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

, one of the principal writers in the fourth edition of that early collection of poetical narratives, *' The Mirror for Magistrates,“1575, was a man, as it appears from his share in that work, of considerable talents in poetry, for his time. Higgins lived at Winsham in Somersetshire, was a clergyman, educated at Oxford, and was engaged in the instruction of youth. He compiled, 1. The” Floseuli of Terence,“on the plan of a former collection by Udal, master of Eton. 2. He published also,” Holcot’s Dictionaire, newly corrected, amended, set in order, and enlarged, with many names of men, townes, beastes, fowles, &c. by which you may find the Latine or French name of any Englishe worde you will. By John Higgins, late student in Oxforde.“Printed for Marshe, in 1572, folio. 3.” The Nornenclator of Adrian Junius,“translated into English, in conjunction with Abraham Fleming, and published at London for Newberie and Durham, in 1585, 8vo. From the dedication to this book he seems to have been connected with the school of Ilminster, a neighbouring town in Somersetshire. He appears to have been living so late as 1602; for in that year he published, 4. An answer to a work of controversy by one William Perkins, concerning Christ’s descent to Hell, which was dated at Winsham. The former editions of the” Mirror for Magistrates," were published in 1563, 1571, and 1574. His edition appeared in 1587. The dedication is dated a year earlier. In this he wrote a new induction in the octave stanza, and without assistance from friends began a new series of histories, from A Ibanact the youngest son of Brutus, and the first king of Albanie, or Scotland, to the emperor Caracalla. There were also a few additions by other writers, in the poems relating to British personages after the conquest.

, younger son of sir Thomas (and first cousin to the late earl of Granville), by Bridget his second wife, was born in 1670, and became a commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, in Lent term 1686; and went afterwards to Cambridge, and then to the Middle Temple. Wood enumerates five of his poems. He wrote some others and was the author of a tragedy, entitled “The Generous Conqueror, or the Timely Discovery,” acted at Drury-lane, and printed in 1702, 4to. He was a steady adherent to the cause of the exiled family; and accompanied king James into France, where he mairrtained his wit and good-humour undepressed by his misfortunes. He died in March 1735. He published a poem “on the Peace of Utrecht;” and on the publication of bishop Burnet’s “History of his own Times,” he wrote some strictures on it, in a volume entitled “Historical and Critical Remarks,” the second edition of which was printed in 1727, 8vo; and, in the same year, published “A short View of the English History, with Reflections, political, historical, civil, physical, and moral on the reigns of the kings their characters, and manners their successions to the throne, and other remarkable incidents to the Revolution 1688. Drawn from authentic Memoirs and Mss.” “These papers,” he tells us in his preface, “lay covered with dust 36 years, till every person concerned in the transactions mentioned were removed from the stage.”

, descended from a considerable family in Gloucestershire, was born at Stoke Abbat, or South Stoke, near Henley in Oxfordshire, in 1589. After being educated at Reading school, he was entered of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1606, and acquired very high reputation, both as an orator and disputant. Some time after taking his bachelor’s degree, he wrote a life of sir Thomas White, the founder of the college, in Latin verse, which is still preserved in ms. in the college. Bound up with it, is an account of the mock ceremonies on choosing a lord of misrule, an ancient Christmas frolic in that and other colleges. In 1611 he was elected probationer fellow of Merton college, and taking his Master’s degree, went into holy orders, and had two small cures bestowed on him by the college.

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

In 1761, on the marriage of his daughter to the Rev. Mr. Buncombe, son to one of his oldest friends, he took a resolution of retiring from business, and disposing of his collection of pictures, which he did by auction, in March 1762; and soon after removed to the house of his son-inlaw at Canterbury, where he passed the remainder of his life, without ever re-visiting the metropolis. But though he had laid down the pencil, he never wanted employment: so active; and vigorous was his mind, that, with a constitutional flow of spirits, and a relish for instructive society, he was “never less alone than when alone;” and, besides his professional pursuits (abovementioned), to philosophy, both natural and moral, and also divinity, he laudably dedicated his time and attention. No man lud more clearness and precision of ideas, or a more ardent desire to know the truth; and, when known, conscientiously to pursue it. With strong passions, ever guided by the strictest virtue, he had a tender, susceptible heart, always open to the distresses of his fellow-creatures, and always ready to relieve them. His capital work of the literary kind was his “Practice of Perspective, 9” the Principles of Dr. Brook

