat in Kent, pleasantly situated near Westram, then called Valence, but now (by its present proprietor, the earl of Hillsborough) Hill Park.

, a child greatly celebrated for the wonderfully premature developemerit of his talents, but whose history will require strong faith, was born at Lubeck, Feb. 6, 1721, and died mere June 27, 1725, after having displayed the most amazing proofs of intellectual powers. He could talk at ten months old, and scarcely had completed the first year of his life, when he already knew and recited the principal facts contained in the five books of Moses, with a number of verses on the creation; at thirteen months he knew the history of the Old Testament, and the New at fourteen in his thirtieth month, the history of the nations of antiquity, geography, anatomy, the use of maps, and nearly 8000 Latin words. Before the end of his third year, he was well acquainted with the history of Denmark, and the genealogy of the crowned heads of Europe; in his fourth year he had learned the doctrines of divinity, with their proofs from the Bible; ecclesiastical history; the institutes; 200 hymns, with their tunes; 80 psalms; entire chapters of the Old and New Testament; 1500 verses and sentences from ancient Latin classics; almost the* whole Orbis Pictus of Comenius, whence he had derived all his knowledge of the Latin language arithmetic; the history of the European empires and kingdoms; could point out in the maps whatever place he was asked for, or passed by in his journeys, and recite all the ancient and modern historical anecdotes relating to it. His stupendous memory caught and retained every word he was told; his ever active imagination used whatever he saw or heard, instantly to apply some examples or sentences from the Bible, geography, profane or ecclesiastical history, the “Orbis Pictus,” or from ancient classics. At the court of Denmark he delivered twelve speeches without once faltering; and underwent public examinations on a variety of subjects, especially the bistory of Denmark. He spoke German, Latin, French, and Low Dutch, and was exceedingly good-natured and well-behaved, but of a most tender and delicate bodily constitution; never ate any solid food, but chiefly subsisted on nurses milk, not being weaned till within a very few months of his death, at which time he was not quite four years old. There is a dissertation on this child, published by M. Martini at Lubeck, in 1730, where the author attempts to assign the natural causes for the astonishing capacity of this great man in embryo, who was just shewn to the world, and snatched away. This was addressed to M. Christ, de Schoeneich, the child’s tutor, who had published an account of him, and is given entire in vol. V. of “The Republic of Letters.” Schoeneich’s account was republished so lately as 1778 or 1779 in German.

, a celebrated scholar and critic, professor of politics and history at Leyden, and librarian of the university there, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, May 1SO, of an illustrious family, who had possessed the first places in the magistracy of that town. He was frequently removed in the younger part of his life. He began his studies at the Hague, and afterwards went with his parents into Zealand, where he was instructed in polite literature and philosophy. He soon learned the outlines of morality and politics, but did not relish logic, and had an unconquerable aversion to the niceties of grammar. He discovered early a strong propensity to poetry, and began to make verses before he knew any thing of prosody or the rules of art. He composed a regular elegy at ten years of age, upon the death of a play-fellow; and there are several epigrams and little poems of his, written when he was not above twelve, which shew a great deal of genius and facility. He is represented, however, as having been somewhat indolent, and not likely to make any progress in Greek Und Latin learning; on which account his father sent him, at fourteen years of age, to study the law in the university of Franeker. But from that time, as if he had been influenced by a spirit of contradK*:on, nothing would please him but classics; and he applies inmself there to Greek and Latin authors, as obstinately as he had rejected them in Zealand. He afterwards removed to Leyden, where he became a pupil of Joseph Scaliger; and was obliged to the encouragement and care of that great man for the perfection to which he afterwards arrived in literature, and which at the beginning of his life there was so little reason to expect. He published an edition of “Silius Italicus,” in 1600, professedly taken from an ancient ms. and added notes of his own, which he called “Crepundia Siliana,” to shew that they were written when he was extremely young. This edition was reprinted at Cambridge, 1646, 12mo. Heinsius was made Greek professor at eighteen, and afterwards succeeded Scaliger in the professorship of politics and history. When he was chosen librarian to the university, he pronounced a Latin oration, afterwards published, in which he described the duties of a librarian, and the good order and condition in which a library should be kept. Being a great admirer of the moral doctrine of the stoics, he wrote an elegant oration in praise of the stoic philosophy. He died Feb. 25, 1655, after having distinguished himself as a critic by his labours upon Silius Italicus, Theocritus, Hesiod, Seneca, Homer, Hesychius, Theophrastus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ovid, Livy, Terence, Horace, Prudentius, Maximus Tyrius, &c. He published two treatises “De Satira Horatiana,” which Balzac affirms to be masterpieces. He also wrote poems in various languages, which, have been often printed, and always admired. He was the author of several prose works, some of which were of the humourous and satirical cast; as “Laus Asini,” “Laus Pediculi,” &c.

Heister seems early to have had a taste for botany, and to have collected plants, as Haller observes, in his various journeys. This taste enabled him to (ill the botanical chair at Helmstad with credit and satisfaction, and he paid great attention to the garden there, which he much enriched. His first botanical publication, “De Coilectione Simplicium,” was the inaugural dissertation. of one of his pupils named Rabe, printed in 1722; and had he written nothing else, his botanical labours should have been consigned to oblivion; but his subsequent works rank him as an original writer, and he might have acquired more fame had he been favoured with leisure to look deeper, and not been warped by preconceived ideas. In 1732 ha published a dissertation on the “Use of the Leaves” in founding genera of plants, preferring those parts for a natural arrangement, on account of the obscurity and difficulty attending those of the flower. In August 1741, our author came forth as the professed adversary of Linnæus, in the inaugural dissertation of one of his pupils named Goeckel, entitled tl Meditationes et Animadversiones in novum Systema Botanicum sexuale LinniEi;“but the arguments by which the learned professor and his pupil attempt to prove the position they assume, that the” method of Linnæus is extremely difficult, very doubtful, and uncertain,“are not very cogent. Another dissertation of Heister’s, published in Oct. 1741,” de Nominum Piantarum Mutaiione utili ac noxia,“is a more diffuse and elaborate attack on the nomenclature of the great Swedish teacher, whom, however, he terms” a most diligent and most valuable botanist.“Nor does it appear that he was instigated to these attacks by any personal enmity, nor by any more extraordinary flow of bile than was usual among controversialists, of that day at least. Whatever he pursued, he pursued with ardour, and perhaps as he advanced in age, seated in professional state, he grew more pertinacious in his opinions. Hence his subsequent attacks on Linnæus are marked with more vehemence, but proportionably, as usual, with less reason. In 1748, notwithstanding his dislike to the Linnsean principles, he published a” Systema Piantarum Generale ex fructificatione, cui annectuntur regulaj ejusdem, de Nominibus Piantarum, a celeb. Linnaei longe diversae." This system is allied to that of Boerhaave, and though it takes into consideration many particulars of general habit or structure, is not more natural than the professedly artificial system of Linnæus.

, by birth an Englishman, arrived at the singular distinction of being admired in France as a writer in the French language. He was born in Gloucestershire about 1740. He began his career in the army, and served in Jamaica till the peace of 1763. A desire of seeing the most remarkable parts of Europe, now carried him into Italy, where he was so captivated with the beauty of the climate, and the innumerable objects of liberal curiosity which presented themselves, that he continued there several years. About 1770, having satisfied his curiosity in Italy, he turned his thoughts to France, and went to Paris. There also he studied the state of the arts, and was particularly attentive to the theatre. At length he began to write for the Italian comedy, which had principally attracted his notice, and wrote with considerable success. The pieces for that theatre are written chiefly in French, with French titles, and only one or two characters in Italian. He wrote, l. “Le Jugement de Midas,” on the contest between French and Italian music, which was much applauded. But his 2. “Amant jaloux,” had still more success. 3. His third piece, “Les Evenemens imprevus,” met with some exceptions, on which he modestly withdrew it, and after making the corrections suggested, brought it forward again, and had the pleasure to find it much approved. The comedies of this writer, are full of plot, the action lively and interesting: his versification is not esteemed by the French to be of consummate perfection, nor his prose always pure; yet his dialogue constantly pleased, and was allowed to have the merit of nature and sound composition. Mr. Hele died at Paris, of a consumptive disorder, in December 1750 and it may possibly be long before another Englishman will be so distinguished as a writer in the French language. We take this account from French authors, who write his name d'Hele, perhaps it was properly Hale or Dale.

, a native of Emesa in Phoenicia, and bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, flourished in the reigns of Theodosius and Arcaclius towards the end of the fourth century. In his youth he wrote a romance, by which he is now better known than by his subsequent bishopric of; Tricca. It is entitled “Ethiopics,” and relates the amours of Theagenes and Chariclea, in ten books. The learned Huetius is of opinion that HcUodorus was among the romance-writers what Homer was among the poets, the source and model of an infinite number of imitations, all inferior to their original. The first edition of the Ethiopics was printed at Basil, 1533, with a dedication to the senate of Nuremberg, prefixed by Vincentius Opsopseus, who informs us that a soldier preserved the ms. when the library of Buda was plundered. Bourdeiot’s learned notes upon this romance were printed at Paris in 1619, with Heliodorus’s Greek original, and a Latin translation, which had been published by Stanislaus Warszewicki, a Polish knight, (with the Greek) at Basil, in 1551. An excellent English translation of this romance was published by Mr. Payne in 2 vols. 12mo, in 1792. A notion has prevailed that a provincial synod, being sensible how dangerous the reading of Heliodorus’ s Ethiopics was, to which the author’s rank was supposed to add great authority, required of the bishop that he should either burn the book, or resign his dignity; and that the bishop chose the latter. But this story is thought to be entirely fabulous; as depending only upon the single testimony of Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian of great credulity and little judgment; and it is somewhat difficult to suppose that Socrates should omit so memorable a circumstance when speaking of Heliodorus as the author of “a love-tale in his youth, which he entitled Ethiopics.” Valesius, in his notes upon this passage, starts another difficulty, for while he rejects the account of Nicephorus as a mere fable, he seems inclined to think, that the romance itself was not written by Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but in this opinion he has not been followed. Opsopaeus and Melancthon have supposed that this romance was in reality a true history; but Fabricius thinks this as incredible as that Heliodorus, according to others, wrote it originally in the Ethiopic tongue. Some again have asserted, that Heliodorus was not a Christian, from his saying at the end of his book, that he was a Phoenician, born in the city of Emesa, and of the race of the sun; since, they say, it would be madness in a Christian, and much more in a bishop, to declare that he was descended from that luminary; but such language, in a young man, can scarcely admit the inference.

Besides the Ethiopics, Cedrenus tells us of another book of Heliodorus, concerning the philosopher’s stone, or the art of transmuting metals into gold, which he presented to Theodosius the Great; and Fabricius has inserted in his “Bibliotheca Gra3ca,” a chemical Greek poem written in iambic verse, which he had from a ms. in the king of France’s library, and which carries the name of Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but leaves it very justly questionable, whether it be not a spurious performance.

“In the year 1580,” says he, " a most miserable one to the Low Countries, my father died. I, the youngest and least esteemed of all my brothers and sisters, was bred a scholar; and in the year 1594, which was to me the 17th, had finished the course of philosophy. Upon seeing none admitted to examinations at Louvain, but in a gown, and masked with a hood, as though the garment did promise learning, I began to perceive, that the taking degrees in arts was a piece of mere mockery; and wondered at the simplicity of young men, in fancying that they had learned any thing from their doting professors. I entered, therefore, into a serious and honest examination of myself, that I might know by my own judgment, how much I was a philosopher, and whether I had really acquired truth and knowledge: but found myself altogether destitute, save that I had learned to wrangle artificially. Then came I first to perceive, that I knew nothing, or at least that which was not worth knowing. Natural philosophy seemed to promise something of knowledge, to which therefore I joined the study of astronomy. I applied myself also to logic and the mathematics, by way of recreation, when I was wearied with other studies; and made myself a master of Euclid’s Elements, as I did also of Copernicus’s theory ‘ De revolutionibus orbium ccelestium:’ but all these things were of no account with me, because they contained Jittle truth and certainty, little but a parade of science falsely so called. Finding after all, therefore, that nothing was sound, nothing true, I refused the title of master of arts, though I had finished my course; unwilling, that professors should play the fool with me, in declaring me a master of the seven arts, when I was conscious to myself that I knew nothing.

"A wealthy canonry was promised me then, so that I might, if I pleased, turn myself to divinity but saint Bernard affrighted me from it, saying, that I should eat the sins of the people. 7 I begged therefore of the Lord Jesus, that he would vouchsafe to call me to that profession in which 1 might please him most. The Jesuits began at that time to teach philosophy at Louvain, and one of the professors expounded the disquisitions and secrets of magic. Both these lectures I greedily received; but instead of grain, I reaped only stubble, and fantastic conceits void of sense. In the mean time, lest an hour should pass without some benefit, I run through some writings of the stoics, those of Seneca, and especially of Epictetus, who pleased me exceedingly. I seemed, in moral philosophy, to have found the quintessence of truth, and did verily believe, that through stoicism I advanced in Christian perfection; but 1 discovered afterwards in a dream, that stoicism was an empty and swollen bubble, and that by this study, under the appearance of moderation, I became, indeed, most self-sufficient and haughty. Lastly, 1 turned over Mathiolus and Dioscorides; thinking with myself nothjng equally necessary for mortal man to know and admire, as the wisdom and goodness of God in vegetables; to the end that he might not only crop the fruit for food, but also minister of the same to his other necessities. My curiosity being now raised upon this branch of study, I inquired, whether there were any book, which delivered the maxims and rule of medicine for I then supposed, that medicine was not altogether a mere gift, but might ]be taught, and delivered by discipline, like other arts and sciences: at least I thought, if medicine was a good gift coming down from the Father of lights, that it might have, as an human science, its theorems and authors, into whom, as into Bazaleel and Aholiab, the spirit of the Lord had infused the knowledge of all diseases and their causes, and also the knowledge of the properties of things. I inquired, I say, whether no writer had described the qualities, properties, applications, and proportions of vegetables, from the hyssop even to the cedar of Libanus? A certain professor of medicine answered me, that none of these things were to be looked for either in Galen or Avicen. I was very ready to believe this, from the many fruitless searches I hau made in books for truth and knowledge before; however, following my natural bent, which lay to the study of nature, I read the institutions of Fuchsius and Fernelius; in whom I knew I had surveyed the whole science of medicine, as it were in an epitome. Is this, said I, smiling to myself, the knowledge of healing Is the whole history of natural properties thus shut up in elementary qualities Therefore I read the works of Galen twice of Hippocrates once, whose aphorisms I almost got by heart; all Avicen, as well as the Greeks, Arabians, and moderns, to the tune of 600 authors. I read them seriously and attentively through; and took down, as I went along, whatever seemed curious and worthy of attention; when at length, reading over my common-place book, I was grieved at the pains I had bestowed, and the years I had spent, in throwing together such a mass of stufc Therefore I straightway left off all books whatever, all formal discourses, and empty promises of the schools; firmly believing every good and perfect gift to come down from the Father of lights, more particularly that of medicine.

“I have attentively surveyed some foreign nations; but I found the same sluggishness, in implicitly following” the steps of their forefathers, and ignorance among them all. I then became persuaded, that the art of healing was a mere imposture, originally set on foot by the Greeks for filthy lucre’s sake; till afterwards the Holy Scriptures informed me better. I considered, that the plague, which then raged at Louvain, was a most miserable disease, in which every one forsook the sick; and faithless helpers, distrustful of their own art, fled more swiftly than the unlearned common people, and homely pretenders to cure it. I proposed to myself to dedicate one salutation to the miserable infected; and although then no medicine was made known to me but trivial ones, yet God preserved my innocency from so cruel an enemy. I was not indeed sent for, but went of my own accord; and that not so much to help them, which I despaired of doing, as for the sake of learning. All that saw me, seemed to be refreshed with hope and joy; and I myself, being fraught with hope, was persuaded, that, by the mere free gift of God, 1 should sometimes obtain a mastery in the science. After ten years’ travel and studies from my degree in the art of medicine taken at Louvain, being then married, I withdrew myself, in 1609, to Vilvord, that, being the less troubled by applications, I might proceed diligently in viewing the kingdoms of vegetables, animals, and minerals. I employed myself some years in chemical operations. I searched into the works of Paracelsus; and at first admired and honoured the man, but at last was convinced, that nothing but difficulty, obscurity, and error, was to be found in him. Thus tired out with search after search, and concluding the art of medicine to be all deceit and uncertainty, I said with a sorrowful heart, ‘ Good God how long wilt thou be angry with mortal man, who hitherto has not disclosed one truth, in healing, to thy schools How long wilt thou deny truth to a people confessing thee, needful in these days, more than in times past Is the sacrifice of Molech pleasing to thee wilt thou have the lives of the poor, widows, and fatherless children, consecrated to thyself; under the most miserable torture of incurable diseases How is it, therefore, that thou ceasest not to destroy so many families through the uncertainty and ignorance of physicians’ Then I fell on my face, and said, ’ Oh, Lord, pardon me, if favour towards my neighbour hath snatched me away beyond my bounds. Pardon, pardon, O Lord, my indiscreet charity for thou art the radical good of goodness itself. Thou hast known my sighs and that I confess myself to be, to know, to be worth, to be able to do, to have, nothing and that I am poor, naked, empty, vain. Give, O Lord, give knowledge to thy creature, that he may affectionately know thy creatures; himself first, other things besides himself, all things, and more than all things, to be ultimately in thee.' “After I had thus earnestly prayed, I fell into a dream; in which, in the sight or view of truth, I saw the whole universe, as it were, some chaos or confused thing without form, which was almost a mere nothing. And from thence I drew the conceiving of one word, which did signify to me this following: ‘ Behold thou, and what things thou seest, are nothing. Whatever thou dost urge, is less than nothing itself in the sight of the Most High. He knoweth all the bounds of things to be done; thou at least may apply thyself to thy own safety.’ In this conception there was an inward precept, that I should be made a physician; and that, some time or other, Raphael himself should be given unto me. Forthwith therefore, and for thirty whole years after, and their nights following in order, 1 laboured always to my cost, and often in danger of my life, that I might obtain the knowledge of vegetables and minerals, and of their natures and properties also. Meanwhile, I exercised myself in prayer, in reading, in a narrow search of things, in sifting my errors, and in writing down what I daily experienced. At length I knew with Solomon, that t had for the most part hitherto perplexed my spirit in vain; and I said, Vain is the knowledge of all things under the sun, vain are the searchings of the curious. Whom the Lord Jesus shall call unto wisdom, he, and no other, shall come; yea, he that hath come to the top, shall as yet be able to do very little, unless the bountiful favour of the Lord shall shine upon him. Lo, thus have I waxed ripe of age, being become a man; and now also an old man, unprofitable, and unacceptable to God, to whom be all honour.”