iect, but removed, by its perspicuity, the only objection that can be made to the system of Dr. Taylor. It accordincrly received, from his friends and the intelligent public, the applauses it deserved. In 1765, he published (without his name) Observations cm a pamphlet intituled, “Christianity not founded on Argument/ [by Dodwell];” in which, after shewing that it is a continued irony, and lamenting that so ample a field should be offered the author of it for the display of his sophistry, he gives up creeds, articles, and catechisms, as out-works raised by fallible men, and, confining himself to the defence of the Gospel, or citadel, shews, that pure primitive Christianity, though assaulted by infidels, will ever remain impregnable. His opinion of Rubens may be seen in the Gent. Mag. for 1766, p. 353, under the title of “Remarks on some Passages in Mr.” NVebb’s ‘ Enquiry into the Beauties of Painting,’ &c.“In the same year he published, with only his initials,” J. H.“two small volumes of” Essays, moral, religious, and miscellaneous; with a translation in prose of Mr. Browne’s Latin poem on the Immortality of the Soul,“selected from a large number written at his leisure, at different periods of his life.” As such,“says Dr. Hawkesworth, in his review of them in Gent. Mag. vol. XXXV.” they do the author great credit. They are not excursions of fancy, but efforts of f thought, and indubitable indications of a vigorous and active mind.“In the Gent. Mag. for 1769, p. 287, he communicated” A natural and obvious manner of constructing sun-dials, deduced from the situation and motion of the earth with respect to the sun,“explained by a scheme: and in that for 1778, p. 526, his remarks on colouring, suggested by way of a note on the” Epistle to an eminent Painter," will shew that his talents were by no means impaired at the age of 86. He retained them indeed to the last, and had even strength and spirit sufficient to enable him to ride out daily on horseback, the summer before he died. A strong constitution, habitual temperance, and constant attention to his health in youth as well as in age, prolonged his life, and preserved his faculties to his 88th year, when he gradually ceased to breathe; and, as it were, fell asleep, on March 3, 1780. He was interred in the south aile of Canterbury cathedral, leaving one son, Anthony, educated in his own profession; and a daughter, Susanna, mentioned above.

, or Hilary, an ancient father of the Christian church, who flourished in the fourth century, was born, as St. Jerom tells us, at Poictiers in France; but in what year, is not known. His parents, persons of rank and substance, had him liberally educated in the pagan religion, which they themselves professed, and which Hilary did not forsake till many years after he was grown-up; when reflecting upon the gross errors of paganism, he was gradually led to the truth, and confirmed in it by reading the holy Scriptures. He was then baptized, together with his wife and daughter, who were also converted with bin). He was advanced to the bishopric of Poictiers in the year 3 5 5, according to Baronius though Cave thinks he was bishop of that place some years before. As soon however as he was raised to this dignity, he became a most zealous champion of the orthodox faith, and distinguished himself particularly against the Arians, whose doctrines were at that time gaining ground in France. In 356, he was sent by Constantinus to support the party of Athanasius at the synod of Beterra, or Beziers, against Saturninusbishop of'Arles, who had just before been excommunicated by the bishops of France but Saturninus had so much influence with the emperor, who was then at Milan, as to induce that monarch to order him to be banished to Phrygia, where Hilary continued continued four years, and applied himself during that time to the composing of several works. He wrote his twelve books upon the Trinity, which Cave calls “a noble work,” and which has been much admired in all ages. He wrote also “A Treatise Concerning Synods,” addressed to the bishops of France in which he explains to them the sense of the Eastern churches upon the doctrine of the Trinity, and their man tier of holding councils. This was drawn up by Hilary, ‘after the council of Ancyra in 358, whose canons are contained in it; and before the councils of Rimini and Seleucia, which were called in the beginning of 359. ’ Some time after he was sent to the council of Seleucia, where he defended the Galiican bishops from the imputation of Sabellianism, which the Arians had fixed upun them; and boldly asserted the sound and orthodox faith of the Western bishops. He was so favourably received, and so much respected by this council, that they admitted him as one who should give in his opinion, and assist in a determination among their bishops. Hilary, however, finding the greater part of them to be Arian, would not act, although he continued at Seleucia till the council was over; and thinking the orthodox faith in the Utmost peril, followed the deputies of the council to Constantinople, when he petitioned the emperor for leave to dispute publicly with the Arians. The Arians, from a dread of his talents, contrived to have him sent to France, in which he arrived in 360, and after the catholic bishops had recovered their usual liberty and authority under Julian the Apostate, Hilary assembled several councils to reestablish the ancient orthodox faith, and to condemn the determinations of the synods of Rimini and Seleucia. He condemned Saturninus bishop of Aries, but pardoned those who acknowledged their error; and, in every respect, exerted himself so zealously, that France was in a great measure freed from Arianism by his single influence and endeavours. He extended a similar care over Italy and some foreign churches, and was particularly qualified to recover men from the error of their ways, being a man of a mild candid turn, very learned, and accomplished in the arts of persuasion, and in these respects, says the candid Dupin, “affords a very proper lesson of instruction to all who are employed in the conversion of heretics.”

, a very eminent and learned puritan divine, was descended from the royal family of England. He was the son of Thomas Hildersham, a gentleman of an ancient family, by Anne Pole (or Poole), his second wife, daughter to sir JefTery Pole, fourth son of sir Richard Pole, cousin-german to Henry VII. This sir Richard Pole’s wife was Margaret countess of Salisbury, daughter to George duke of Clarence, second brother to king Edward IV. by Isabella, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Richard earl of Warwick and Salisbury. All this will appear from the pedigree of cardinal Pole (who was Mr. Hildersham’s great uncle), as given from* the Heralds office, by the cardinal’s biographer, Mr. Phillips, but we might perhaps have passed it over, unless for a remarkable coincidence of descent which we shall soon have to notice in our account of bishop Hildesley.

Mr. Hildersham was born at Stechworth in Cambridgeshire, Oct. 6, 1563, and educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge. His parents were zealous papists, but during his abode at the university, he embraced the doctrines of the reformed church with a cordiality and decision which nothing could shake, and when his father found him so resolute, he disinherited him. He soon, however, obtained a liberal patron in his relation Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the north, who sent him to the university, which he had been obliged to leave, and generously supported him. Being disappointed of a fellowship of Christ’s college, owing to the partiality of Dr. Barwell, the master, for another candidate, he was nearly about the same time, in 1586, chosen fellow of Trinity-hall, by the influence of lord Burleigh, chancellor of the university. This fellowship, however, he did not hold above two years, and having unguardedly began to preach without being admitted into orders, he received a check from archbishop Whitgift, although this irregularity was not in those days very uncommon. In 1593, however, every obstacle of this kind being removed, the earl of Huntingdon presented him to the living of Ashby-de-la Zoncb in Leicestershire, where he remained the whole of his life. Being dissatisfied with some points of ecclesiastical discipline, snch as wearing the surplice, baptizing with the cross, and kneeling at the sacrament, he often incurred the penalties of the law, and more than once was suspended from his functions; but always restored by the intervention of some friend, or the prevalence of his own excellent character. The wonder is that a man of his learning, piety, and good sense, should have adhered with such pertinacity to matters of comparatively little consequence, when he found the law and the general sentiments of his brethren against him, and when, what was of more importance to him, those labours were interrupted in which he delighted, and in which he was eminently successful. With these interruptions, however, he continued in the exercise of his ministry at Ashby until his death, March 4, 1631. He was interred in the southside of the chancel of Ashby church, with an inscription which, after adverting to his noble descent, says that he was “more honoured for his sweet 'and ingenuous disposition, his singular wisdom in settling peace, advising in secular affairs, and satisfying doubts; his abundant charity, and especially his extraordinary knowledge and judgment in the Holy Scriptures, his painful and zealous preaching, &c.” This character is amply illustrated by his biographers, and may in part be confirmed by his works, which in point of style and matter are equal, if not superior to those of his contemporaries* Those which are best known are his “Lectures on John iv.” 1623, fol. and his “CLII Lectures on Psalm 51,” 1635, fol. In all these his steady adherence to the doctrines of the church is visible, and his aversion to sectarianism and popery. He was particularly an opponent of the Brownists, or first independents. Echardjusily says he was “a great and shining light of the puritan party, and celebrated for his singular learning and piety.” Ke was the author also of “Lectures on Psalm 34,” 1632, 4to; and “A Treatise on the Lord’s Supper,” which we have never seen. He left in ms. a paraphrase on the whole Bible, from which was extracted a paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, printed, 1672, in 12mo. His son, Samuel, was ejected, for nonconformity, from the living of West Felton in Shropshire, and died in 1674. He was editor of his father’s Lectures.

, a worthy prelate, appears by his pedigree given by his biographer, compared with that of the preceding Mr. Hildersham, to have been descended in the same line from the royal family of England, but as this circumstance seems to have escaped Mr. Butler’s notice, we are unable to say whether the name Hildersham and Hildesley were originally the same. It is certain that Hildersham occurs in t:ie descents in cardinal Pole’s pedigree, and that Hildesley does not. The subject of this article was the eldest surviving son of the rev. Mark Hildesley, rector of the valuable living of Houghton, held with the chapel of Witton, or Wyton All Saints, in the county of Huntingdon, who died in 1729. He was born Dec. 9, 1698, at Murston, near Sittingbourne, in Kent, of which his father was at that time rector. He was educated at the Charter-house, and at the age of nineteen was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, where he to >k his degree of A. B. in 1720, and of A. M. in 1724-, having been elected a fellow the year preceding. He was ordained deacon in 1722 and in 172.1 was appointed domestic chaplain to lord Cobham. In 1725 he was nominated a preacher at Whitehall, by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London; and from 1725 to 1729 held the curacy of Yelling in Huntingdonshire. In Feb. 1731 he was presented by his college to the vicarage of Hitchin in Hertfordshire, and the same year married miss Elizabeth Stoker, with whom he lived in the utmost conjugal airection for upwards of thirty years, but by whom it does not appear that he had any issue.

At Hitchin, the value of which would not admit the expence of a curate, he began that attention to the duties of his function which predominated through his life, and having advanced considerably to repair the vicarage-house, he was obliged to add to his labours by undertaking the education of from four to six select pupils, as boarders. It was his general custom at this time to preach either from memory, or short notes; and at a visitation at Baldock he delivered a discourse to the clergy from memory alone, with very singular and agreeable address. In Oct. 1735, he succeeded to the neighbouring-rectory of Holwell, in the county of Bedford, upon the presentation of Ralph Radcliffe, esq. This living he held about thirty-two years, and during the twenty years of his residence, executed all the duties of his important function with a truly primitive fidelity, not only by frequent public preaching, but by private visiting, exhortation, and catechising, distributing good books, &c. At length his exemplary conduct became known to the duke of Athol, lord and patron of the bishopric of Sodor and Mann, who justly considered him as a proper person to succeed the excellent and venerable bishop Wilson, who died in 1755. He was accordingly consecrated in Whitehall chapel in April of that year, after being created D. D. by archbishop Herring; and on Aug. 6, was installed in the cathedral of St. German on Peel, in the Isle of Mann.

His removal took place, as he terms it in one of his letters, at a critical juncture, when the double charge of his pupils, and a large parochial cure together, began to be too heavy for his “weak shoulders.” He added, that he had “in his new province, as much care, but not quite so much labour” For some time after his promotion to the diocese, he had been obliged to retain by commendam the rectory of Holwell, o'n account of the smallness of his episcopal income, which was too slender to support the dignity of his station. Indeed it appears that the expences, fees, and other charges attendant or consequent on his acceptance of the bishopric, amounted to no less than 92&1. a sum which must have greatly embarrassed him. As soon, however, as was possible, he resigned Holwell, and the same year, 1767, was presented, by the bishop of Durham, Dr. Trevor, to the mastership of Siierburn hospital; and he had also a prebend of Lincoln given him, but at what time does not appear.