From this curious account, given in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, and which we are unwilling to displace, it will be seen that Van Helmont had a strong portion of enthusiasm; but he was not the madman which some of his contemporaries imagined. For a period of thirty years he pursued his researches into the products of nature, with such perseverance, as to leave few of the known animal, vegetable, and mineral bodies unexamined. In the course of these investigations, he necessarily fell upon the discovery of several of the products of decomposition, and of new combination, which chemistry affords: among these he seems to have been the first to notice the spirit of hartshorn, the spirit of sulphur per campanam, as it was called, and the aerial part of the spa-waters, which he first denominated gas (from the German geist, ghost, or spirit), and several other substances. Among these were many articles possessing considerable influence upon the living body, which, being contrasted with the inertness of the simples of the Galenical practice, roused and confirmed his former opinions against the doctrines of that school; which he now attacked with great ardour and strength of argument, and which he contributed to overthrow. But partly in imitation of Paracelsus, whom he greatly admired, and partly from an attempt to generalize the confused mass of new facts, which he had acquired, he attempted to reduce the whole system of medicine to the principles of chemistry, and substituted a jargon as unintelligible, and hypotheses as gratuitous, as those which he had attempted to refute. He published from time to time a variety of works, by which he obtained considerable reputation. The elector of Cologne, who was himself attached to chemical inquiries, held him in great esteem; and he received from the emperor Rodolph II. and uis two successors, invitations to the court of Vienna; but he preferred his laboratory and cabinet to these proffered honours. He died on the 30th of December, 1644, in the sixty-eighth year of his age.

His first work was entitled <( De Magnetica Vulnerum Naturali et Legitima Curatione, contra Johannem Roberti Soc. Jesu Theologum,“Paris, 1621, 8vo. His next publication was relative to the waters of the Spa,” De Spadanis Fontibus,“Liege, 1624, 8vo. Next followed, after a long interval,” Febrium Doctrina inaudita,“Antwerp, 1642, 12mo and” Opuscula Medica inaudita, l.De Lithiasi; 2. De Febribus; a. De Humoribus Galeni 4. De Peste,“Cologne, 1644, 8vo. On his death he requested his son to collect his papers, as well the incomplete as the finished ones, and to publish them in the way which he thought the best. They were sent to the printer, without correction, and without any regard to connection or arrangement, and published at Amsterdam in 1648, in 4to, under the title of” Ortus Medicinae, id est, initia PhysiciB inaudita, progressus Medicinal Novus in Morborum ultionem ad Vitam longam.“Under the title of” Opera omnia," these works have been reprinted at various times and places, and in various languages the most correct edition is that of Amsterdam, in 1652, by Elzevir. They are now consulted only as curiosities; but he certainly anticipated, in obscure glimpses, as it were, several of the important discoveries, as well as the hypotheses of later times his Arch&us is now the vis medico,­trix nature of Hoffmann and Cullen; his doctrine of ferments was adopted by Silvius and his followers; and he greatly cleared the way to chemical discoveries.

, the most remarkable of this family, was born at Paris in 1715, and was son of the preceding Helvetius. He studied under the famous father Pon'e in the college of Louis the Great, and his tutor, discovering in his compositions remarkable proofs of genius, was particularly attentive to his education. An early association with the wits of his time gave him the desire to become an author, but his principles unfortunately became tainted with false philosophy. He did not publish any thing till 1758, when he produced his celebrated book “DeTEsprit,” which appeared first in one volume 4to, and afterwards in three volumes, 12mo. This work was very justly condemned by the parliament of Paris, as confining the faculties of man to animal sensibility, and removing at once the restraints of vice and the encouragements to virtue. Attacked in various ways at home, on account of these principles, he visited England in 1764, and the next year went into Prussia, where he was received with honourable attention by the king. When he returned into France, he led a retired and domestic life on his estate at Vore. Attached to his wife and family, and strongly inclined to benevolence, he lived there more happily than at Paris, where, as he said, he “was obliged to encounter the mortifying spectacle of misery that he could not relieve.” To Marivaux, and M. Saurin, of the French academy, he allowed pensions, that, for a private benefactor, were considerable, merely on the score of merit; which he was anxious to search out and to assist. Yet, with all this benevolence of disposition, he was strict in the care of his game, and in the exaction of his feudal rights. He was maltre-d'hotel to the queen, and, for a time, a farmer-general, but quitted that lucrative post to enjoy his studies. When he found that he had bestowed his bounty upon unworthy persons, or was reproached with it, he said, “If I was king, I would correct them; but I am only rich, and they are poor, my business therefore is to aid them.” Nature had been kind to Helvetius; she had given him a fine person, genius, and a constitution which promised long life. This last, however, he did not attain, for he was attacked by the gout in his head and stomach, under which complaint he languished some little time, and died in December 1771. His works were, 1. the treatise “De l'Esprit,” “on the Mind,” already mentioned: of* which various opinions have been entertained, It certainly is one of those which endeavour to degrade the nature of man too nearly to that of mere animals; and even Voltaire, who called the author at one time a true philosopher, has said that it is filled with common-place truths, delivered with great parade, but without method, and disgraced by stories very unworthy of a philosophical production. The ideas of virtue and vice, according to this book, depend chiefly upon climate. 2. “Le Bonheur,” or “Happiness,” a poem in six cantos; published after his death, in 1772, with some fragments of epistles. His poetical style is still more affected than his prose, and though he produces some fine verses, he is more frequently stiff and forced. His poem on happiness is a declamation, in which he makes that great object depend, not on virtue, but on the cultivation of letters and the arts. 3. “De l'Homme,” 2 vols. 8vo, another philosophical work, not less bold than the first. A favourite paradox, produced in this book, under a variety of different forms, is, “that all men are born with equal talents, and owe their genius solely to education.” This book is even more dangerous than that on the mind, because the style is clearer, and the author writes with less reserve. He* speaks sometimes of the enemies of what he called philosophy, with an asperity that ill accords with the general mildness of his character.

, perhaps Elliot, properly, as he was of British extraction, was born in Jan. 1660, and became in 1633 a religious of the order of Picpus near Paris, which is a branch of that of St. Francis, and was raised to several offices in his order. His fame is founded on a large work, the toil of twenty -three years, in eight volumes 4to, “A History of Monastic Orders, religious and military, and of secular congregations of both sexes,” &c. &c. which he began to print in 1714. The four last volumes were edited by father Louis, the provincial of his order, with the assistance of Maximilian Bullot. Helyot died at Picpus, near Paris, Jan. 5, 1716. His work is full of learned research, and more correct than any thing on that subject which had then appeared. He was a man of exemplary piety, and a neat, though not elegant, or natural writer.

, a very learned man, born at the Hague, was a fine poet and orator; and to be compared, says Gronovius, in his “Orat. funeb. J. Golii,” with the Roman Atticus for his probity, tranquillity of life, and absolute disregard of honours and public employments. He went to Rome, and spent six years in the palace of cardinal Cesi. He wrote there' a panegyric on pope Clement VIII. which was so graciously received, that he was offered the post of librarian to the Vatican, or a very good benefice; and preferring the latter, was made a canon in the cathedral at Antwerp. Lipsius had a great esteem for him, as appears from his letters. He was Grotius’s friend also, and published verses to congratulate him on his deliverance from confinement. He was uncle by the mother’s side to James Golius, the learned professor at Leyden, who gained so vast a reputation by his profound knowledge in the Oriental languages: but Golius, who was a zealous protestant, could never forgive his having converted his brother Peter to popery. Hemelar applied himself much more to the study of polite literature and to the science of medals, than to theology. “He published,” says Gronovius, " extremely useful commentaries upon the medals of the Roman emperors, from the time of Julius Caesar down to Justinian, taken from the cabinets of Charles Arschot and Nicholas Rocoxius; wherein he concisely and accurately explains by marks, figures, &c. whatever is exquisite, elegant, and suitable or agreeable to the history of those times, and the genius of the monarchs, whether the medals in question be of gold, silver, or brass, whether cast or struck in that immortal city. It is a kind of storehouse of medals; and nevertheless in this work, from which any other person would have expected prodigious reputation, our author has been so modest as to conceal his name.' 7 This work of Hemelar’s, which is in Latin, is not easily to be met with, yet it has been twice printed iirst at Antwerp, in 1615, at the en.I of a work of James De Bie and secondly, in 1627, 4to which Clement has described as a very rare edition Bayle mentions a third edition of 1654, folio, but the work which he mistakes for a third edition, was only a collection of engravings of Roman coins described by Gevartius, in which are some from Hemelar’s work. The other works of this canon are some Latin poems and orations. He died in 1640. He is sometimes called Hamelar.

, an eminent painter, was a peasant’s son, and born at a village of that Dame in Holland, in 1498. In his youth he was extremely dull, and nothing was expected from him; but afterwards he became a correct painter, easy and fruitful in his inventions. He was the disciple and imitator of Schoreal. He went to Home, and intended to stay there a long time; but at the end of three years, returned to his own country, settled at Haerlem, and lived there the remainder of his days. Most of his works were engraved. Vasari, who gives a particular account of them, and commends them, says, Michael Angelo was so pleased with one of the prints, that he had a mind to colour it. Mr. Fuseli thinks that he invented with more fertility than taste or propriety; “his design is ostentatious without style, and his forms long without elegance. He rather grouped than composed, and seems to have been unacquainted with chiaroscuro. His costume is always arbitrary, and often barbarous, and in the admission of ornaments and the disposition of his scenery, he oftener consulted the materials which he had compiled at Rome, than fitness of place, or the demands of his subject.” He died in 1574.

, or Malleolus, which has the same meaning as Hemmerlin in German, was born at Zurich in 1389, of a considerable family; and having entered the church, was made canon of Zurich in 1412. He afterwards took his doctor’s degree at Bologna, and in 1428 was appointed chanter of the church of Zurich. In 1454 the bishop of Constance put him in prison, on a suspicion of corresponding with the enemies of itts country; what became of him afterwards, or when he died, we have not been able to discover; but two works of his in folio, and in black letter, are much sought by collectors of curiosities: 1. “Opuscula varia scilicet de nobilitate et rusticitate dialogus,” &c. without date. 2, “Variae oblectationis oriuscula; nempe contra valido^ mend.icantes Beghardos et Beghinos,” &c. Basil, 1497, folio. They arc written with a coarse kind of humour.

, or Hemsterhusius, one of the most famous critics of his country, the son of Francis Hemsterhuis, a physician, was born at Groningen, Feb. 1, 1635. After obtaining the rudiments of literature from proper masters, and from his father, he became a member of his native university in his fourteenth year, 1698. He there studied for some years, and then removed to Leyden, for the sake of attending the lectures of the famous James Perizonius on ancient history. He was here so much noticed by the governors of the university, that it was expected he would succeed James Gronovius as professor of Greek. Havercamp, however, on the vacancy, was appointed, through the intrigues, as Ruhnkenius asserts, of some who feared they might be eclipsed by young Hemsterhuis; who in 1705, at the age of nineteen, was called to Amsterdam, and appointed professor of mathematics and philosophy. In the former of these branches he had been a favourite scholar of the famous John Bernouilli. In 1717, he removed to Franeker, on being chosen to succeed Lambert Bos as professor of Greek; to which place, in 1738, was added the professorship of history. In 1740 he removed to Leyden to accept the same two professorships in that university. It appears that he was married, because his father-in-law, J. Wild, is mentioned; he died April 7, 1766, having enjoyed to the last the use of all his faculties. He published, 1. “The three last books of Julius Pollux’s Onomasticon,” to complete the edition of which, seven books had been finished by Lederlin. This was published at Amsterdam in 1706. On the appearance of this work, he received a letter from Bentley, highly praising him for the service he had there rendered to his author. But this very letter was nearly the cause of driving him entirely from the study of Greek criticism: for in it Bentley transmitted his own conjectures on the true readings of the passages cited by Pollux from comic writers, with particular view to the restoration of the metre. Hemsterhuis had himself attempted the same, but, when he read the criticisms of Bentley, and saw their astonishing justness and acuteness, he was so hurt at the inferiority of his own, that he resolved, for the time, never again to open a Greek book. In a month or two this timidity went off, and he returned to these studies with redoubled vigour, determined to take Bentley for his model, and to' qualify himself, if possible, to rival one whom he so greatly admired. 2. “Select Colloquies of Lucian, and his Timon,” Amst. 1708. 3. “The Plutus of Aristophanes, with the Scholia,” various readings and notes, Harlingen, 1744, 8vo. 4. “Part of an edition of Lucian,” as far as the 521st page of the first volume; it appeared in 1743 in four volumes quarto, the remaining parts being edited by J. M. Gesner and Reitzius. The extreme slowness of his proceeding is much complained of by Gesner and others, and was the reason why he made no further progress. 5. % “Notes and emendations on Xenophon Ephesius,” inserted in the 36 volumes of the te Miscellanea Critica“of Amsterdam, with the signature T. S. H. S. 6.” Some observations upon Chrysostom’s Homily on the Epistle to Philemon,“subjoined to Raphelius’s Annotations on the New Testament. 7.” Inaugural Speeches on various occasions.“8. There are also letters from him to J. Matth. Gesner and others; and he gave considerable aid to J. St. Bernard, in publishing the ' Eclogae Thomae Magistri,” at Leyden, in 1757. His “Philosophical Works” were published at Paris in 1792, 2 vols. 8vo, but he was a better critic -than philosopher. Ruhnkenius holds up Hemsterhusius as a model of a perfect critic, and indeed, according to his account, the extent and variety of his knowledge, and the acuteness of his judgment, were very extraordinary.

History was his favourite study not a bare collection of dates, but a knowledge of the laws and manners of nations to obtain which he drew instruction from private conversations, a method he so strongly recommends in his preface. After having thus discussed the most important points of public law, he undertook to collect and publish the result of his inquiries, and he is deservedly accounted the first framer of chronological abridgements; in which, without stopping at detached facts, he attends only to those which form a chain of events that perfect or alter the government and character of a nation, and traces only the springs which exalt or humble a nation, extending or contracting the space it occupies in the world. His work has had the fortune of those literary phenomena, where novelty and merit united excite minds eager after glory, and fire the ardour of young writers to press after a guide whom few can overtake. The first edition of the work, the result of forty years’ reading, appeared in 1744, under the auspices of the chancellor Daguesseau, with the modest title. of “An Essay.” The success it met with surprised the author. He made continual improvements in it, and it has gone through nine editions, and been translated into Italian, English, and German, and even into Chinese. As the best writers are not secure from criticism, and are indeed the only ones that deserve it, the author read to the academy of belles lettres a defence of his abridgement.

, a French poet, was the son of a baker at Paris, and at first a receiver of the taxes at Fores. Then he travelled into Holland and England, and was employed by the superintendant Fouquet, who was his patron. After his return to France, he soon became distinguished as one of the finest geniuses of his age; and gained a prodigious reputation by his poetry. His sonnet on the miscarriage of mad. de Guerchi is looked upon as a master-piece, though it has little intrinsic merit. He also wrote a satirical poem against the minister Colbert, which is reckoned by Boileau among his best pieces. This was written by way of revenging the disgrace and ruin of his patron Fouquet, which Henault ascribed to Colbert. The minister being told of this sonnet, which made a great noise, asked, “Whether there were any satirical strokes in it against the king” and being informed there were not, “Then,” said he, “I shall not mind it, nor shew the least resentment against the author.” Henault was a man who loved to refine on pleasures, and gloried in infidelity. He went to Holland on purpose to visit Spinoza, who did not much esteem him. When, however, sickness and death came to stare him in the face, he became a superstitious convert, and was for receiving the Viaticum or Sacrament, with a halter about his neck, in the middle of his bed-chamber. He died in 1682.

He had printed at Paris, 1670, in 12mo, a small collection of his works, under the title of “Oeuvres Diverses,” or “Miscellanies:' containing sonnets, and letters in verse and prose to Sappho, who was probably the celebrated madam lies Houlieres, to whom he had the honour to be preceptor. Henault had translated three books of Lucretius: but his confessor having raised in him scruples and fears, he burnt this work, so that there remains nothing of it but the first 100 lines, which had been copied by his friends. Voltaire says, that” he would have gained great reputation, had these books that were lost been preserved, and been equal to what we have of this work."

, an eminent mineralogist, whose name has unaccountably been omitted in all our English as well as in the French, biographical collections, was born at Fryberg, or Friburg, in Misnia, in 1679. He appli himself, in the former part of his life, to physic; but quitted practice to devote his time entirely to the study of mineralogy and the various branches connected with it. The place of his birth afforded many facilities in his researches, being situated among those mountains which have been rendered famous by their mines, and which have been wrought with success through a long course of ages. Dr. He? ^kel, therefore, had the most favourable opportunity of studying nature, which he did with assiduity and success; and his superior skill gained him so high and so extens.ve a reputation, that his lectures were not only attended by persons who came from all parts of Germany, but he had also disciples who resorted to him from Sweden and Russia. Augustus II. king of Poland, and elector of Saxony, made him counsellor in the mines at Fryberg, and it was under his direction, that the porcelain manufacture was brought to perfection, which has rendered the town of Meissen so famous. He died in 1744-at Fryberg. His fine cabinet of natural rarities was purchased by Mr. Demidoff, a man of fortune, whose son presented it to the university of Moscow. Dr. HenckePs “Pyritologia” is known in this country by a translation, “History of the Pyrites,” published in 1757, 8vo; and there is a French translation of a posthumous work, entitled “Henckelius in Mineralogia redivivus,” Paris, 1756, 2 vols. 8vo, said to be very accurate.

, an English gentleman of parts and learning, was the son of sir R ->bert Henley, of the Grange in Hampshire, descended from the Henleys of Henley in Somersetshire; of whom sir Andrew Henley was created a baronet in 1660. This sir Andrew had a son of the same name, famous for his frolics and profusion. His seat, called Bramesley, near Hartley-row, in the county of Southampton, was very large and magnifirent. He had a great estate in that and the other western counties, which was reduced by him to a very small one, or to nothing. Sir Robert Henley of the Grange, his uncle, was a man of good sense and osconomy. He held the master’s place of the King’s-bench court, on the pleas side, many years; and by the profits of it, and good management, left his son, Anthony Henley, of the Grange, of whom we now treat, possessed of a very fine fortune, above 3000l. a-year, part of which arose from the ground-rents of LincolnVinnfields. Anthony Henley was bred at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by an early relish for polite learning. He made a great proficiency in the study of the classics, and particularly the ancient poets, by which he formed a good taste for poetry, and wrote verses with success. Upon his coming to London, he was presently received into the friendship and familiarity of persons of the first rank for quality and wit, particularly the earls of Dorset and Sunclerland. The latter had especially a great esteem and affection for him; and as every one knew what a secret influence he had on affairs in king William’s court, it was thought strange that Mr. Henley, who had a genius for any thing great, as well as any thing gay, did not rise in the state, where he would have shone as a politician, no Jess than he did at Will’s and Tom’s as a wit. But the Muses and pleasure had engaged him. He had something of the character of Tibullus, and, except his extravagance, was possessed of all his other qualities; his indolence, his gallantry, his wit, his humanity, his. generosity, his learning, his taste for letters. There was hardly a contemporary author, who did not experience his bounty. They soon found him out, and attacked him with their dedications; which, though he knew how to value as they deserved, were always received as well as the addressers could wish; and his returns were made so handsomely, that the manner was as grateful as the present.

On becoming a husband and a father, Mr. Henley relinquished his gay mode of life, and was chosen a member of parliament for Andover in 1698; after which he was constantly the representative for either Weymouth, or Melcombe Regis, in the county of Dorset. He was always a zealous assertor of liberty in the house of commons, or at least of what went by that name; and on one occasion moved in the house for an address to her majesty, that she would be graciously pleased to give Mr. Benjamin Hoadly some dignity in the church, for strenuously asserting and vindicating the principles of that revolution which is the foundation of our present establishment in church anci state. This made him odious to the Tory party, and some impotent endeavours were used to have him laid aside in the queen’s last parliament; but he carried his election both at his corporation, and afterwards in the house of commons.

In town, he produced several publications; as, a translation of Pliny’s “Epistles,” of several works of abbe Vertot, of Montfaucon’s “Italian Travels” in folio, and many other books. His principal patron was the earl of Macclesfield, who gave him a benefice in the country, the value of which to a resident would have been above 80/ a year; he had likewise a lecture in the city; and, according to his own account, preached more chanty-sermons about town, was more numerously followed, and raised more for the poor children, than any other preacher, however dignified or distinguished. This popularity, with his enterprising spirit, and introducing regular action into the pulpit, were “the true causes,” he says, “why some obstructed his rising in town, from envy, jealousy, and a disrelish of those who are not qualified to be complete spaniels. For there was no objection to his being tossed into a 'country benefice by the way of the sea, as far as Galilee of the Gentiles (like a pendulum swinging one way as far as the other.)” Not being able to obtain preferment in London, and not choosing to return into the country, he struck out the plan of his Lectures, or Orations, which he puffed with an astonishing vulgarity of arrogance, as may be seen in the following specimen:

“That he should have the assurance to frame a plan, which no mortal ever thought of; that he should singly execute what would sprain a dozen of modern doctors of the tribe of Issachar that he should have success against all opposition challenge his adversaries to fair disputations, without any offering to dispute with him write, read, and study 12 hours a day, and yet appear as untouched by the yoke, as if he never wore it; compose three dissertations each week, on all subjects, however uncommon, treated in all lights and manners by himself, without assistance, as some would detract from him teach in one year, what schools and universities teach in five offer to learn to speak and to read; not be terrified by cabals, or menaces, or insults, or the grave nonsense of one, or the frothy satire of another; that he should still proceed and mature this bold scheme, and put the church, and all that, in danger; This man must be a a a &c.”

, the bishop of Lisieux, so justly celebrated for his humanity at the time of the dreadful massacre of St. Bartholomew, was born at St. Quintin in Picardy, in 1497. He was confessor to Henry II. of France, and bishop of Lodeve. In the reign of Charles IX. when the royal lieutenant of his province communicated to him the order to massacre all the protestants in the diocese of Lisieux, he signed a formal and official opposition to the order; for which striking act of clemency, it is wonderful to say, he was not censured or persecuted by the bigotry of the court. The beauty of virtue exacted respect. He died in 1577, universally respected, having gained over more by his mildness than any bigot by his fury.

, or Blind Harry, are the names given to a Scotch poet who lived in the fifteenth century, but of whom there are few memorials that can be relied on. It is conjectured that he wrote his celebrated “Actis & Deidis of Shyr Willam Wallace,” about 1446, and that he was then an old man. No surname is known; which belonged to Henry, nor is any thing known of his parentage or education. He discovers some knowledge in astronomy, in classical history, in the Latin and French languages, and in divinity; and some think he belonged to one or other of the religious orders, but this in a man blind from his infancy seems very improbable. He was a kind of travelling bard, visited the middle and south partsof Scotland, and probably the court of Scotland, and the great families. Wallace, his hero, was put to death in 1305, and Henry is supposed to have been born half a century later, but not too late for acquiring many particulars proper for his narrative, and it appears that he consulted with the descendants of some of Wallace’s contecaporaries. Besides this, he informs us that he followed very strictly a hook of great authority, a complete history of Wallace, written in Latin, partly hy John Blair and partly by Thomas Gray, both whom he mentions particularly, but no such work exists, nor can we tell whether he borrowed his many anachronisms and mistakes of persons and places from this work, or whether they were owing to defects in his own memory. Henry was blind from his birth; and that he should have acquired the knowjedge imputed to him, is much more wonderful than that he should be misled by traditionary reports. As he was blind, he fails in the descriptive parts of his poems, but for the same reason his invention is perpetually at work, and for matters of fact, he gives us all the wonders of romance. Many of his events never happened, and those which did are misplaced in point of time, or greatly exaggerated. His admirers are ready to allow that it is now impossible to distinguish between what is true and what is false in many of Henry’s relations but this can only be the case where the relation is all his own where we can appeal to other authorities, we frequently find him more erroneous than can easily be accounted for. A comparison has been formed between Henry’s “Wallace,” and Harbour’s “Bruce,” which terminates decidedly in Barbour’s favour. The “Bruce,” says an elegant critic, “is evidently the work of a politician as well as poet. The characters of the king, of his brother, of Douglas, and of the earl of Moray, are discriminated, and their separate talents always employed with judgment; so that every event is prepared and rendered probable by the means to which it is attributed; whereas the life of Wallace is a mere romance, in which the hero hews down whole squadrons with his single arm, and is indebted for every victory to his own muscular strength. Both poems are filled with descriptions of battles; but in those of Barbour our attention is successively directed to the cool intrepidity of king Robert, to the brilliant rashness of Edward Bruce, or to the enterprizing stratagems of Douglas; while in Henry we find little more than a disgusting picture of revenge, hatred, and blood.” As a poet, however, he has considerable merit, and the numerous editions through which his “Wallace” has passed, affords a sufficient proof of his popularity during all that period, when his language would be understood and the nature of his narrative be acceptable. The only manuscript known of this poem, and from which all th printed copies have been taken, is now in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, and bears date 1488. The first printed edition was that of Edinburgh, 1570; but the best and more correct is that of the Morisons of Perth, 1790, 3 vols. 12mo.

Besides taking an active part in-the management of the Gentleman’s Magazine for more than half a century, his separate literary labours were such as do credit to his judgment and industry. The only printed volume that we recollect, which bears his name, was a compilation, while he lived at Reading, under the patronage of Dr. Bolton, dean of Carlisle, entitled, “Twenty Discourses abridged from archbishop Tillotson, c.” of which a second edition was published in 1763, and a fourth in 1779. Those useful and popular publications which describe the curiosities of Westminster abbey, St. Paul’s, and the Tower, c. were originally compiled by Mr. Henry, and were improved by him through many successive impressions. He wrote also “The Complete English Farmer, or a Practical System of Husbandry,” a science which he cultivated on his farm at Beckingham in Kent; and “An historical Account of all the Voyages round the world, performed by English navigators,” 1774, 4 vols. 8vo, to which he afterwards added two more, including capt. Cook’s voyages all remarkable for being comprehensive, perspicuous, and accurate. To the Gentleman’s Magazine he was a frequent correspondent on a variety of subjects. He was a man of sound understanding, well acquainted with the literary history of his time, and agreeably communicative of what he knew.

It is thought to have been about 1763 that Dr. Henry first conceived the idea of his History of Great Britain the plan of which is indisputably his own. In every period it arranges, under seven distinct heads, or chapters, 1. The civil and military history of Great Britain 2. The history of religion 3. The history of our constitution, government, laws, and courts of justice 4. The history of learning, of learned men, and of the chief seminaries of learning 5. The history of arts; 6. The history of commerce, shipping, money, &c. and 7. The history of manners, customs, &c. Under these heads, which extend the province of an historian greatly beyond its usual limits, and compel him to attend to all these points uniformly and regularly, every thing curious or interesting in the history of any country may be comprehended. The first volume of his History, in qiprto, was published in 1771, the second in 1774, the third in 1777, the fourth in 1781, and the fifth (which brings down the history to the accession of Henry VII.) in 1785. The sixth volume, a posthumous >vork, the greater part of which he had prepared for publication before his death, appeared in 17S'3. Dr. Henry published his volumes originally at his own risk, and suffered for some time from the malignity of uniair attacks from his own country. The English critics were more liberal, and very early allowed to his work that merit which has since been universally acknowledged. In 1786, when an octavo edition was intended, Dr. Henry conveyed the property to Messrs. Cadell and Strahan, for the sum of 1000l. reserving to himself what remained unsold of the quarto edition. His profits on the whole, including this sum, he found to amount to 3, 300l. a strong proof of the intrinsic merit of the work. The prosecution of this history had been his favourite object for almost thirty years of his life. He had naturally a sound constitution, with a more equal and a larger portion of animal spirits than is commonly possessed by literary men. From 1789 his bodily strength was sensibly impaired, yet he persisted steadily in preparing his sixth volume.

Henry was naturally fond of society, and few men enjoyed it more perfectly, or were capable of contributing so much to its pleasures. Though his literary pursuits might have been supposed to have given him sufficient employment, he always found time for social conversation, for the offices of friendship, and for objects of public utility. Of the public societies in Edinburgh he was always one of the most useful and indefatigable members; and he conversed with the ardour, and even the gaiety of youth, long after his bodily strength had yielded to the infirmities of age. His library he left to the magistrates of Linlithgow, &c. under such regulations as he conceived would tend to form a library calculated to diffuse knowledge and literature in the country. Both as a man, and as an author, he has left a character which will, and ought to be esteemed. A history of England, “from the death of Henry VIII. to the accession of James VI.” was published by James Pettit Andrews, as a “continuation” of Dr. Henry’s, and professedly on the same plan. But although this work, proceeding from a well-known lover of anecdotes, is not unamusing, a continuation upon Henry’s more serious plan is yet wanting to complete what would be a truly valuable series of English history.

, an eminent linguist, was born at Hamstocks, in Haddingtonshire, Scotland, July 14, 1573. His father, a disciple of John Knox, was rector of that place. The son was educated at St. Andrew’s, where, for some reason, he embraced the popisfi religion, and went to France and Italy. He afterwards travelled through Turkey, Persia, Syria, and most other countries of the East, devoting his attention principally to the study of their languages: on his return he entered into a convent of Minims in. the neighhourhood of Avignon, which he exchanged after some time for the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Rome, belonging to the same order. His fame as a linguist having reached the ears of pope Paul V. he appointed him librarian of Oriental books and Mss. in the Vatican, in which office he remained six years. He is said to have been at Venice in 1620, whither he had gone with an intention of translating from Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldaic writings, and is supposed to have died there in that or the following year. Wonders are told of his proficiency in languages; we may allow that it was great for his time, but must hesitate in believing that he knew seventy-two languages. Of his works, Dempster mentions “A Hebrew and Chaldaic Dictionary, and an Arabic Grammar,” forming one volume, quarto, printed at Rome in 1591. The rest of his works, enumerated by Mackenzie, are translations from the Hebrew manuscripts, most of them of legendary authority, and not printed.

, a miscellaneous writer, and an imitator of the periodical essays of queen Anne’s reign, was born in Scotland in 1690, and in 1711 began a periodical paper called The Tatler, by Donald Macstaff of the North,“which extended to thirty numbers. They are evidently the production of a man of vigorous native powers, and of a, mind not meanly stored with ancient learning, and familiar with the best writings of the moderns; but they gave much offence, by the description of known characters, and by the personal satire which the author employed, with no gentle or delicate hand, on some men of note, both in the ecclesiastical and civil departments, among his countrymen. Mr. Hepburn, who had studied the civil law in Holland, became a member of the faculty of advocates at Edinburgh in 1712, and died soon after very young. Lord Hailes justly termed him” ingenii praecocis etpraefervidi.“In the concluding paper of his” Tatler“he announced, as then in the press, a translation of sir George Mackenzie’s” Idea eloquentia? Forensis;“and in the Advocates’ library is a small volume containing two treatises of his writing; the one entitled” Demonstratio quod Deus sit,“and the ether, Dissertatio de Scriptis Pitcarnianis.” The former of these is neatly and methodically written; the latter is somewhat jejune in point of matter, and too lavish of general panegyric.