, is recorded as a celebrated abbot of St. Denys in France, in the ninth century, in the reigns of Louis le Debonnaire, and Lothaire his son. He became despicable by his attachment to the latter, and by frequently violating the oath of fidelity which he swore to the emperor Louis, whenever he was reconciled to his children. As a writer he was the first who confounded St. Denys, or Dionysius, bishop of Paris, with Dionysius the Areopagite, in his life of St. Dionysius entitled " Areopagitica, n Paris, 1565, 8vo, which is replete with fabulous absurdities.

, an English poet and dramatic writer of some celebrity in his day, was born in Beaufort-buildings in the Strand, February 10, 1685. He was the eldest son Of George Hill, esq. of Malmsbury-abbey in Wiltshire and, in consequence of this descent, the legal heir to an, entailed estate of about 2000l. per annum; but the misconduct of his father having, by a sale of the property, which he had no right to execute, rendered it of no advanl tage to the family, our author was left, together with Mr. Hill’s other children, to the care of, and a dependence on, his mother and grandmother; the latter of whom (Mrs. Anne Gregory) was more particularly anxious for his education and improvement. The first rudiments of learning he received from Mr. Reyner, of Barnstaple in Devonshire^ to whom he was sent at nine years old, and, on his removal from thence, was placed at Westminster-school, under the care of the celebrated Dr. Knipe. After remaining here until he was fourteen years of age, he formed a resolution singular enough in one so young, of paying a visit to his relation lord Paget, then ambassador at Constantinople; and accordingly embarked for that place, March 2, 1700. When he arrived, lord Paget received him with much surprise, as well as pleasure; wondering, that a person so young should run the hazard of iuch a voyage, to visit a relation whom he only knew by character. The ambassador immediately provided for him a very learned ecclesiastic in his own house; and, under his tuition, sent him to travel, so that he had an opportunity of seeing Egypt, Palestine, and a great part of the East. With lord Paget he returned home about 1703, and in his journey saw most of the courts in Europe, and it is probable that his lordship might have provided genteelly for him at his death, had he not been dissuaded by the misrepresentations of a female about him, which in a great measure prevented his good intentions. The young man’s well known merit, however, soon recommended him to sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire baronet, who being inclined to make the tour of Europe, his relations engaged Mr. Hill to accompany him as a travelling tutor, which office he performed, for two or three years, to their entire satisfaction. In 1709, he commenced author, by the publication of an “History of the Ottoman Empire,” compiled from tinmaterials 'which he had collected in the course of his di rent travels, and during his residence at the Turkish conr:. This work, though it met with success, Mr. Hill frequently afterwards repented the having printed, and would himself, at times, very severely criticize it; and indeed, to say the truth, there are in it a great number of puerilities, which render it far inferior to the merit of his subsequent writings; in which correctness has ever been so strong a characteristic, that his critics have even attributed it to him as a fault; whereas, in this work, there at best appears the labour of a juvenile genius, rather choosing to give the full reign to fancy, and indulge the imagination of the poet, than to aim at the plainness and perspicuity of the historian. About the same year he published his first poetical piece, entitled “Camillus,” in vindication and honour of the earl of Peterborough, who had been general in. Spain. This poem was printed without any author’s name; but lord Peterborough, having made it his business to find out to whom he was indebted, appointed Mr. JHill his secretary; which post, however, he quitted the year following, on occasion of his marriage.

In 1709, he, at the desire of Mr. Booth, wrote his first tragedy of “Elfrid; or, The Fair Inconstant.” This play was composed in little more than a week, on which account it is no wonder that it should be, as he himself has described it, “an unpruned wilderness of fancy, with here and there a flower among the leaves; but without any fruit of judgment.” This, however, he altered, and brought on the stage again about twenty years afterwards, under the title of “Athelwold.” Yet, even in its first form, it met with sufficient encouragement to induce him to a second attempt in the dramatic way, though of another kind, viz. the opera of “Rinaldo,” the music of which was the first piece of composition of that admirable master Mr. Handel, after his arrival in England. This piece, in 1710, Mr. Hill brought on the stage at the king’s theatre in the Haymarket, of which he was at that time director, and where it met with very great and deserved success.

It is probable, however, that neither pride, nor any harboured resentment, were the motives of this refusal, but that spirit of projecting new schemes which seems to hare more or less animated him throughout life, however unfortunate he might be in indulging it. Among the Harleian Mss. 7524, is a letter from him to the lord-treasurer, dated April 12, 1714, on a subject by which “the nation might gain a million annually.” In 17 15, he undertook to. make an oil, as sweet as that from olives, of the beech-nuts, and obtained a patent for the purpose: but, after having formed a joint-stock company to be called the “Beech Oil Company,” who were to act in concert with the patentee, disputes arose among them, and the whole design was overthrown, without any benefit having accrued either to the patentee, or the sharers. He was next concerned with sir Robert Montgomery in a design for establishing a plantation of a vast tract of land in the south of Carolina, for which purpose a grant had been purchased from the lords proprietors of that province; but here again the want of a larger fortune than he was master of, stood as a bar in his way; for, though it has many years since been extensively cultivated under the name of Georgia, yet it never proved of any advantage to him.