, the founder of the sect of Heraciiteans, was born at Ephesus. He discovered an early propensity to the study of wisdom, and, by a diligent attention to the operations of his own mind, soon became sensible of his ignorance, and desirous of instruction. He was initiated into the mysteries of the Pythagorean doctrine by Xenophanes and Hippasus, and afterwards incorporated them into his own system. His fellow citizens solicited him to undertake the supreme magistracy; but, on account of their dissolute manners, he declined it in favour of his brother. When he was, soon afterwards, seen playing with the boys in the court of the temple of Diana, he said to those who expressed their surprize that he was not better employed, “Why are you surprised that I pass my time with children? It is surely better than governing the corrupt Ephesians.” He was displeased with them for banishing from their city so wise and able a man as Hermodorus; and plainly told them that he perceived they were determined not to keep among them any man who had more merit than the rest. His natural temper being splenetic and melancholy, he despised the ignorance and follies of mankind, shunned all public intercourse with the world, and devoted himself to retirement and contemplation. He made choice of a mountainous retreat for his place of residence, and lived upon the natural produce of the earth, Darius, king of Persia, having heard of his fame, invited him to his court; but he treated the invitation with contempt. His diet, and manner of life, at length brought him into a dropsy; upon which this philosopher, who was always fond of enigmatical language, returning into the city, proposed to the physicians the following question “Is it possible to bring dry ness out of moisture?” Receiving no relief from them, he attempted to cure himself by shutting himself up in a close stable of oxen; but it is doubtful how far he succeeded, for the cause and manner of his death are differently related by different writers. He flourished, as appears from his preceptors and contemporaries, about the sixty-ninth olympiad, B. C. 504. Sixty years are said to have been the term of his hfe. It has been a tale commonly received, that Heraclitirs was perpetually shedding tears on account of the vices of mankind, and particularly of his countrymen. But the story, which probably took its rise from the gloomy severity of his temper, ought to be ranked, like that of the perpetual laughing of Detnocritus, among the Greek fables. He wrote a treatise “On Nature,” of which only a few fragments remain. Througb the natural cast of his mind, and perhaps too through a desire of concealing unpopular tenets under the disguise of a figurative and intricate diction, his discourses procured him the name of the “Obscure Philosopher.” Neither critics norphilosopbers were able to explain his writings; and they remained in the temple of Diana, where he himself had deposited them for the use of the learned, till they were made public by Crates, or, as Tatian relates the matter, till the poet Euripides, who frequented the temple of Diana y committing the doctrines and precepts of Heraclitus to memory, accurately repeated them. From the fragments of this work, which are preserved by Sextus Empiricus, it appears to have been written in prose, which makes Tatian’s account the less credible. Brucker, to whom we refer, has given as good an account of Heraclitus’s systera as his obscure manner will permit. His sect was probably very soon extinct, as we find no traces of its existence after the death of Socrates, which may be ascribed, in part, to the insuperable obscurity of the writings of Heraclitus, but chiefly to the splendour of the Platonic system, by which it was superseded.

The distinction with which he was received by the duke of Tuscany, taught France to know his merit, which had hitherto been but little regarded; and he was afterwards recalled and encouraged by Colbert, who encouraged every thing that might do honour to his country. The grand tluke was very unwilling to let him go, and even refused to consent, till he had seen the express order of the minister for his return. When he came to France, the king often did him the honour to converse with him, and gave him a pension of 1500 livres. During his stay in Italy, he began his “Bibliotheque Orientale, or Universal Dictionary, containing whatever related to the knowledge of the eastern world;” and finished it in France. This work, equally curious and profound, comprises the substance of a great number of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish books which he had read; and informs us of an infinite number of particulars unknown before in Europe. He wrote it at first in Arabic, and Colbert had a design to print it at the Louvre, with a set of types cast on purpose. But after the death of that minister, this resolution was waved; and Herbelot translated his work into French, in order to render it more universally useful. He committed it to the press, but had not the satisfaction to see the impression finished; for he died Dec. 8, 1695, and it was not published till 1697, folio. What could not be inserted in this work was digested by him under the title of “Anthologie:” but this was never published, nor his Turkish, Persian, Arabian, and Latin dictionary, which, as well as other works, he had completed.

, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-­castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford, where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in. such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which he became singularly expert. He returned to England in 1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in. order that he might have the opportunity of serving with the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low. Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616 he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a complaint to our king, he was called back into England in some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly sent back upon the same embassy.”

In 1625 sir Edward was advanced to the dignity of a baron of the kingdom of Ireland, by the title of lord Herbert of Castle-Island; and, in 1631, to that of lord Herbert of Cherbury in Shropshire. After the breaking out of the civil wars, he adhered to the parliament; and, Feb. 25, 1644, “had an allowance granted him for his livelihood, having been spoiled by the king’s forces,” as Whitelocke says; or, as “Wood relates it,” received satisfaction from the members of that house, for their causing Montgomery castle to be demolished.“In the parliamentary history, it is said that lord Herbert offended the House of lords by a speech in favour of the king, and that he attended his majesty at York. It appears that when he saw the drift of the parliamentary party, he quitted them, and was a great sufferer in his fortune from their vengeance. He died at his house in Queen-street, London, August 20, 1648; and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles’s in the Fields, with this inscription upon a flat marble stone over his grave:” Heic inhumatqr corpus Edvardi Herbert equitis Balnei, baronis de Cherbury et Castle-Island, auctoris libri, cui titulus est, De Veritate. Keddor ut herbae; vicesimo die Augusti anno Domini 1648."

About 1629, he was seized with a quotidian ague, which obliged him to remove to Woodford in Essex, for change of air; and when, after his ague had abated, some consumptive appearances were apprehended, he went to Dauntsey in Wiltshire, the seat of lord Danvers, earl of Danby, who appropriated an apartment for him, and treated him with the greatest care and kindness. Here, by abstaining from hard study, and by air and exercise, he apparently recovered his health, and then declared his resolution to marry, and to take priest’s orders. Accordingly he married Jane Danvers, daughter of Mr. Charles Danvers of Bainton in Wilts, related to the earl of Danby; and about three months after his marriage, at the request of Philip earl of Pembroke, the king presented him to the living of Bemerton, into which he was inducted April 26, 1630. Here he passed the remainder of his days, discharging the duties of a parish priest in a manner so exemplary, that the history of his life here, as given by Walton, or perhaps as delineated by himself in his “Country Parson,” may justly be recommended as a model. His own behaviour was indeed an exact comment on all he wrote, which appears to have come from the heart of a man of unfeigned piety and humility. Unhappily, however, for his rlock, his life was shortened by a return of the consumptive symptoms which had formerly appeared, and he died in February 1632, and was buried March 3.

He published, 1. “Oratio qua auspicatissimum sereniss. princ. Caroli reditnm ex Hispaniis celebravit G. H. acad. Cantab. Orator,” 1623. 2. A translation of Coniaro “Oil Temperance.” 3. “Herbert’s Remains, &c.” Lond. 1652, 12mo. In this volume is his “Priest to the Temple, or the Country Parson’s character and rule of Holy Life,” a series of short chapters on the duties and character of a parish priest, which has been separately and very recently printed, and always much admired. 4. “The Temple, Sacred Poems and private ejaculations,” Cambridge, 1633, 12mo, often reprinted. As a poet Mr. Herbert ranks with Donne, Quarles, and Crashaw; but, as some critics have asserted, is inferior to these. He was, however, the most popular poet of his day, for, according to Walton, 10,Ooo copies of this work were sold, and we know that there have been editions since Walton’s time. At the end of this volume is a collection of poems entitled “The Synagogue,” which Granger very improperly attributes to Crashaw. Mr. Zouch has endeavoured to prove that these pieces were written by Mr. Christopher Hervey. There are some Latin poems by Herbert in the “Ecclesiastes Solomonis,” published by Dr. Duport, in the “Epicedium Cantabrigiense,” 1612, and the “Lachrymae Cantabrigienses,” 1619; and a series of his letters are in the orator’s book at Cambridge.

The character of this noble person is not only one of the most amiable in lord Clarendon’s history, but is one of the best drawn. We can, however, give only a few particulars. “He was,” says the great historian, “the most universally beloved and esteemed of any man of that age; and having a great office in the court, he made the court atself better esteemed, and more reverenced in the country: and as he had a great number of friends of the best men, so no man had ever the confidence to avow himself to be his enemy. He was a man very well bred, and of excellent parts, and a graceful speaker upon any subject, having a good proportion of learning, and a ready wit to apply it, and enlarge upon it: of a pleasant and facetious humour, and a disposition affable, generous, and magnificent. He lived many years about the court before in it, and never by it; being rather regarded and esteemed by lung James, than loved and favoured. As he spent and lived upon his own fortune, so he stood upon his own feet, without any other support than of his proper virtue and merit. He was exceedingly beloved in the court, because he never desired to get that for himself which others laboured for, but was still ready to promote the pretences of worthy men: and he was equally celebrated in the country, for having received no obligations from the court, which might corrupt or sway his affections and judgment. He was a great lover of his country, and of the religion and justice which he believed could only support it: and his friendships were only with men of those principles. Sure never man was planted in a court who was fitter for that soil, or brought better qualities with him to purify that air. Yet his memory must not be flattered, that his virtues and good inclinations may be believed he was not without some alloy of vice he indulged to himself the pleasures of all kinds, almost in all excesses,” &c. It ought not to be forgot that this earl of Pembroke vras a munificent contributor to the Bodleian library, of two hundred and forty-two Greek Mss. purchased by him in Italy, and formerly belonging to Francis Barroccio. This gift is commemorated by an inscription over the collection in the library, where also are a painting and a statue of his lordship. Pembroke-college was so named in honour of him.

, an eminent typographical antiquary, was born Nov. 29, 1718, and educated at Hitchin in Hertfordshire. He appears to have been originally destined for trade, as he was bound apprentice to a hosier in London, and carried on that business for some time on his own account. It is probable, however, that he did noj succeed, or became desirous of some other means of livelihood, and it is said that one time he studied the art of painting on glass. About his thirtieth year he accepted the situation of purser’s clerk to three East-India ships. He set sail in one of them which was to take in a lading of pepper at Tellicherry: but before she had completed that purpose, an alarm of six French men of war was given. The governor demanded thirty men out of each ship, as he had a power to do, for the defence of the place; and the ship sailed away without lights round the Lucadine islands, and by Mount Delhi, to Bombay. After the alarm was over they returned, and sent Mr. Herbert, in a miserable boat, without change of linen, to demand their men, whom the governor refused to give up, and he returned; but the ships having left their station, the boat could not find them, and the wind being against him, he was obliged to remain at Tellicherry. Being engaged to return to his ship by the middle of July, he was obliged to undertake a journey over land on the sixteenth of that month, with a Portuguese boy, (who understood a little English, Portuguesej and Parriar or Lingua Franca), twelve sepoys, eight porters, in all twenty, besides himself and boy; and went round by sea to Calicut, before he ascended the heights with two bramins, who were bound by their caste to conduct him safe. The anxiety at not meeting the ships at the appointed time, he did not recover for a twelvemonth: though he rejoined them August 8, at Fort St. David, Fort George being in the hands of the French.

Having now succeeded to his utmost wishes as a vender of charts and prints, he resolved to retire from business, and with this view purchased a country residence at dieshunt in Hertfordshire, and turned his whole attention to editing “Ames’s Typographical Antiquities,” the first volume of which he at length published in 1785, in 4to, under the title of “Typographical Antiquities, or an Historical Account of the Origin and Progress of Printing in Great Britain and Ireland containing memoirs of our ancient Printers, and a register of books by them from the year 1471 to 1500. Begun by the late Joseph Ames, F. R. and A. Ss. and secretary to the society of antiquaries. Considerably augmented, both in the Memoirs and number of books. By William Herbert of Cheshunt, Herts.” The second volume appeared in 1786, and the third and last in 1790. The reception of this work by the public was proportionate to its utility; but he did not live long to enjoy the fruit of his labours. He was seventy-two years of age when -he published the last volume, and yet went on improving the work, with a view to a future edition. At length exhausted by constant mental as well as bodily activity, he gradually sunk under the accumulated afflictions of disease and debility attendant on age, and died March 18, 1795, in his seventy-seventh year. His body was interred in Cheshunt church-yard. Mr. Herbert a man of great integrity, simplicity, and modesty, but his manner was somewhat odd and peculiar. His valuable library was scattered at his decease, by a priced catalogue. These particulars of his life we have selected from the fuller account given of him, by his able successor Mr. DuV din, whose first two volumes of the new edition afford the well-grounded hope that we may say of him, as he has of Herbert, that “no single country can boast of such an acquisition to its history of ancient literature as our own;” in his typographical labours.

, an eminent practical and theoretical German musician, was born at Nuremberg. In 1628 he was appointed chapel-master at Francfort on the Maine, and continued in that station till 1641, when he was called to the same office at Nuremberg. However, in 1650 he thought fit to return to Francfort, at the solicitation of the magistrates and others his friends; and being by them re-instated in his former dignity, he continued in that station till the time of his death, in 1660. He was excellently skilled in the theory of music, and in the art of practical composition, and was a sound and judicious organist. In 1643 he published, in the German language, a book entitled “Musica Poetica” and, ten years after, a translation, either from the Latin or the Italian, for it is extant in both languages, of the “Arte prattica e poetica of Giov. Chiodino,” in ten books. Herbst was also the author of a tract entitled “Musica njoderna prattica, overo maniere del buon canto,” printed at Francfort in 1658, in which he recommends the Italian manner of singing. His other works are, a small tract on Thoroughbass, and a discourse on counterpoint, containing directions for composing “a mente non a penna.” Of his musical compositions, all that are extant in print are, “Meletemata sacra Davidis,” and “Suspiria S. Gregorii ad Christum,” for three voices. These were printed in 1619, as was also a nameless composition by him for six voices.

, an eminent French botanist, was born at Paris in 1746. In 1772 he was appointed superintendant of the waters and forests of the generality of Paris, and his active mind being turned to fulfil the duties of his office, he began to apply to botany, with a particular view to the knowledge of foresttrees. Broussonet, who had studied with sir Joseph Banks, and was an ardent Linnaean, was the intimate friend of L'Heritier, and contributed in no small degree to urge him forward in his career. The first fruits of his labours was a splendid book, with finely engraved plates, entitled “Stirpes novae,” of which the first fasciculus, containing eleven plates with their descriptions, appeared in J7S4. Five more followed, amounting to eighty-four platas. To secure to himself some of his own discoveries, and especially the establishment of certain new genera and their names, L'Heritier contrived a method of publishing such in the form of monographs, with one or two plates. Of these he distributed the copies gratuitously to different people, so that no individual might be possessed of the entire collection. A complete set, however, is in the library of sir Joseph Banks, and another in that of the president of the Linnaean society. In 1786 he came over to England, and collected from the English gardens the materials of his “Sertum Anglicum,” a Work consisting of several fasciculi, on a similar plan to his Stirpes Novafe, but it remains unfinished. In 1775 he became a conseiller a la cour des aides, was for a long time the dean of that court, and accepted the office of a judge in the civil tribunals of the department of the Seine, and is recorded to have fulfilled its duties with the most exemplary rectitude and incorruptibility. He also sat from time to time as a member of the representative body. His views were always those of a true patriot, the correction of abuses, the maintenance of the laws in their genuine force and purity; and the darling object of his emulation was the uncorrupted British constitution.

It is with pain that we advance towards the dreadful catastrophe of his life. He had married, in 1775, an estimable woman of the name of Dore, with whom he passed nineteen years in domestic happiness. She died in 1794, leaving him five children. He devoted himself to their education, but with respect to one of them, a son, his parental solicitude was attended with little success, and his hopes were blasted in a cruel manner, by the most refractory and unprincipled conduct. The parent returning very late one evening in August 1801, from a meeting of the national institute, never again reached his own domestic circle. His children expected him all night in the greatest anxiety and uncertainty. Some savage cries of insult or exultation were overheard in the silence of the night, but their object was not discovered till the dawn of morning, when the murdered body of the father of the family was found near his own threshold, with the money and other valuables which he carried about him untouched. No certain discovery was made of the murderer, but suspicion seems to have attached to the wretched son, who is since dead.

, de Villandon, a daughter of the preceding, born at Paris in 1664, inherited a taste and talent for poetry, and was esteemed also for the sweetness of her manners, and the dignity of her sentiments. The academy of the “Jeux Floraux,” received her as a member in 1696, and that of the “Ricovrati,” at Padua, in 1697. She died at Paris in 1734. Her works are various, in prose and verse: 1. “A Translation of Ovid’s Epistles,” sixteen of them in verse. 2. “La Tour te'nebreuse,” an English tale. 3. “Les Caprices du Destin,” another novel. 4. “L'avare puni,” a novel in verse; with a few poems of an elegiac or complimentary nature.

, a learned mathematician of the academy of Berlin, and member of the academy of sciences at Paris, was born at Basil in 1678. He was a great traveller; and for six years was professor of mathematics at Padua. He afterwards went to Russia, being iovited thither by the Czar Peter I. in 1724, as well as his compatriot Daniel Bernoulli. On his return to his native country he was appointed professor of morality and natural law at Basil, where he died in 1733, at fifty-five years of age. He wrote several mathematical and philosophical pieces, in the Memoirs of different academies, and elsewhere; but his principal work is the “Phoronomia, or two books oh the forces and motions of both solid and fluid bodies,” 1716, 4to a very learned work on the new mathematical physics.

, a celebrated botanist, was born at Halle, in Saxony, towards the middle of the seventeenth century. Having resided some time in the East Indies, and especially at Ceylon, where he practised as a physician, he was induced to re-visit Europe in 1679, and filled the botanical professorship at Leyden, and at the same time having the care of the botanical garden, he soon more than doubled the number of plants which had been introduced by his predecessors during 150 years. He was the first in Holland who adopted a system of botany founded on the fructification, partly following the arrangement of Morison, and partly that of Ray. His works are remarkable for the excellence and neatness of his figures, containing descriptions of many new plants found in various parts of the world. He died on the 29th of January, 1695. Linnæus, in his “Classes Plantarum,” has given a sketch of the Hennannian system, which is founded upon the fruit, to which he adhered with more pertinacity than either Ray or Morison themselves. The first work he published was a “Catalogue of the Leyden Garden,” in 1687, reprinted at Leyden in 1720, 8vo, under the title of “Index Piantarum quse in horto Leidensi aluntur,” to which Boerhaave added a history of the garden. To Hermann may be ascribed, on the authority of Sherard, the following work, “Florae Lugdunobatavrc flores,” though publislied under the name of Zumbach. In 1695, a work, entitled “Flora Lugdunobatava,” was begun to be printed, but after a few sheets were taken oft, its author’s death put a stop to any further continuation of it. At this time the “Paradisus Batavus” was in a state of forwardness, and it was published in 8vo, as a posthumous work, about three years afterwards. It was, however, reprinted in quarto in 1705, having been edited by William Sherard, at the expence of Hermann’s widow. This indefatigable man left a considerable number of papers and dried plants, the latter of which came into the possession of J. Burmann; and formed the corner-stone of his “Thesaurus Zeylanicus,” published at Amsterdam in 1737. These same plants came afterwards into tha hands of Linnæus for a time, and from them his “Flora Zeylanica” was composed. They are now finally the property of sir Joseph Banks. Besides the above books, he was the author of the foliowing works “Mussei Indici catalogus, continens varia exotica animalia, insecta, vegetabilia, mineralia, quse collegerat,” 1711, 8vo; “Lapis Lydius Materiae Medicae,” 1704, 8vo “Musaeum Zeylanicum” (unfinished) “Catalogus Plantarum Capitis Bonse Spei” (unedited) and wrote various botanical and medical tracts, which are of less moment, and some of which are superseded by the former.

, or Hermas commonly called the Shepherd, was an antient father of the church, and is generally supposed to have been the same whom St. Paul mentions in Rom. xvi. 14. He is ranked amongst those who are called Apostolical Fathers, from his having lived in the times of the apostles: but who he was, what he did, and what he suffered for the sake of Christianity, are all in a great measure, if not altogether, unknown to us. He seems to have belonged to the church at Rome, when Clement was bishop of it; that is, according to Dodwell, from the year 64 or 65 to the year 81. This circumstance we are able to collect from his “Second Vision,” of which, he tells us, he was commanded to communicate a copy to Clement. What his condition was before his conversion, we know not; but that he was a man of some consideration, we may conclude from what we read in his “Third Vision;” where he owns himself to have been formerly unprofitable to the Lord, upon the account of those riches which afterwards he seems to have dispensed in works of charity and beneficence. After his conversion he probably lived a very strict life, since he is said to have been employed in several messages to the church, both to correct their manners, and to warn them of the trials that were about to come upon them. His death, if we may believe the “Roman Marty rology,” was conformable to his life; where we read, that being “illustrious for his miracles, he at last offered himself a worthy sacrifice unto God.” Baronius says, that “having undergone many labours and troubles in the time of the persecution under Aurelius, he at last rested in the Lord July 26th, which is therefore observed in commemoration of him.” But Hermas being sometimes called by the title of “Pastor, or Shepherd,” the Roman martyrologist has divided the good man into two saints: and they observe the memorial of Hennas May the 9th, and of Pastor July the 26th.

Hennas’s book, “The Shepherd,” is the only remains of this father, and has been highly extolled by some of the ancients, while its authenticity has been called in question by others; and most of the fathers, who have spoken of it well themselves, plainly enough insinuate, that there were others who did not put the same value upon it. The moderns in general have not esteemed it so highly; and indeed, as Dupin observes, “whether we consider the manner it is written in, or the matter it contains, it does not appear to merit much regard.” The first part, for it is divided into three, is called “Visions,” and contains many visions, which are explained to Hermas by a woman, who represents the church. These visions regard the state of the church, and the manners of the Christians. The second, which is the most useful, is called “Commands,' 1 and comprehends many moral and pious instructions, delivered to Hernias by an angel and the third is called” Similitudes." Many useful lessons are taught in these books, but the visions, allegories., and similitudes, have little to recommend them.

, an Egyptian legislator, priest, and philosopher, lived, as some think, in the year of the world 2076, in the reign of Ninus, after Moses: and was so skilled in all profound arts and sciences, that he acquired the surname of Trismegistus, or “thrice great.” Clemens Alexandrinus has given us an account of his writings, and a catalogue of some of them such as, the book containing the Hymns of the Gods another “De rationibus vitae regiae” four mo*e, “De astrologia,” that is, “De ordine fixarunl stellarum, & de conjunctione & illuminatione Solis & Lunae” ten more, entitled, “lE^arwa,” or which treat of laws, of the gods, and of the whole doctrine and discipline of the priests. Upon the whole, Clemens makes Hermes the author of thirty -six books of divinity and philosophy, and six of physic; but they are all lost. There goes indeed one under his name, whose title is “Poemander;” but this is agreed by all to be supposititious, and Casaubon imagines it to be written about the beginning of the second century, by some Platonizing Christian, who, to enforce Christianity with a better grace upon Pagans, introduces Hermes Trismegistus delivering, as it were long before, the greatest part of those doctrines which are comprised in the Christian creed.

, of Tarsus, a Greek rhetorician of the second century, is recorded as a remarkable instance of early maturity and early deficiency of talents. He flourished about the year 161. At fifteen he taught rhetoric publicly; at seventeen he wrote his art of rhetoric; and at twenty, two books or^t' iSewv, or on oratorical forms: but in his twenty-fifth year he lost his memory, and the faculty of speech, which he nver recovered, though he lived to be old. Of his book on oratory, which consisted of five parts, the first part only is lost. There are extant also, 2. “De inventione Oratoria,” four books. 3. “. De formis,” above-mentioned. 4. “Methodus apti et ponderosi generis dicendi.” These were published at Paris in 1531, 4to, with “Aphihonii Sophistæ præludia,” and in two or three subsequent editions. The best is that of Caspar Laurentius, published at Geneva, in 1614, in 8vo.

, an heretic of the second century, was a native of Africa, a painter, and stoic philosopher, and was alive in the days of Tertullian, according to Fleury. Tillemont makes him flourish in the year 200; but Du Fresnoy says he did not preach his erroneous opinions concerning the origin of the world, and the nature of the soul, till the year 208. He established matter as the first principle, and made Idea the mother of all the elements; for which reason his followers were commonly called Mattriarians. By his assertion of the self-existence and improduction of matter, he endeavoured to give an account (as stoic philosophers had done before him) of the original of evils; and to free God from the imputation of them, he argued thus: God made all things either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of pre-existent matter. He could not make all things out of himself, because, himself being always unmade, he should then really have been the maker of nothing: and he did not make all out of nothing, because, being essentially good, he would have made every thing in the best manner, and so there could have been no evil in the world: but since there are evils, and these could not proceed from the will of God, they must needs rise from the fault of something, and therefore of the matter out of which things were made. His followers denied the resurrection, rejected water-baptism, asserted that angels were composed of fire and spirit, and were the creators of the soul of man; and that Christ, as he ascended, diveste'd himself of human nature, and left his body in the sun. Tertullian has written against him.

, so called rather from his power and talents than his goodness, was a native of Ascalon in Judea, and thence sometimes called the Ascalonite. He was born seventy years before the Christian osra, the son of Antipater an Idumean, who appointed him to the government of Galilee. He at first embraced the party of Brutus and Cassius, but, after their death, that of Antony. By him he was named tetrarch, and afterwards, by his interest, king of Judea in the year 40 A. C. After the battle of Actium, he so successfully paid his court to Augustus, that he was by him confirmed in his kingdom. On all occasions he proved himself an able politician and a good soldier. But he was far from being master of his passions, and his rage very frequently was. directed against his own family. Aristobiilus, brother to his beloved wife Mariamne, her venerable grandfather Hyrcanus, and finally she herself, fell victims to his jealousy and fury. His keen remorse fojp her death rendered him afterwards yet more cruel. He put to death her mother Alexandra, and many others of his family. His own sons Alexander and Aristobulus having excited his suspicions, he destroyed them also, which made Augustus say, that it was better to be Herod’s hog than his son. Among his good actions svas *he rebuilding qf the temple at Jernsalenj, which be performed in nine years, with great magnificence; and in the time of a famine he sold many valuable and curious articles he had collected, to relieve the sufferers. To Augustus he paid the utmost adulation, and even divine honours. At the birth of our Saviour, his jealousy was so much excited by the prophetic intimations of his greatness, that he slaughtered all the infants in Bethlehem, in hopes of destroying him among the number. But his tyranny was now nearly at an end, and two or three years after the birth of Christ he died of a miserable disease at the age of more than seventy. He had nine or ten wives, of which number Mariamiie was the second. A little before his death, soured yet more by his acute sufferings, he attempted a greater act of cruelty than any he had performed in his former life. He sent for all the most considerable persons in Judea, and ordered that as soon as he was dead, they should all be massacred, that every great family in the country might weep for him. But this savage order was not executed. Some have supposed that he assumed the character of the Messiah, and that the persons who admitted that claim were those called in the gospel Herodians. But this is by no means certain. Herod was the first who shook the foundations of the Jewish government. He appointed the high-priests, and removed them at his pleasure, without regard to the laws of succession; and he destroyed the authority of the national council. But by his credit with Augustus, by his power, and the very magnificent buildings he erected, he gave a temporary splendour to that nation. His son, Herod Antipas, (by his fifth wife Cleopatra) was tetrarch of Galilee after his death.

, a Greek historian, flourished at Rome from the reign of Commodus to the beginning of the reign of Gordian III. We know little of his life, except that he was engaged in many public employments. He is supposed to have died at Rome about the year 240. The history, which he has left us, is comprized in eight books;, at the beginning of the first of which he declares, that he will only write of the affairs of his own time, such as he had either known himself, or received information of from creditable persons. Like many historians who have related the events of their own times, Herodian forgets sometimes that he is writing for posterity, and omits the necessary dates; nor is he very correct as to matters of fact, and points of geography. His impartiality has been called in question by some critics, as far as respects his characters of Alexander Severus and Maximinian, but others seem inclined to defend him. His style is neat, perspicuous, and pleasing, and occasionally eloquent, particularly in the speeches he inserts. Herodian was translated into Latin by Angelus Politianus, and may therefore be read, according to professor Whear, either in Greek or Latin “for,” says he, “I don't know which of the two deserves the greater praise Herodian, for writing so well in his own language, or Politian, for translating him so happily, as to make him appear like an original in a foreign one.” This, however, has more of compliment than of sober criticism, although it may be allowed that Politian has been uncommonly successful. Though we have considered Herodian hitherto as an historian only, yet Suidas informs us, that he wrote many other books, which have not been preserved from the ruins of time. The first edition of Herodian is among the “Res Gestae” of Xenophun, published by Aldus, 1503, folio; but the translation by Politian appeared first at Home in June 1493. folio, and again in September of that year at Bologna, a magnificent book, printed by Plato de Benedictis, and accurately described in the <c Bibliotheca Spenceriana." There was a third edition of Politian’s translation, at the same place and in the same year, in 4to, printed by Bazalerius de Bazaleriis. The best editions of Herodian in Greek are those of Louvaine, 1525, 4to; Stephens, Paris, 1581, 4to Boeder, Strasburgh, 1644—62—72, 8vo; Ox-ford, 1678—99, 1704—8, 8vo; Ruddiman, Edinburgh, 1724, 8vo; Irsmich, Leipsic, 1789, 5 vols. 8vo, by far the most erudite and elaborate. All these have Politian’s translation.

, an ancient Greek historian of Halicarnassus in Caria, was born in the first year of the 74th olympiad; about 484 years before Christ. This time of his birth is fixed by a passage in Aulus Gellius, Book xv. chap 23. which makes Helianicus 65, Herodotus 53, and Thucydides 40 years old, at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war. The name of his father was Lyxes; of his mother, Dryo. The city of Halicarnassus being at that time under the tyranny of Lygdamis, grandson of Artemisia queen of Caria, Herodotus quitted his country, and retired to Samos; whence he travelled over Egypt, Greece, Italy, &c. and in his travels acquired the knowledge of the history and origin of many nations. He then began to digest the materials he had collected into order, and composed that history which has preserved his name ever since. He wrote it in the isle of Samos, according to the general opinion; but the elder Pliny affirms it to have been written at Thurium, a town in that part of Italy then called Magna Graecia, whither Herodotus had retired with an Athenian colony, and where he is supposed to have died, not however before he had returned into his own country, and by his influence expelled the tyrant Lygdamis. At Samos he studied the Ionic dialect, in which he wrote, his native dialect being Doric. Lucian informs us, that when Herodotus left Caria to go into Greece, he began to consider with himself, what he should do to obtain celebrity and lasting fame, in the most expeditious way, and with as little trouble as possible. His history, he presumed, would easily procure him fame, and raise his name among the Grecians, in whose favour it was written; but then he foresaw, that it would be very tedious, if not endless, to go through the several cities of Greece, and recite it to each respective city; to the Athenians, Corinthians, Argives, Lacedaemonians, &c. He thought it most proper, therefore, to take the opportunity of their assembling all together; and accordingly recited his work at the Olympic games, which rendered him more famous than even those who had obtained the prizes. None were ignorant of his name, nor was there a single person in Greece, who had not either seen him at the Olympic games, or heard those speak of him who had seen him there; so that wherever he came, the people pointed to him with their ringers, saying, “This is that Herodotus, who has written the Persian wars in the Ionic dialect; this is he who has celebrated our victories.”

His work is divided into nine books, which, according to the computation of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, contain the most remarkable occurrences within a period of 240 years; from the reign of Cyrus the first king of Persia, to that of Xerxes, when the historian was living. These nine books are called after the nine Muses, each of which is distinguished by the name of a Muse and this has given birth to two disquisitions among the learned first, whether they were so called by Herodotus himself; and secondly, for what reason they were so called. As to the first, it is generally agreed that Herodotus did not impose these names himself; but it is not agreed why they were imposed by others. Lucian, in the place referred to above, tells us, that those names were given them by the Grecians at the Olympic games, when they were first recited, as the best compliment that could be paid the man who had taken pains to do them so much honour. Others have thought, that the name of Muses have been fixed upon them by way of reproach, and were designed to intimate, that Herodotus, instead of true history, had written a great deal of fable, for which, it must be owned, he has been censured by Thucydides, Strabo, and Juvenal, and particularly Plutarch, who conceived a warm resentment against him, for casting an odium upon his countrymen the Thebans, and therefore wrote that little treatise, to be found in his works, “Of the Malignity of Herodotus.” Herodotus, however, has not wanted defenders in Aldus Manutius, Joachim Camerarius, and Henry Stephens, who have very justly observed, that he seldom relates any thing of doubtful credit, without producing his authority, or using terms of caution; and some events, narrated by him, which were once thought wonders, have been confirmed by modern voyages and discoveries.

Herodotus wrote in the Ionic dialect, and his style and manner have ever been admired by all readers of taste. Cicero, in his second book “De Oratore,” says, that “he is so very eloquent and flowing, that he pleased him exceedingly;” and in his “Brutus,” that “his style is free from all harshness, and glides along like the waters of a still river.” He calls him also the Father of History; because he was, if not the first historian, the first who brought history to that degree of perfection. Quintilian has given the same judgment of Herodotus. “Besides the flowing sweetness or' his style, even the dialect he uses has a peculiar grace, and seems to express the harmony of numbers. Many,” says he, “have written history well; but every body owns, that there are two historians preferable to the rest, though extremely different from each other. Thucydides is close, concise, and sometimes even crowded in his sentences: Herodotus is sweet, copiou&, and exuberant. Thucydides is more proper for men of warm passions Herodotus for those of a sedater turn. Thucydides excels in orations Herodotus in narrations. The one is more forcible the other more agreeable.” There have been several editions of Herodotus the first in Greek, is that of Aldus, 1502, folio. There are also two by Henry Stephens, in 1570 and 1592; one by Gale at London in 1679; and one by Gronovius at Leyden in 1715. But the best is that of Wesseling, published at Amsterdam in 1763. There is also an elegant edition by Schcefer, Leipsic, 1800, &c. 8vo, and anothef printed at Edinburgh, 1806, 7 vols. 8vo. The first Latin translation was published at Venice in 1474, folio. It has been twice translated into English once by Littlebury, in 2 vols. 8vo, without notes the second time by, Mr. Beloe, in 4 vols. with many useful and entertaining remarks. There is also an excellent French translation, by M. Larcher, with very learned notes and dissertations, first printed in 1786, 7 vols. 8vo, and reprinted with additions, 1802, y vols. 8vo.