This design was, for some time, carried on with great vigour and advantage, till some of the persons concerned in it thought proper to call off the men and horses from the woods of Abernethy, in order to employ them in their lead mines in the same country, from whence they promised themselves to reap a still more considerable profit. What private emolument Mr. Hill received from this affair, or whether any at all, seems unknown. However, the magistrates of Inverness, Aberdeen, &c. paid him the compliment of the freedom of their towns, and entertained him with much respect. Yet, notwithstanding these ho-> nours, which were publicly paid to cur author, and the distinguished civilities which he met with from the duke and duchess of Gordon, and other persons of rank to whom he became known during his residence in the Highlands, this Northern expedition was near proving of very unhappy consequences to his fortune; for, in his return, his lady being at that time in Yorkshire for the recovery of her health, he made so long a continuance with her in that county, as afforded an opportunity to some persons into whose hands he had confided the management of some important affairs, to be guilty of a breach of trust, that aimed at the destruction of the greatest part of what he was worth. He happily, however, returned in time to frustrate their intentions.

With regard to Mr. Hill’s private character, all who have written of him say he was in every respect perfectly amiable. His person was, in his youth, extremely fair and handsome. He was tall, not too thin, yet genteelly made. His eyes were a dark blue, bright and penetrating; his hair brown, and his face oval. His countenance was most generally animated by a. smile, which was more particularly distinguishable whenever he entered into conversation; in the doing which his address was most engagingly affable, yet mingled with a native unassumed dignity, which rendered him equally the object of admiration and respect with those who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. His voice was sweet, and his conversation elegant; and so extensive was his knowledge in all subjects, that scarcely any could occur on which he did not acquit himself in a most masterly and entertaining manner. His temper, though naturally warm when roused by injuries, was equally noble in a readiness to forgive them; and so much inclinable was he to repay evil with good, that he frequently exercised that Christian lesson, even to the prejudice of his own circumstances. He was a generous master, a sincere friend, an affectionate husband, and an indulgent and tender parent; and indeed so benevolent was his disposition in general, even beyond the power of the fortune he was blessed with, that the calamities of those he knew, and valued as deserving, affected him more deeply than his own. In consequence of this we find him bestowing the profits of many of his works for the relief of his friends, and particularly his dramatic ones, none of which he could ever be prevailed on to accept of a benefit for, till at the very close of his life, when his narrow circumstances compelled him to solicit the acting of his “Merope,” for the relief of its author from those difficulties out of which he had frequently been the generous instrument of extricating others. His manner of living was temperate to the greatest degree in every respect but that of late hours, which, as the night is less liable to interruptions than the day, his indefatigable love of study frequently drew him into. No labour deterred him from the prosecution of any design which appeared to him to be praise-worthy and feasible; nor was it in the power of the greatest misfortunes to overcome, or even shake, his fortitude of mind.

, an English writer, and most extraordinary character, was the son of a Mr. Theophilus Hill, a clergyman of Peterborough or Spalding, and born about the year 1716. He was bred an apothecary, and set up in St. Martin’s-lane, Westminster; but marrying early, and without a fortune on either side, he was obliged to look round for other resources than his profession. Having, therefore, in his apprenticeship, attended the botanical lectures which are periodically given under the patronage of the apothecary’s company, and being possessed of quick natural parts, he soon made himself acquainted with the theoretical as well as practical parts of botany; after which, being recommended to the duke of Richmond and lord Petre, he was by them employed in the inspection and arrangement of their botanic gardens. Assisted by the liberality of these noblemen, he executed a scheme of travelling over several part* of this kingdom, to gather some of the most rare and uncommon plants, accounts of which he afterwards published by subscription. But, after great researches, and the exertion of uncommon industry, which he possessed in a peculiar degree, this undertaking turned out by no means adequate either to his merits or expectations.

The stage next presented itself, as a soil in which genius might stand a chance of flourishing; but this plan proved likewise abortive; and, after two or three unsuccessful attempts at the Haymarket and Covent-garden, he was obliged to apply again to his botanical inquiries, and his business as an apothecary. In the course of these pursuits, he was introduced to the acquaintance of Martin Folkes and Henry Baker, esqrs. both of the Royal Society, and through them to the literary world; where he was received and entertained on every occasion with much candour and friendly warmth, being considered by them as a young man of " great natural and acquired knowledge, struggling against the tide of misfortune, and in this view pitied and encouraged.

At length, about 1746 (at which time he had the trifling appointment of apothecary to one or two regiments in the Savoy) he translated from the Greek a small tract of Theophrastus, “On Gems,” which he published by subscription; and this, being well executed, procured him friends, reputation, and money. Encouraged by this success engaged in works of greater extent and importance. The first he undertook was “A General Natural History” three vols. folio. He next engaged, in conjunction with George Lewis Scott, esq. for a “Supplement to Chambers’ s Dictionary.” At the same time he undertook the “British Magazine;” and when engaged in these and a number of other works, some of which seemed to require a man’s whole attention, he carried on a daily essay under the title of “Inspector.” Notwithstanding all this employment, he was a constant attendant upon every place of public amusement; where he collected, by wholesale, a great variety of private intrigue, and personal scandal, which he as freely retailed again to the public in his “Inspectors” and “Magazines.” It would make a folio, instead of an article in this work, were we to trace Dr. Hill (for he had now obtained a diploma from the college of St. Andrew’s, in Scotland) through all his various pursuits in life. Let it suffice to say, that from this successful period he commenced a man of fashion, kept his equipage, dressed, went into all polite companies, and in every respect claimed the character of a man of bon ton. His writings supported him in all this for a time; and, notwithstanding the graver part of them were only compilations, and the lighter part such as could produce no great copy-money, yet there is no doubt that he made, for several years, a considerable income.