, one of the minor poets, of very considerable merit, in the reign of Charles I. was born in London, but descended from an ancient and genteel family in Leicestershire, the history of which is amply detailed by the able historian of that county. He was the fourth son of Nicholas Herrick, of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, by Julian Stone his wife, and was born in August 1591. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, from 1615 to 1617; and Wood, who indeed speaks with hesitation, seems wrong in placing him in his Athenæ Oxonienses. He is said to have afterwards removed to Trinity hall, Cambridge; but nothing more of his academical progress is known. Being patronised by the earl of Exeter, he was presented by king Charles I. on the promotion of Dr. Potter to the see of Carlisle, to the vicarage of Dean Prior in Devonshire, Oct. 1, 1629, where he became distinguished for his poetical talents and wit. During the prevalence of the parliamentary interest, he was ejected from his living, and resided in London in St. Anne’s parish, Westminster, until the Restoration, when he again obtained his vicarage. The time of his death is not known. His poetical works are contained in a scarce volume, entitled “Hesperides, or the works, both humane and divine, of Robert Herrick, Esq. London,” 1643, 8vo. To this volume was appended his “Noble numbers, or, his pious pieces,” in which, says Wood, “he sings the birth of Christ, and sighs for his Saviour’s sufferings on the cross. These two books made him much admired in the time they were published, and especially by the generous and boon loyalists, who commiserated his sufferings.” In 1810, Dr. Nott of Bristol published a selection from the “Hesperides,” which may probably contribute to revive the memory of Herrick as a poet, who certainly in vigour of fancy, feeling, and ease of vereification, is entitled to a superior rank among the bards of his period, He is one of those, however, who will require the selector’s unsparing hand, for, notwithstanding his “pious pieces,” there are too many of an opposite description, which cannot, like his quaint conceits, be placed to the account of the age in which he lived.

In 1731, sir William Clayton, bait, presented him to the rectory of Blechingly in Surrey; upon which he was succeeded in that of Barclay by Mr. Castle. About the close of the same year, his majesty nominated him to the deanery of Rochester, where he was installed on the fifth of February 1731-2. In 1737 he was preferred to the bishopric of Bangor; and, on the death of archbishop Blackburn, in 1743, translated to the archiepiscopal see of York. While he was employed in the business of this high station, the rebellion broke out in Scotland; when his love for his country, his prince, his religion, would not suffer him to remain an indolent and unactive spectator of the dangers which threatened the happy constitution and liberties of these kingdoms. He was indefatigable in assisting, advising, and persuading the inhabitants of his diocese to join heartily in an association, then on foot, for defending his majesty’s sacred person and government. In consequence of these services, the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury becoming vacant by the death of archbishop Potter, in 1747, Dr. Herring was translated thither. In 1753 he was seized with a violent fever, which brought him to the brink of the grave; and though he did in some measure recover, yet from that time he might be rather said to languish, than to live. He retired to Croydon, declined all public business, and saw little other company than his relations and particular friends. After languishing about four years, he expired March 13, 1757; and, agreeably to the express direction of his will, was interred in a private manner, in the vault of Croydon church. In 1763 a volume of his sermons on public occasions was printed, which bear the strongest marks of unaffected piety and benevolence; ancl the profits of the edition were given to the treasurer of the London Infirmary, for the use of that charity. A volume of his “Letters” was also published by the Rev. Mr. Buncombe in 1777, which exhibit his character in a very amiable point of view, and include many interesting particulars of his life, ably illustrated by the editor. The virtues of the man, indeed, appear to have afforded the principal cause of the high praises every where bestowed on the archbishop. The natural mildness and indolence of his temper, led him to a degree of indifference towards the disputed doctrines of the church, which procured him the good opinion of the sectaries, some of whom, not content with mere foibearance, seem to have wished his more active co-operation, and have accused him of diffidence and timidity; and from his having spoken slightingly of the orthodox in one of his letters, and having said “1 abhor every tendency to the Trinity controversy,” they thought him willing, but unfortunately not ready, to bring about what they call a reformation in the doctrines of the church. In these respects they probably mistook his character . While archbishop of York, he much improved the gardens at Bishopsthorpe, and gave a new clock to the turret; and after his advancement to the metropolitical see of Canterbury, he laid out about 6000l. in repairing the houses and gardens at Lambeth and Croydon. By his last will, he left to the incorporated society for the relief of the widows and sons of poor clergymen the sum of 1000l. and to the master and fellows of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, the sum of 1000l. Old South Sea stock, towards rebuilding or repairing the college. His grace was never married

, or Hersan, a French divine, known chiefly for a violent satire which he wrote against cardinal Richelieu, under the feigned name of Optatus Gallus, which, having been condemned and burnt by the parliament of Paris, is become very scarce, and therefore sells at from 60 to 100 livres, among French collectors. It is entitled “Optati Galli de cavendo Schismate, Liber Paraeneticus,” and was published at Paris in 1640, in 8vo. There is, however, a counterfeit edition, bearing the same date, which is distinguished from the true by a very few differences, as superiorum for Superiore, in p. 7, and by the sentence of parliament which takes up twelve pages, and only eleven in the counterfeit. In this book the author maintained that the Galilean church was in danger of separating from Home, like the English, and strenuously maintained the supremacy of the pope. The cardinal employed three or four writers to answer this anonymous assailant, the best of whom was Isaac Habert in his treatise “De consensu hierarchies et monarchic;” but the author in the mean time retired to Rome, where after a time his violence and indiscretion involved him with the inquisition, on some points respecting the doctrine of grace, which he handled in a “Panegyric on St. Louis.” He was cited, refused to appear, and was excommunicated. He therefore returned to France, where he died in 1660. There are extant also by him, a paraphrase on Solomon’s Song, in prose, published in 1635, 8vo; some funeral orations, sermons, and attacks against the congregation of the oratory, which he had quitted; with a few other pieces. His chief promotion was that of chancellor to the church of Metz.

His liberality and independence of mind began to appear while at Oxford, where he had a small exhibition of twenty pounds a year; but when his father, after he entered the church, urged him to take some curacy in or near Oxford, and to hold his exhibition, he would by no means comply, as he thought it unjust to detain it, after he was in orders, from some other person who might want it to promote their education. He then, in 1736, left Oxford, and became his father’s curate, and afterwards went to London; but, after a short stay, accepted the curacy of Dummer in Hampshire. Here he continued about a year, until he was invited to Stokes Abbey in Devonshire, the seat of his worthy friend Paul Orchard, esq. with whom he lived upwards of two years. It was to this gentleman’s son that he dedicated the second volume of his “Meditations.”

His labours both in the ministerial office and in his study were pursued by him as long as possible; but his constitution, originally weak, and greatly injured by his late illness, soon exhibited the usual symptoms and concomitants of rapid decay, attended with a hectic cough, which proved fatal on Christmas-day, 1758, in the forty-fourth year of his age. His death, throughout the district over which he extended his services, was deemed a public loss. By the poor it was felt to be so in every sense. In the exercise of his charity he was unbounded, but he was alsa judicious. He chose to clothe the poor rather than to give them money, and intrusted some friend to buy linen, coarse cloth, stockings, shoes, &c. for them at the best hand, alleging that the poor could not purchase on such good terms what they wanted at the little shops and with small sums of money. But when money promised to be serviceable to a family distressed by sickness or misfortune, he would frequently give five or more guineas at a time, taking care that it should not be known whence the money came. It would be endless to enumerate the personal virtues of Mr. Hervey. He was the father, the instructor, the guide, and the friend of all to whom kindness or instruction was necessary. His piety was constant, ardent, and sincere. It appears in all his writings, but not in them more than in his life and conversation. He viewed every object of art or nature only as it made part of the great Creator’s works, and was ever ready to give such a turn to common incidents or appearances as might suggest some pious reflection or useful hint

His writings aiv, 1. “Meditations and Contemplations; containing Meditations among the Tombs Reflections on a Flower-garden; and a Descant on Creation,” 1716, 8vo. He sold the copy, after it had passed through several editions; which sale, and the profits of the former impressions, amounted to about 700l. The whole of this he gave in charity; savin/, that as Providence had blessed Ins attempt, he thought himself bound to relieve his fellowcreatures with it. 2. “Contemplations on the Night and Starry Heavens; and a Winter Piece,” 1747, 8vo. Both these have been turned into blank verse, in imitation of Dr. Young’s “Night Thoughts,” by Mr. Newcomb. 3. “Remarks on Lord BolingbrokeV Letters on the Study and Use of History, so far as they relate to the History of the Old Testament, &c. in a letter to a lady of quality,” 1753, 8vo. 4. “Theron and Aspasio or, a Series of Dialogues and Letters on the most important subjects,” 1755, 3 vols. 8vo. Some of the principal points which he endeavours to illustrate in this work, are the beauty and excellence of the Scriptures; the ruin and depravity of human nature; its happy recovery founded on the atonement, and effected by the Spirit of Christ. But the grand article is, the imputed righteousness of Christ his notion of which has been attacked by several writers. He introduces most of his dialogues with descriptions of some of the most delightful scenes of the creation. To diversify the work, short sketches of philosophy are also occasionally introduced, easy to be understood, and calculated to entertain the imagination, as well as improve the heart. 5. Some “Sermons,” the third edition published after his death, 1759. 6. An edition of “Jenks’s Meditations,” 1757, with a strong recommendatory preface. 7. A recommendatory preface to “Burntiam’s pious Memorials,” published in 1753, 8vo. 8. “Eleven Letters to Wesley.” 9. “Letters to Lady Frances Shirley,” 1782, 8vo. All these are included in the genuine edition of his works, 6 vols. 8vo, printed for Messrs. Rivington, whose predecessor published all Mr. Hervey’s works. In 1311 appeared, for the first time, what may be considered as a seventh volume, entitled “Letters elegant, interesting, and evangelical, illustrative of the author’s amiable character, and many circumstances of his early history not generally known.” It is somewhat singular that they were dedicated by the editor colonel Burgess to Paul Orchard, esq. the same gentleman to whom sixty-four years before Mr. Hervey had dedicated his “Meditations.”

, a political and poetical writer of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John first earl of Bristol, by his second wife, Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir to sir Thomas Felton of Playford in the county of Suffolk, bart. He was born Oct. 15, 1696, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1715, previously to which, on Nov. 7, 1714, he had been made gentleman of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. He came into parliament soon after the accession of George I. and was appointed vice-chamberlain to the king in 1730, and a privy counsellor. In 1733 he was called up by writ to the house of peers, as lord Hervey of Ickworth; and in 1740 was constituted lord privy seal, from which post he was removed in 1742. He died Aug. 5, 1743, in the forty-seventh year of his age, a short period, but to which his life had been protracted with the greatest care and difficulty. Having early in life felt some attacks of the epilepsy, he entered upon and persisted in a very strict regimen, which stopped the progress of that dreadful disease, but prevented his acquiring, or at least long enjoying, the blessing of sound health. It is to this rigid abstemiousness that Pope malignantly alludes in the character he has given of lord Hervey, under the name of Sporus, in the line “the mere white curd of asses milk.” But lord Hervey affords a memorable instance of the caution with which we ou^ht to read the characters drawn by Pope and his associates; nor can too much praise be given to his late editors for the pains they have taken to rescue some of them from the imputations which proceeded from the irritable temper and malignity of that admired satirist. In the character of Sporus, Dr. Warton has justly observed, that language cannot afford more glowing or more forcible terms to express the utmost bitterness of contempt. Pope and his lordship were once friends; but they quarrelled at a time when the poetical world seemed to be up in arms, and perpetually contending in a manner disgraceful to their characters. In the quarrel between Pope and lord Hervey, it appears that Pope was the aggressor, and that lord Hervey wrote some severe lines in reply, and An Epistle from a Nobleman to a Doctor of Divinity.“1733. (Dr. Sherwin). In answer to this, Pope wrote the” Letter to a Noble Lord, on occasion of some libels written and propagated at court in the year 1732-3,“which is printed in his Works, and, as Warburton says,” is conducive to what he had most at heart, his moral character,“to which, after all, it conduced very little, as he Violated every rule of truth and decency in his subsequent attack on lord Hervey in the” Prologue to the Satires,“under the character of Sporus, whic,h, we agree with Mr. Coxe,” cannot be read without disgust and horror disgust at the indelicacy of the allusions, and horror at the malignity of the poet, in laying the foundation of his abuse on the lowest species of satire, personal invective; and what is still worse, on sickness and debility."

"The detail of the merits of such a man cannot be uninteresting, either to the profession he adorned, or the country which he served; and the remembrance of his virtues must be pleasing to those who were honoured with his esteem; as every hour and every situation of his life afforded fresh opportunities for the exercise of such virtues, they were best known to those who saw him most. But however strong and perfect their impression, they can be but inadequately described by one who long enjoyed the happiness of his friendship, and advantage of his example, and must ever lament the privation of his society.

u He engaged in the sea service when he was ten years old: the quickness of his parts, the decision of his temper, the excellency of his understanding, the activity of his mind, the eagerness of his ambition, his indefatigable industry, his unremitting diligence, his correct an-d extensive memory, his ready and accurate judgment, the promptitude, clearness, and arrangement with which his ideas were formed, and the happy perspicuity with which they were expressed, were advantages peculiar to himself, His early education under captain William Hervey and admiral Byng (two of the best officers of their time), with his constant employment in active service from his first going to sea till the close of the last war , had furnished ample matter for experience, from which his penetrating genius and just observation, had deduced that extensive and systematic knowledge of minute circumstances and important principles^ which is necessary to form an expert seaman and a shining officer: with the most consummate professional skill, he possessed the most perfect courage that ever fortified an heart or brightened a character; be loved enterprize, he was cool in danger, collected in distress, decided in difficulties, ready and judicious in his expedients, and persevering in his determinations; his orders in the most critical situations, and for the most various objects, were delivered with a firmness and precision which spake a confidence in their propriety, and facility in their execution, that ensured a prompt and successful obedience in those to whom they were addressed.

"He was not more eminent for those talents by which a country is served, than distinguished by those qualities which render a man useful, respected, esteemed, and beloved in society. In the general intercourse of the world, he was an accomplished gentleman and agreeable companion his manners were noble as his birth, and engaging as his disposition he was humane, benevolent, compassionate, and generous his humanity was conspicuous in his profession when exercised towards the seamen, the sensibility and attention of a commander they adored, was the most flattering relief that could be afforded to the sufferings or distresses of those who served with him; when exerted towards her enemies, it did honour to his country, by exemplifying in the most striking manner that generosity which is the peculiar characteristic and most distinguished virtue of a brave, free, and enlightened people. In other situations his liberality was extensive without ostentation, and generally bestowed where it would be most felt and least secn/upon modest merit, and silent distress. His friendships were warm, and permanent beyond the grave, extending their influence to those who shared the affections or enjoyed the patronage of their objects. His resentment was open, and his forgiveness sincere; it was the effect, perhaps the weakness, of an excellent mind, that with him, an injury which he had forgiven was as strong a claim to his protection, as a favour received could be to his gratitude.

Soon after his translation to Derry, he made a parochial visitation, by which the residence of his clergy, and the erection of their parsonage-houses, were settled and provided for. He also instituted a fund for the support of the superannuated curates of his diocese, regulations which made him extremely popular in his diocese. In 1770, the corporation of Londonderry presented him with the freedom of their city, in a gold box, a compliment never before paid to his predecessors, “because his lordship had effected, what none of his predecessors had before so much as considered, the two most important points in this town a bridge and a colliery.” In this same year, he had the liberality to offer the Roman catholic, or titular bishop of Derry, a considerable sum of money, in order to build a chapel, that he might not be obliged to officiate to his congregation in the open air; with only this condition, that he should pray for the king and royal family. But, although the titular bishop had never failed to do so, he thought proper not to accept the donation, lest it should be said that his motive for loyalty was his lordship’s benefaction.

Hesiod, having entered into the service of the Muses, discontinued the pastoral life, and applied himself to the study of arts and learning. When he was grown old, for it is agreed by all that he lived to a very great age, he removed to Locris, a town about the same distance from, Parnassus as Ascra was from Helicon. The story of his death, as told by Solon in Plutarch’s “Banquet,” is very remarkable. The man with whom Hesiod lived at Locris, a Milesian born, ravished a maid in the same house; and though Hesiod was entirely ignorant of the fact, yet being maliciously accused to her brothers as an accomplice, he was injuriously slain with the ravisher, and thrown with him into the sea. It is added, that when the inhabitants of the place heard of the crime, they drowned the perpetrators, and burned their houses. We have the knowledge of some few monuments, which were framed in honour of this poet. Pausanias, in his Boeotics, informs us, that his countrymen, the Boeotians, erected to him an image with a harp in his hand; and relates in another place, that there was likewise a statue of Hesiod in the temple of Jupiter Olympicus. Ursinus and Boissard have exhibited a breast with a head, a trunk without a head, and a gem of him; and Ursinus says, that there is a statue of brass of him in the public college at Constantinople. The “Theogony,” and “Works and Days,” are the only undoubted pieces of this poet now extant: though it is supposed, that these poems are not perfect. The “Theogohy, or Generation of the Gods,” Fabricius makes indisputably the work of Hesiod; “nor is it to be doubted,” adds he, “that Pythagoras took it for his, who feigned that he saw in hell the soul of Hesiod tied in chains to a brass pillar, for what he had written concerning the nature of the gods.” This doubtless was the poem which gave Herodotus occasion to say, that Hesiod and Homer were the first who introduced a Theogony among the Grecians; the first who gave names to the gods, ascribed to them honours and arts, and gave particular descriptions of their persons. The “Works and Days” of Hesiod, Plutarch assures us, were used to be sung to the harp. Virgil has shewn great respect to this poet, and proposed him as his pattern in his Georgics, though in truth he has greatly excelled him. There is also in the works of Hesiod a large fragment of another poem, called the “Shield of Hercules,” which some have ascribed to him, and some have rejected. Manilins has given a high character of this poet and his works. Heinsi is in the preface to his edition of Hesiod remarks, that among all the poets, he scarce knew any but Homer and Hesiod, who could represent nature in her true native dress; and tells us, that nature had begun and perfected at the same time her work in these two poets, whom for that very reason he makes no scruple to call Divine. In general, the merit of Hesiod has not been estimated so highly; and it is certain that, when compared with Homer, he must pass for a very moderate poet: though in defining their different degrees of merit, it may perhaps be but reasonable to consider the different subjects on which the genius of each was employed. But his “Works and Days” is certainly an interesting and valuable monument of antiquity, as written so near what may be termed the origin of Greek poetry. The first edition of the “Opera et Dies” is supposed to have been printed at Milan in 1493, folio, and the first edition of Hesiod’s entire works, from the Aidine press, appeared at Venice, 1495, folio. Both are described in the Bibl. Spenceriana. The best editions since are those of Gra^vius, Amst. 1667, Gr. and Lat. Le Clerc, Amst. 1701, 8vo Robinson, Oxford, 1737, 4to; and Loesner, Leipsic, 1778, 8vo. All these are Gr. and Lat. We have English translations of the “Works and Days” by Chapman, 1618, 4to> and by Cooke, 1729 and 1740.