But the disposition of Dr. Hill was greatly changed with his circumstances: from being humble and diffident, he had become vain and self-sufficient. There appeared in him a pride, which was perpetually claiming a more than ordinary homage, and a vindictive spirit, which could never forgive the refusal of it. Hence his writings abounded with attacks on the understandings, morals, or peculiarities of others, descending, even to personal abuse and scurrility. This licence of his pen engaged him frequently in disputes and quarrels; and an Irish gentleman of the name of Browne, supposed to be ridiculed in an “Inspector,” proceeded so far as to cane him in the public gardens at Ranelagh. He had a paper war with Woodward the comedian was engaged with Henry Fielding in the affair of Elizabeth Canning and concerned in a contest with the Royal Society, Of this, the origin and progress has been thus detailed by one who had every opportunity of knowing the circumstances. When Mr. Hill had started all at once as before related, from a state of indigence and distress, to taste the comforts of very considerable emoluments from his labour, giddy with success, and elated beyond bounds with the warm sunshine of prosperity, he seemed to be seized with a kind of infatuation. Vanity took entire possession of his bosom, and banished from thence every consideration but of self. His conversation turned on little else, and even his very writings were tainted with perpetual details of every little occurrence that happened to him. His raillery, both in company and in his writings, frequently turned on those who closely attached themselves to philosophical investigations, especially in the branches of natural philosophy. The common -place wit of abusing the medal-scraper, the butterfly-hunter, the cockle-shell-merchant, &c. now appeared in some of his Magazines and Inspectors, and in two or three places he even indulged some distant glances of satire at the Royal Society. Notwithstanding which, however, when the Supplement to “Chambers’s Dictionary” was nearly finished, the proprietors of that work, very sensible of the weight of an F. R. S. annexed to the author’s name, were very desirous that Dr. Hill should have this addition as well as Mr. Scott, his colleague in the work. In consequence of this design, Dr. Hill procured Mr. Scott to propose him for election into that honourable body; but the doctor’s conduct for some time past having been such as had rendered him the object of contempt to some, of disgust to others, and of ridicule to almost all the rest of his former grave and philosophical acquaintances, he now stood but a very indifferent chance for carrying an election, where an opposition pf one third was sufficient to reject the candidate; and as. the failing in that attempt might have done our author more essential prejudice than the succeeding in it could even have brought him advantage, the late ingenious and worthy president, Martin Folkes, esq. whose remembrance must ever live in the highest estimation with all who ever had the honour of knowing him, notwithstanding that Dr. Hill had given him personal occasion of offence against him, yet with the utmost generosity and candour, advised Mr. Scott to dissuade his friend, for his own sake, against a design which there appeared so little probability of his succeeding in. This advice, however, Dr. Hill, instead of considering in the generous light it was meant, misinterpreted into a prejudiced opposition against his interest, am would have persisted in his intention even in despite of it, had net his being unable to obtain the subscription o requisite number of members to his recommendation^ obliged him to lay it aside, from a conviction that he could not expect to carry an election in a body composed of three hundred members, of which he could not prevail on three to set their names to the barely recommending him as a candidate. Thus disappointed, his vanity piqued, and his pride lowered, no relief was left him but railing and scurrility, for which purpose, declaring open war with the society in general, he first published a pamphlet entitled *' A Dissertation on Royal Societies,“in a letter from a Sclavonian nobleman in London to his friend in Sclavonia; which, besides the most ill-mannered and unjust abuse on the whole learned body he had been just aiming, in vain, to become a member of, is interlarded with the grossest personal scurrility on the characters of Mr. Folkes and Mr. Henry Baker, two gentlemen to whom Dr. Hill had formerly been under the greatest obligations, and whose respective reputations in both the moral and literary world had long been too firmly established for the weak efforts of a disappointed scribbler to shake or undermine. Not contented with this, he proceeded to compile together a large quarto volume entitled” A Review of the Works of the Royal Society,“in which, by the most unfair quotations, mutilations, and misrepresentations, numbers of the papers read in that illustrious assembly, and published under the title of the” Philosophical Transactions,“are endeavoured to be rendered ridiculous. This work is ushered into the world with a most abusive and infamous dedication to Martin Folkes, esq. against whom and the afore-mentioned Mr. Henry Baker the weight of this furious attack was chiefly aimed but the whole recoiled upon himself; and by such personal abuse, malignant altercation, proud and insolent behaviour, together with the slovenliness and inaccuracy of careless and hasty productions, he wrote himself out of repute both with booksellers and the town; and, after some time, sunk in the estimation of the public nearly as fast as he had risen. He found, however, as usual, resources in his own invention. He applied himself to the preparation of certain simple medicines namely,” the Essence of Water-dock; Tincture of Valerian Pectoral Balsam of Honey and Tincture of Bardana.“The well-known simplicity of these preparations led the public to judge favourably of their effects; they had a rapid sale, and once more enabled the doctor to live in splendour. Soon after the publication of the first of these medicines, he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute; under which he published a very pompous and voluminous botanical work, entitled” A System of Botany;“but is said to have been a very considerable loser by this speculation. His botanical works, however, had a favourable influence in promoting the science in general. To wind up the whole of so extraordinary a life, having a year or two before his death presented an elegant set of his botanical works to the king of Sweden, that monarch invested him with one of the orders of his court, that of Vasa, in consequence of which he assumed the title of Sir John. He died Nov. 22, 1775, of the gout, which he professed to cure others. As to his literary character, and the rank of merit in which his writings ought to stand, Hill’s greatest enemies could not deny that he was master of considerable abilities, and an amazing quickness of parts. The rapidity of his pen was ever astonishing, and he has been known to receive within one year, no less than 1500l. for the works of his own single hand; which, as he was never in such estimation as to be entitled to any extraordinary price for his copies, is, we believe, at least three times as much as ever was made by any one writer in the same period of time. But, had he written much less, his works would probably have been much more read. The vast variety of subjects he handled, certainly required such a fund of universal knowledge, and such a boundless genius, as were never perhaps known to centre in any one man; and it is not therefore to be wondered, if, in regard to some he appears very inaccurate, in some very superficial, and in others altogether inadequate to the task he had undertaken. His works on philosophical subjects seemed most likely to have procured him fame, had he allowed himself time to digest the knowledge he possessed, or preserved that regard to veracity which the relation of scientific facts so rigidly demands. His novels, of which he has written many, such as” The History of Mr. Lovell,“(in which he had endeavoured to persuade the world he had given the detail of his own life),” The Adventures of a Creole,“” The Life of Lady Frail,“&c. have, in some parts of them, incidents not disagreeably related, but the most of them are merely narratives of private intrigues, containing throughout the grossest calumnies, and endeavouring to blacken and undermine the private characters of many worthy persons. In his” Essays,“which are by much the best of hia writings, there is, in general, a liveliness of imagination, and adroitness in the manner of extending, perhaps some very trivial thought, which at first may by many be mistaken for wit; but, on a nearer examination, will be found to lose much of its value. A continued use of smart short periods, bold assertions, and bolder egotisms, produces a transient effect, but seldom tempts the spectator to take a second glance. The utmost that can be said of Hill is, that he had talents, but that, in general, he either greatly nisapplied them, or most miserably hackneyed them for profit. As a dramatic writer he stands in no estimation^ nor has he been known in that view by any thing but three very insignificant pieces: namely, 1.” Orpheus,“an opera, 1740. 2.” The Critical Minute,“a farce, published in 1754, but not acted, 3.” The Rout," a farce, 1754*. A large volume might be written on the life and! adventures of this extraordinary man, as affording a complete history of literary quackery, every branch of which he pursued with a greater contempt for character than perhaps any man in our time.

, an English divine and lexicographer, was born Oct. 1625, at Bromley, near Leeds, where his father, Joshua Hill, was a puritan preacher. He was carefully educated in classical learning, and sent to Cambridge in 1644, where he was admitted of St. John’s college. Jn 1649, he was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and became a favourite tutor. In 1658 he served the office of senior proctor, and in 1660 kept the act for the degree of bachelor of divinity, and having declared his sentiments in favour of nonconformity, his fellow-collegians erased his name from their books, that he might be enabled to retire without suffering a formal ejectment. He then retired to London, and preached ibr a while at the church of Allhallows Barking, but in 1663 went abroad, and, after visiting various parts of the continent, passed three years at the university of Leyden. In 1667 he was invited to be minister of the English church at Mtddleburgh in Zealand, where he continued till 167'5, when his too late publishing his “Defence of the Zealander’s choice,” occasioned the governors of that province to order him to ktave the placre. On his arrival in England, however, and waiting on diaries II. he rewarded him for writing that book with a sinecure of 50/, and, according to Calamy, offered him a bishopric if he would conform. But this being against his principles, he accepted an invitation to the English church at Rotterdam in 1678, where he exercised the office of pastor until his death, Nov. 5, 1707. Mr. Hill was much esteemed as a preacher, and has left one or two specimens of his talents but tie is more noticeable as the editor of Scbreveiius’s Lexicon, which he augmented with 8000 words, and purged of nearly as many faults. He published his edition in 1676, since which it has often been reprinted, sometimes with improvements, and is still a standard book. Mr. Hill had accumulated a very fine library, in which he employed his leisure hours to the last.

was a man remarkable for his perseverance and talent in learning many languages by the aid of books alone, and that under every disadvantage of laborious occupation and extreme poverty. His extraordinary character was made known to the world by Mr. Spence in 1757, who, in order to promote a subscription for him, published a comparison between him and the famous Magliabecchi, with a short life of each. From this account it appears that he was born January 11, 1699, at Miswell near Tring in Hertfordshire, that he was bred a taylor, which trade and that of a staymaker he practised throughout life, sometimes adding to them that of a schoolmaster. He was three times married, and the increase of his family, with the extravagance of his second wife, kept him always in great, penury. He worked in general, or taught by day, and studied by night; in which way he acquired the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, with a good knowledge of arithmetic. As he could proceed only as he accidentally picked up books in a very cheap way, his progress was slow, but by his unremitting diligence very steady. According to his own account, he was seven years acquiring Latin, twice as much in learning Greek, but Hebrew he found so easy that it cost him little time. He wrote, 1. “Remarks on Berkeley’s” Essay on Spirit“. 2.” The Character of a Jew.“3.” Criticisms on Job." He was a modest sensible man, fond of studying the Scriptures, and a zealous member of the church of England. He died at Buckingham in July 1777, after having been confined to his bed about a year and a half. During this time he employed the hours in which he was able to sit up, in his favourite study of the Old Testament in Hebrew, which he frequently said now more than repaid him for the trouble he had taken to acquire the language. It is probable, that the notice into which he was brought by Mr. Spence secured him afterwards from the extremities of poverty.