, or Hesselius, a celebrated professor of theology at Louvain, was born there in 1522. Being sent as a legate to the council of Trent, he greatly distirrguished himself by his profound erudition. He was particularly conversant in the works of St. Austin and St. Jerom, and was more remarkable for judgment than for eloquence. After having been afflicted by the stone, he died of an apoplexy at the early age of forty-four, in 1566, and was buried in the church of St. Peter at Louvain, of which he was a canon. He wrote a great number of controversial works against the protestants, which in his time were much esteemed. Also, 1. “Commentaries on St. Matthew, and several of the Epistles.” 2. “A famous Catechism,” containing a vast mass of moral and theological learning. His epitaph says, “Hoereses suo tern pore grassantes turn viva voce, turn editis libris strenue profligavit.” “The heresies which were spreading in his time he stoutly defeated both by speeches and books,” which means no more than that he wrote ably against the reformers.

was a celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, whom Isaac Casaubon has declared to be, in his opinion, of all the ancient critics, whose remains are extant, the most learned and instructive, for those who would apply themselves in earnest to the study of the Greek language. Who or what Hesychius was, and indeed at what time precisely he lived, are circumstances which there is not light enough in antiquity to determine; as Fabricius himself owns, who has laboured abundantly about them. He has left us a learned lexicon or vocabulary of Greek words, from which we may perceive that he was a Christian, or, at least, that he had a thorough and intimate knowledge of Christianity; for he has inserted in his work the names of the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, as well as of those ancient writers who have commented upon them. Some say that he was a disciple of Gregory of Nazianzen, and that he was extremely well versed in the sacred Scriptures: and Sixtus Sinensis is of opinion that he ought to be placed about the end of the fourth century. The first edition of Hesychius’s lexicon was published in folio by Aldus at Venice in 1513; then appeared one by Schrevelius, at Leyden, in 4to, in 1668, in Greek only. The best edition is in two volumes, folio; the first published by Albert! at Leyden in 1746 the second, completed by Ruhnkenius, after the death of Alberti, and published in 1766. This is a complete and excellent edition, abounding in learned and useful notes. It is reckoned one of the best editions existing of any ancient author. But, after all the labours of the acutest men, much yet remains to be corrected and discovered in this work.

, or Hevelke, a celebrated astronomer and mathematician, was born at Dantzic January 28, 1611. His parents, who were of rank and fortune, gave him a liberal education; in which he discovered early a propensity to natural philosophy and astronomy. He studied mathematics under Peter Crugerus, in which he made a wonderful progress; and learned also to draw, to engrave, and to work both in wood and iron in such a manner as to be able to frame mechanical instruments. In 1630 he set out upon his travels, on which he spent four years, visiting Holland, England, France, and Germany; and on his return was so taken up with civil affairs, that he was obliged to intermit his studies for some years, until his master, Crugerus, who foresaw his future fame, recalled him to the study of astronomy; and in 1639 Hevelius began to apply himself entirely to it, by building an observatory upon the top of his house, which he furnished with instruments for making the most accurate observations. He constructed excellent telescopes himself, and began his observations with the moon, whose various phases and spots he noted very accurately; “with a view,” as he says, “of taking lunar eclipses with greater exactness, and removing those difficulties which frequently arise for want of being able to settle more precisely the quantity of an eclipse.” When he had finished his course of observations, and prepared a great number of fine engravings, he published his work at Dantzick, 1647, under the title of “Selenographia, sive, Luna3 descriptio;” to which he added, by way of appendix, the phases of the other planets, as they are seen through the telescope, with observations upon them, upon the spots of the sun and Jupiter in particular; all engraved by himself upon copper, and distinctly placed before the eyes of the reader. At the entrance of this work there is a handsome mezzotinto of himself by Falek, as he then was, in his thirty-sixth year, with a just encomium, although in bad Latin verse.

After this, Hevelius continued to make his observations upon the heavens, and to publish, from time to time, whatever he thought might tend to the advancement of astronomy. In 1654 he published two epistles; one to the famous astronomer Ricciolus, “De motu Lunae libratorio;” another to the no less famous Bulialdus, “De utriusque luminaris defectu.” In 1656, a dissertation “De natura Saturni faciei, ejusque phasibus certa periodoredeuntibus.” In 1661, “Mercurius in sole visus.” In 1662, “Historiola de nova stella in collo Ceti.” In 1665, “Prodromus Cometicus, or the history of a Comet, which appeared in 1664.” Jn 1666, “The History of another Comet, which appeared in 1665;” and, in 1668, “Cometographia, cometarum naturam, et omnium a mundo condito historian! exhibens.” He sent copies of this work to several members of the royal society at London, and among the rest to Hooke; who in return sent Hevelius a description of the dioptric telescope, with an account of the manner of using it; and at the same time recommended it to him as greatly preferable to telescopes with plain sights. This gave rise to a dispute between them; the point of which was, “whether distances and altitudes could be taken with plain sights nearer than to a minute.” Hooke asserted that they could not; but that, with an instrument of a span radius, by the help of a telescope, they might be determined to the exactness of a second. Hevelius, on the other hand, insisted, that, by the advantage of a good eye and long use, he was able with his instruments to come up even to that exactness; and appealing to experience and facts, sent by Way of challenge eight distances, each between two different stars, to be examined by Hooke. Thus the affair rested for some time with outward decency, but not without some inward animosity. In 1673 Hevelius published the first part of his “Machina Ccelestis,” as a specimen of the exactness both of his instruments and observations; and sent several copies as presents to his friends in England, but omitted Hooke. This, it is supposed, occasioned Hooke to print, in 1674, “Animadversions on the first part of the Machina Ccelestis;” in which he treated Hevelius with great disrespect, and threw out several unhandsome reflections, which were greatly resented; and the dispute grew afterwards so public, and rose to such a height, that, in 1679, Halley went at the request of the royal society, to examine both the instruments and the observations made with them. Halley gave a favourable judgment of both, in a letter to Hevelius; and Hooke, merely from his mode of managing the controversy, was universally condemned, though the preference has since been given to telescopic sights. Hevelius, however, could not be prevailed with to make use of them: whether he thought himself too experienced to be informed by a young astronomer, as he considered Hooke; or whether, having made so many observations with plain sights, he was unwilling to alter his method, lest he might bring their exactness into question; or whether, being by long practice accustomed to the use of them, and not thoroughly apprebending the use of the other, nor well understanding the difference, is uncertain. Besides Halley’s letter, Hevelius received many others in his favour, which he took the opportunity of inserting among the astronomical observations in his “Ami us Ciimuctericus,” printed in 1685. In a long preface prefixed to this work, he spoke with more conn“­dence and greater indignation than he had done before; and particularly exclaimed against Hooke’s dogmatical and magisterial manner of assuming a kind of dictatorship over him. This revived the dispute, and caused several learned men to engage in it. The book itself being sent to the royal society, an account was given of it at their request by Dr. Wallis who, among other things took notice, that” Hevelius’s observations had been misrepresented, since it appeared from this book, that he could distinguish by plain sights to a small part of a minute.“About the same time, Molynea;jx also wrote a letter to the society in vindication of Hevelius against Hooke’s” Animadversions.“Hooke drew up an answer to this letter, which was read likewise before the society; in which he observed,” that he was not the aggressor, and denied that he had intended to depreciate Hevelins."

, an English divine, descended from an ancient family at Pentre-Heylin in Montgomeryshire, the son of Henry Heylin, gent, hy Elizabeth, daughter of Francis Clampard, of Wrotham in Kent, and was born at Burford in Oxfordshire, Nov. 29, 1600. In 16J3 he was entered of Hart-hall in Oxford, and two years after chosen a demy of Magdalen-college. He had, while at school, given a specimen of his genius for dramatic poetry, in a tragi-comedy on the wars and fate of Troy; and now composed a tragedy, entitled “Spurius,” which was so approved by his society, that the president, Dr. Langton, ordered it to be acted in his apartments. After this, he read cosmographical lectures in the college, which being a very unusual thing, and he very conversant in that branch of science, so.much recommended him to the society, that he was chosen fellow in 16 1 y. In 1621 he published his u Microcosm us, or Description of the World;" the chief materials of which were the lectures just mentioned. It was universally approved, and so speedily sold, that, in 1624, it was reprinted in the same size, but with considerable additions, and again presented to prince Charles, to whom it had been dedicated. It was soon after put into the hands of the king, who seemed at first greatly pleased with it; till meeting with a passage in it, where Heylin gave precedency to the French king, and styled France the more famous kingdom, he took so much offence, that he ordered the lord-keeper to suppress the book. Heylin, to make his peace with the king, declared that the error, in one of the exceptionable passages, was entirely the printer’s, who had put is instead of was; and that when he himself mentioned the precedency of France before England, he did not speak of England as it then stood augmented by Scotland, and besides he took what he did say from Camden’s Remains. James being satisfied with this apology, Heylin took care that the whole clause, which gave so much disgust, should be left out in all future impressions. The work was afterwards successively enlarged, till it became a great folio, and has since been often reprinted in that size.

In 1625 he went over to France, where he continued about six weeks, and took down in writing an account of his journey; the original manuscript of which he gave to his friend lord Danvers, but kept a copy for himself, which was published about thirty years after. Jn April 1627, he answered, pro forma, upon these two questions: 1. <* An ecclesia unquam fuerit invisibles“” Whether the church was ever invisible?“2.” An ecclesia possit errare“”Whether the church can err“both which determining in the affirmative, a great clamour was raised against him as a papist, or at least a favourer of popery. Wood says, that Prideaux, the divinity-professor,” fell foul upon him for it, calling him Bellarminian, Pontifician, and I know not what." Heylin was not easy under the charge of being popishly affected; for which reason, to clear himself from that imputation, he took an opportunity, in preaching before the king on John iv. 20, of declaring vehemently against some of the errors and corruptions of the Romish church. In 1628, lord Danvers, then earl of Danby, recommended him to Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; by whose interest also, in 1629, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty. On Act-Sunday 1630, he preached before the university of Oxford at St. Mary’s on Matth. xiii. 25, whence he took occasion to deliver his sentiments very freely in regard to an affair which at first sight had a specious appearance of promoting the honour and emolument of the ecclesiastical state, but was in reality a most iniquitous scheme, injurious to the laity, and of no service where it was pretended to avail. This was a feoffment, that some designing persons had obtained, for the buying in of impropriations; but Heylin, seeing through the disguise, exposed very clearly the knavery of the designers. About this time he resigned his fellowship, having been married near two years; in concealing which marriage he acted very unstatutably, not to say dishonestly, nor did his friends attempt to justify him for it. What rendered it more irregular was, that he was married in Magdalen-college chapel.

In 1631 he published his “History of that most famous Saint and Soldier of Jesus Christ, St. George of Cappadocia,” &c. to which he subjoined, “the institution of the most noble order of St. George, named the garter” &c. which work he presented to his majesty, to whom he was introduced by Laud, then raised to the see of London. It was graciously received by the king, and Heylin soon after reaped the fruits of it: for in Oct. 1631 he was presented to the rectory of Hemmingford in Huntingdonshire, to a prebend of Westminster in November following, and shortly after to the rectory of Houghton in the bishopric of Durham, worth near 400l. per annum. In April 1633 he was created D. D. and gave fresh offence to the divinity-professor Prideaux by the questions he put up; which were, 1. “Whether the church hath authority in determining controversies of faith” 2. “Whether the church hath authority of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures” 3. “Whether the church hath authority of appointing rites and ceremonies” Of all which he maintained the affirmative. Prideaux, however, in the course of this dispute, is said to have laid down some tenets, which gave as much offence to Laud, who was chancellor of Oxford, and to the king, whom Laud informed of them, as Heylin’s had given to him as, “That the church was a mere chimera” “That it did not teach nor determine any thing.” “That controversies had better be referred to universities than to the church, and might be decided by the literari there, even though bishops were laid aside.” Heylin afterwards found an opportunity of revenging himself on Prideaux, for the rough treatment he had received from him. This divine, we are told, had delivered a lecture on the sabbath, somewhat freer than suited the rigid orthodoxy of the times; of which, however, not much notice was taken. But shortly after, when the king, by publishing the book of sports on Sundays, had raised a violent outcry throughout the nation against himself and Laud, Heyliu translated this lecture into English, and published it with a preface in 1633-4, to the great vexation of Prideaux, who suffered much in the esteem and affetion of the puritans. Williams, bishop of Lincoln and clean of Westminster, having incurred the king’s and Laud’s displeasure, and being suspended and imprisoned, Heylin was made treasurer of the church of Westminster in 1637; and was also presented by the prebendaries, his brethren, to the rectory of Islip near Oxford. This he exchanged in 1638, for that of South-Warnborough in Hampshire; and the same year was made one of the justices of the peace for that county. In 1639 he was employed by Laud to translate the Scotch liturgy into Latin; and was chosen by the college of Westminster their clerk, to represent them in convocation. But a cloud was gathering, which threatened to overwhelm all who, like him, had distinguished themselves as champions for royal or ecclesiastical prerogative. To shelter himself therefore from the impending storm, he withdrew from the metropolis, where he had long basked in the sun-shine of a court, to his parsonage; but not thinking himself secure there, retreated soon after to Oxford, then garrisoned by the king, and the seat of his residence. On this the parliament voted him a delinquent, and dispatched an order to their committee at Portsmouth, to sequester his whole estate, and seize upon his goods. In consequence of this severe decree, he was deprived of his most curious and valuable library, which was carried with his household furniture to that town. He was employed by the king at Oxford to write a periodical paper, published weekly in that city, entitled “Mercurius Aulicus;” but in 1645, when the king’s affairs became desperate, and the “Mercurius Aulicus” could be no longer supported, he quitted Oxford, and wandered from place to place, himself and his family reduced to the utmost straits. At Winchester he stayed for a while with his wife, &c. but that city being at length delivered up to the parliament, he was forced to remove again. In 1648 he went to Minster-Love! in Oxfordshire, the seat of his elder brother, which he farmed for the six or seven years following of his nephew colonel Heylin, and spent much of his time in writing. On quitting this farm, he went to Abingdon in Berkshire, where he also employed himself in composing treatises, which he published from time to time. Upon the restoration of Charles II. he was restored to all his spiritualities, and undoubtedly expected from that prince some very eminent dignity in the church, as he had heroically exerted himself in behalf of it, -as well as of the? crown; and endured so much on that account, during their suffering condition. Here, however, he was utterly disappointed, being never raised above the sub-deanery of Westminster, One day when bishop Cosin came to see him, he said “I wonder, brother Heylin, thou art not a bishop, for we all know thou hast deserved it.” To which he answered, “I do not envy them, but wish they may do more than I have done.” He died May 8, 1662, and was interred before his own stall, within the choir of the abbey, leaving by his wife, Lretitia, daughter of Thomas Highgate, of Hayes in Middlesex, esq. four children.

Wood tells us, that he was “a person endowed with singular gifts, of a sharp and pregnant wit, solid and clear judgment. In his younger years he was accounted an excellent poet, but very conceited and pragmatical; in his elder, a better historian, a noted preacher, and a ready extemporaneous speaker. He had a tenacious memory to a miracle. He was a bold and undaunted man among his friends and foes, though of a very mean port and presence; and therefore by some of them he was accounted too high and proud for his function. A constant assertor of the church’s right and the king’s prerogative; a severe and vigorous opposer of rebels and schismatics. In some things too much a party-man to be an historian, and equally an enemy to popery and puritanism.” Much perhaps cannot be added to this character. He was undoubtedly biassed and warm to a great degree, which must be imputed to, although it cannot be defended by a reference to his sufferings. That he should be suspected of popery is not very wonderful, as in his history of the reformation he preceded Collier in many of those opinions which brought the same charge against the latter; and in his aversion to puritanism he departs farther from the orthodoxy of his own chuch than is consistent with a knowledge of or attachment to its doctrines. He had, as Swift justly observes, “according to the current opinion of the age he lived in, too high notions of regal power; led by the common mistake of the term supreme magistrate, and not rightly distinguishing between the legislature and administration.”

He was a very voluminous writer, and although few of his works can be recommended to general perusal, there are none perhaps of the whole series which may not be consulted with advantage, by those who have leisure and inclination to study the history of parties, in the distracted period in which he lived. Many of his lesser pieces were published together in 1681, in a folio volume, with a life of the author by the rev. George Vernon, which having given offence to his relations, a new life was published by his son-in-law Dr. Barnard, 1682, 12mo. It is from a comparison of both (Vernon’s has since been published in 12mo) that a proper judgment can be formed of Dr. Heylin. His other works of most note are, 1. “An Help to English History,” &c. 1641, 8vo, published under the name of Robert Hall, gent, republished with the additions of Christopher Wilkinson a bookseller, but with Heylin’s name in 1670, 8vo. It was again republished, and brought down to 1709 and in 1773 an improved edition was published by Paul Wright, D. D. in 1773, a lar^e 8vo. Capt. Beatson’s “Political Index” may be considered as a continuation of this work. 2. “History of the Sabbath,” 3636, 4to, intended to reconcile the public to that dreadful error in the conduct of the court, the “Book of Sports,” which did incalculable injury to the royal cause. 3. “Theologia Veterum; the Sum of the Christian Theology contained in the creed, according to the Greeks and Latins, &c. Lond. 1654, fol. reprinted 1673. 4. Ecclesia Vindicata; or the Church of England justified, 1. In the way and manner of her Reformation, &c. 2. In officiating by a public Liturgy. 3. In prescribing a set form of Prayer to be used by preachers before their sermons. 4. In her right and patrimony of tithes. 5. In retaining the episcopal government, and therewithal the canonical ordination of priests and deacons,” London 1657, in 4to, dedicated to Mr. Edward Davys, vicar of Shilton in Berkshire, formerly his master in the free-school of Burford in Oxfordshire. 5. “Short View of the Life and Reign of King Charles (the second monarch of Great Britain) from his birth to his burial,” London, 1658, in 8vo. This Life Wood supposes to be the same with that which was printed with and prefixed to “Reliquiae sacrae Carolina,” printed at the Hague, 1649, in 8vo. 6. “Examen Historicum or a discovery and examination of the mistakes and defects in some modern histories, viz. 1. In the Church History of Britain, by Tho. Fuller. To which is added, an Apology of Dr. Jo. Cosin, dean of Peterborough, in answer to some passages in the Church History of Britain, in which he finds himself concerned. 2. In the History of Mary Queen of Scots, and of her son King James VI,; the History of King James I. of Great Britain; and the History of King Charles I. from his cradle to his grave, by Will. Sanderson, esq. London, 1658, in a large 8vo. To this is ndded, An Appendix in an answer to some passages in a scurrilous pamphlet called A Post-haste Reply, &c. by Will. Sanderson, esq.” Soon after Dr. Thomas Fuller published a thin folio, entitled “The Appeal for injured Innocence,” which was commonly bound up with the remaining copies of his Church History in quires; and Mr. Sanderson wrote. a pamphlet, entitled “Peter pursued; or Dr. Heylin overtaken, arrested, and arraigned upon his three Appendixes: 1. Respondet Petrus. 2. Answer to Post-Haste Reply. 3. Advertisements on three Histories. viz. of Mary Queen of Scots, King James, and King Charles,” 1658, in 8 sheets in 4to. 7. “Historia QuinquArticularis: or a declaration of the Judgment of the Western Churches, and more particularly of the Church of England, in the five controverted points, reproached in these last times by the name of Arminianism. Collected in the way of an Historicall Narration out of the public acts and monuments, and most approved authors of those scverall churches,” London, 1660, in 4to. This involved him in a controversy with some able writers. 8. “History of the Reformation of the Church of England from the first preparations to it made by King Henry VIII. until the legal settling and establishing of it underQueen Elizabeth,*' &c. London, 1661, 1670, and 1674, in folio. 9.” Cyprianus Anglicus r or the History of the Life and Death of William (Laud) Archbishop of Canterbury,“&c. London, 1668 and 1671, fol. 10.” Aerius Redivivus: or the History of the Presbyterians. Containing the beginning, progress, and successes of that sect. Their oppositions to monarchical and episcopal government. Their innovations in the church; and their inbroylments of the kingdoms and estates of Christendom in the pursuit of their designes. From the year 1536 to the year 1647," London, 1670 and 1672, in folio.

When young, she attempted dramatic poetry, but with no great success; none of her plays being either much approved at first, or revived afterwards. She had also an inclination for the theatre as a performer, and was on the stage at Dublin in 1715. It would be natural to impute gallantry to such a woman, yet nothing criminal was ever laid to her charge. On the contrary, she is represented as not only good-natured, affable, lively, and entertaining, but as a woman also of strict decorum, delicacy, and prudence, whatever errors she might have committed in her younger years. She died Feb. 25, 1756.

At the decease of that princess, however, being a bigoted Roman catholic, perceiving that the protestant interest was likely to prevail under the patronage of her successor queen Elizabeth, and perhaps apprehensive that some of the severities, which had been practised on the protestants in the preceding reign, might be retaliated on those of a contrary persuasion in the ensuing one, and especially on the peculiar favourites of queen Mary, he thought it best, for the security of his person, and the preservation of his religion, to quit the kingdom. Thus throwing himself into a voluntary exile, he settled at Mechlin in Brabant, where he died in 1565, leaving several children behind him, to all of whom he had given liberal educations. His character in private life seems to have been that of a sprightly, humourous, and entertaining companion. As a poet, he was held in no inconsiderable esteem by his contemporaries, though none of his writings extended to any great length, but seem, like his conversation, to have been the result of little sudden sallies of mirth and humour. His longest work is entitled “A Parable of the Spider and the Fly,” and forms a pretty thick quarto in old English verse, and printed in the black letter, 1556. Our honest chronicler Holinshed describes this poem in the following words “One also hath made a booke of the Spider and the Flie, wherein he dealeth so profoundlie, and beyond all measure of skill, that neither he himselfe that made it, neither anie one that readeth it, can reach unto the meaning thereof.” Description of England, p. 229. By way of Frontispiece to this book, is a wooden print of the author at full length, and most probably in the habit he usually wore; for he is drest in a fur gown, somewhat resembling that of a master of arts, excepting that the bottom of the sleeves reach no lower than his knees. He has a round cap on his head, and a dagger hanging to his girdle; and his chin and lips are close shaven. There are seventy-seven chapters in this work, at the beginning of each of which is the portrait of the author, either standing or sitting before a table, with a book on it, and a window near it hung round with cobwebs, flies, and spiders. A perfect copy of this work is now of rare occurrence, and on that account only very dear, for, as Warton justly observes, there never was so dull, so tedious, and trifling an apologue, without fancy, meaning, or moral.

, a half-crazy kind of writer, whose works may probably excite some curiosity respecting the author, was born in 1630, in Essex, where there was a considerable family of that name. He was first a pensioner in St. John’s college, Cambridge; then, in 1650, junior bachelor of Gonvill and Caius college. He was soon after a lieutenant in the English army in Scotland, then a captain in general Fleetwood’s regiment, when he was Swedish ambassador in England for Carolus Gustavus. He afterwards went to Jamaica in some capacity, and on his return, in 1660, published an account of it, called “Jamaica viewed,” 4to. two editions of which were printed in 1661, dedicated to Charles II. who in return appointed the author secretary to the earl of Windsor, then going out as governor of Jamaica. This post, however, he did not accept, but took orders, and first obtained the vicarage of Boxted in Essex, Oct. 22, 1662, and, about the same time, the rectory of All Saints, Colchester. The former he resigned in 1664, but retained the latter the whole of his life, notwithstanding he gave much offence to his brethren by his wild and often scurrilous attacks on the church in a variety of pamphlets. “He was a man,” says Newcourt, “though episcopally ordained (by bishop Sanderson), yet publicly bade defiance to the prelacy, and that of his own diocesan in particular: an impudent, violent, ignorant fellow, very troublesome, as far as he could, to his right reverend diocesan, and to all that lived near him.” He died Nov. 30, 1708, and was interred in the church of All Saints, Colchester, with a long Latin epitaph, part of which, “Reverendus admodum Dominus tarn Marte quain Mercurio clarus, quippe qui terra marique militavit non sine gloria, ingeniique vires scriptis multiplice argumento insignitis demonstravit, c.” was afterwards effaced, by order, as it was commonly reported at Colchester, of bishop Compton. His tracts, which in point of style and often of matter, are beneath criticism, were collected and published by himself in a quarto vol. 1707. They include his account of Jamaica the trial of the spiritual courts general history of priestcraft; a satyr upon poverty; a satyr against fame the survey of the earth and the writ de excommunicato capiendo unmasked receipts to cure the evil of this wicked world the art of contentment, a poem, &c. &c. Mr. Malone has introduced him in his life of Dryden, as the author of the “Mushroom, or a satyr against libelHng tories and preiatical-tantivies, &c.” He published also a few occasional sermons, which are reprinted in a Second edition of his works, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo.

The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae & Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas. Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. inscribed to archbishop Sancroft. While the dean was writing the preface to this book, there were great disputes in the house of commons, and throughout the kingdom, about the original contract; which occasioned him to insert the ancient coronation oath of our Saxon kings, to shew, what was not very necessary, that there is not the least footstep of any such contract. 2. “Antiquae literature Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im, necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus, Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities, have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at 3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that they believed the author to be a man of a particular head; for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After his death was published another volume of his Sermons, with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.” A Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of” The judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon him the title of king. 5.” Ravillac Redivivus, being a narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, &c.“6.” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh, 'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction made them much read, and did the author considerable service with several great personages, and even with the king. 7.” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the author of” Julian.“8.” The case of Infant Baptism, 1683;“printed in the second vol. of the” London Cases, 168.5,“4to. 9.” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted, with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.” The celebrated story of the Thebati Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714, for reasons given in the preface. 12.” Reflections upon a Letter out of the country to a member of this present parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion was afterwards contradicted, 13.” A Letter to the author of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience, 16S9.“The author of the” Vindication,“was Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not to it. 14.” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr. Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs, 1689.“15.” An Apology for the new Separation, in a letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.” The Pretences of the Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19. A letter in the” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled, “Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions, quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr. G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.” The person on whose account this book was published, was the lady Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A second collection of controversial Letters relating to the church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.” This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order, against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.” Trie third edition in 1711, enlarged into two volumes, 8vo. 23. “A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas Wise, D. D. 1710.” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes, and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;” printed, after several editions, in 1714, with another title, “Seasonable Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain person.” Besides the works enumerated here, there are many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the earnest request of others, either authors or editors.

. Wood gives two authors of these names, of which some brief notice may be taken. The first, the son of Nicholas Hicks, a Cornish gentleman, was born in 1620, and was for some time a commoner of Wadham college, but removed thence by his relations to join the parliamentary forces. He was a captain of the train bands, and an enthusiast and fifth monarchy man in which spirit he wrote a folio entitled “Revelation revealed being a practical exposition on the Revelation of St. John,” Lond. 1659 but this not succeeding, a new title page and a portrait of the author were added in 1661. He died iti 1659. The other William Hicks became also a captain, apparently in the recruiting service, in the beginning of Charles Il.'s reign. With some it may be thought an honour, that he was the first compiler of & jest-book, under the title of “Oxford Jests,” which was followed by others called Oxford Drollery,“and” Coffee-house Jests,“and these by” Cambridge Jests,“” London Jests,“&c. down to our own times. Anthony Wood, who thought it no honour that Oxford should be suspected of first inventing these vulgar collections, or of educating men to compile jest-books, takes care to inform us that capt. Hicks, as he was called, owed nothing to his education there, being born in St. Thomas’s parish, of poor and dissolute parents, afterwards bred a tapster at the Star inn, then a clerk to a woodmonger at Deptford, where he was living in 1669 as capt. Hicks, but while at Oxford” was a sharking and indigent fellow,“who wrote” little trivial matters merely to get bread, and make the pot walk."

, a great persecutor of the Christians in the beginning of the fourth century, was at first president of Bithynia, and afterwards governor of Alexandria; in both which situations he acted with great cruelty against the Christians. Laotantius relates, that at the time he was teaching rhetoric in Bithynia, and the Christian church under persecution, Hierocles was then one of the judges, and had been the chief promoter of the bloody persecution which the Christians suffered under the emperor Dioclesian; and those whom he could not crush by his power, he endeavoured to destroy with his pen. With this view he composed two small books, not indeed professedly against the Christians, lest he should seem to inveigh against them as an enemy but addressed to the Christians, that he might be thought to advise them kindly as a friend. They were entitled “Aoyoi <piK*Kn8ei$ ts^ X^navaj, Sermones veri amantes ad Chnstianos” in which he endeavoured to prove that the Holy Scripture is false, by shewing it to be inconsistent with itself. He insisted upon some points, which seemed to him to contradict each other; and he collected so many peculiarities relating to Christianity, that, as Lactantius says, he may well appear to have been a Christian himself. He abused Peter and Paul, and the other disciples, as though they had been the contrivers of the cheat; and yet he confessed at the same time, that they wanted skill and learning, for that some of them gained their livelihood by fishing. He attempted also to compare the feigned miracles of Apollonius Tyanaeus with those of Jesus Christ, and pretended to prove that Apollonius had performed even greater wonders. Eusebius undertook, in his book against Hierocles, to confute the latter part of this work; but, as Cave says, “he has done it very indifferently, his confutation being little more than a bare running over of Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius.” Laclantius did not make a particular answer to Hierocles, his design being to establish the foundations of the gospel, and to ruin those of Paganism; and he thought, as he tells us, that this would be answering at once all that the adversaries of Christianity had published, or would publish for the future.

, a minor author of the last century, much patronized and befriended by Garrick, was born in the county of Dublin in 1719, and educated for a popish priest, first in Ireland, and afterwards for many years in France. Yet after all, he took his degree of bachelor in physic, and returned to Dublin that he might practise. Indolence, however, prevented his application jto that or any profession, and he came to London about 1753, where he subsisted very scantily and idly, as an author, for the remainder of his life; producing several works, but none of any great merit. He was principally employed by the booksellers in various works of translation, compilement, &c. In short, with no principles, and slender abilities, he was perpetually disgracing literature, which he was doomed to follow for bread, by such a conduct as was even unworthy of the lowest and most contemptible of the vulgar. His conversation was highly offensive to decency and good manners, and his whole behaviour discovered a mind over which the opinions of mankind had no influence. He associated, however, occasionally with some of the most celebrated men of his time, Foote, Garrick, Murphy, Goldsmith, Kelly, Sec. who tolerated his faults, and occasionally supplied his necessities, although when he thought their liberality insufficient, he made no scruple of writing the grossest libels on their character. One of his peculiar fancies was to keep the place of his lodging a secret, which he did so completely, that he refused to disclose it even when dying, to a friend who supported him, and actually received his last contributions through the channel of the Bedford coffee-house. When he died, which was in June 1777, it was discovered that he had lodged in one of the obscure courts near St. Martin’s-lane. Dr. Hiffernan, as he was usually called, was author of the folio wing works: 1.“The Ticklers,” a set of periodical and political papers, published in Dublin about 1750. 2. “The Tuner,” a set of periodical papers, published in London in 1753. 3. “Miscellanies in prose and verse,” 1754. 4. “The Ladies’ Choice,” a dramatic petite piece, acted at Coventgarden in 1759. 5. “The Wishes of a free People,” a dramatic poem, 1761. 6. “The New Hippocratrs,” a farce, acted at Drury-lane in 1761, but not published, 7. “The Earl of Warwick,” a tragedy, from the French of La Harpe, 1764. 8. “Dramatic Genius,” an essay, ia five books, 1770. 9. “The Philosophic Whim,” a farce, 1774. 10. “The Heroine of the Cave,” a tragedy, loft unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “Earl of Essex,” completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in 1774. He also issued proposals for a quarto volume of additional Miscellanies in prose and verse, which we believe never appeared.

, a polite writer in the seventeenth century, was born in 1580, at or near Alderton, Gloucestershire, and became a gentleman commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, in 1595. He was soon, however, removed to Corpus Christi, where his father William Higford, esq. and his grandfather sir John Higford, had both studied, the latter under the celebrated bishop Jewell, and both, as well as the subject of the present article, became zealous puritans. At Corpus Christi, Mr. Higford was placed under the tuition of Seb. Benefield, and was accounted an accomplished scholar and gentleman. After taking a degree in arts, he went home, was admitted into the commission of the peace, and was much respected by the lord Chandois, and other persons of quality in his country. He died at his house at Dixton, near Alderton, April 6, 1657. He left behind him some things fit for the press, but which were lost. A manuscript, however, was preserved, entitled “Institution, or Advice to his Grandson,” of which an abridgment was published by Barksdale, 1660, 12mo. This sensible volume is amply described in the “Censura Literaria.” A descendant of the author’s, the rev. Henry Higford, died at Dixton, aged eighty-six, March 25, 1795.