, a learned annotator on Dionysius Periegetes, was born in 1619, at Cudworth in Warwickshire, and educated at Merton college, Oxford, of which he was made one of the post-masters. He was -elected probationer-fellow of that house in 1639, and afterwards bachelor-fellow, and thence was promoted to a-free-school at Sutton-Colfield in his own county, which school he brought into considerable credit during his abode there. He then removed to London, and practised physic, and in 164i> and 1652, had leave from the delegates of the university to accumulate the degrees in physic, but Wood could not discover that he took the benefit of this licence it is probable he did not, as in his “Dionysius” he styles himself only master of arts. After this he removed to Ireland to resume the art of teaching, and became chief master of the great school of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, but at the restoration, as he had sided with the parliamentary interest, or at least was indebted to it for his promotion, he was ejected from this office, and went to Finglass, near Dublin, where he taught and boarded children of people of quality, and was made minister of the church there. Before his death he was created D. D. by the university of Dublin. He died of a pestilential fever in Nov. 1667. His edition of Dionysius is entitled “Dionisii orbis descriptio, annotationibus Eustathii, et Hen. Stepheni, nee non Gul. Hill eommentario critico et geographico, ac tabulis illustrata,” Lond. 1658, 8vo, reprinted 1659, 1663, 1678, 1683, which last Harwood reckons a valuable edition. He is said also to have epitomized some of the works of Lazarus Riverius, a physician. As his wife was brought to bed seven months after their marriage, he wrote a treatise to prove the child lawfully begotten, and submitted the ms. to two physicians, who returned it with apparent approbation, but seriously considered it as not very conclusive.

, the Nasi, or prince, another famous Jew, was great grandson of Judas Hakkadosh, or the holy, author of the Misua. This latter Hillel lived in the fourth century, was the first compiler of the present Jewish calendar, and was one of the principal doctors of the Gemara. That correct edition of the Hebrew text which bears the name of Hillel, and is mentioned in the preceding article, is attributed to him by most of the Jewish writers, among whom, however, there have been several others named Hillel.

, son of Robert Hinckley of Coton in Warwickshire, was born in that county in 1617. His parents being puritanically inclined, he was bred in that persuasion under Mr. Vynes, a celebrated schoolmaster of Hinckley. In Midsummer or April term, 1634, he was admitted a student in St. Alban’s-hall, Oxford, under the tuition of Mr. Robert Sayer; but before he became B. A. was induced by the preaching of Dr. Wentworth, to quit the opinions he had imbibed in infancy. About the time he had completed the degree of M. A. he entered into orders, was patronized by the family of Pnrefoy of Wad ley wear Faringdon, Berks; and promoted to be vicar of Coleshill in that county, afterwards of Drayton in Leicestershire, on the presentation of George Purefoy,esq. in 162, rector of Northfield in Worcestershire; and in 1679, accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. He died April 13, 1695, and was buried in the chancel of Northfield church, where several epitaphs record part of the history of his family.

The publications of Dr. Hinckley re, 1. “Four Sermons viz. 1. at the assizes at Reading 2. at Abmgdon 3 and 4.at Oxford, 1657,” 8vo. 2. “Matrimonial instruction to persons of honour,” printed with the “mons” 3 " Epistola veridica ad homines pMVpM Mfc, 1659,“4to, (reprinted in his” Fasciculus Literaruin“). 4” Oratio pro statu ecclesiae fluetuantis,“printed with art. 3. 5.” Sermon at the funeral of George Purefoy the elder, of Wadiey in Berks, esq. who was buried by his ancestors at Drayton in Leicestershire, 21 April, 1661;“1661, 4to. 6.” A persuasive to Conformity, by way of letter to the dissenting brethren, 1670,“8vo. 8.” Fasciculus literarum; or Letters on several occasions, 1680,“8vo. The first half of tnis book contains letters between Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hinckley, in which many things are discussed which are repeated in Baxter’s plea for the nonconformists. There are four in number, written by each, and our author’s third letter was written soon after Baxter’s book” Of Church Divisions“came forth; he having not only obliquely reflected on Dr. Hinckley’s second letter, but particularly signified his discontent both with Hinckley and his book. The reason of the publication of tuese letters five years after their first penning, was occasioned by the account which Baxter had given in many of his writings of Hinckley’s Letters: the last, of which Letters was answered by Baxter in his third,” Of the Cause of Peace, &c."

, a celebrated ancient astronomer, was born at Nice in Bithynia, and flourished between the 154th and 163d olympiads; or between 160 and 125 B. C. as we learn from tjie astronomical observations he tnade in that space of time. He is supposed to have been the first who, from vague and scattered observations, reduced astronomy to a science, and prosecuted the study of it systematically. Pliny, who always mentions him in terms of high commendation, says he was the lirst who attempted to take the number of the fixed stars, and his catalogue is preserved in Ptolemy’s “Almagest,” where they are all noted according to their longitudes and apparent magnitudes. Pliny places him amongst those men of a sublime genius, who, by foretelling the eclipses, taught mankind, that they ought not to be frightened at these phenomena. Thales was the first among the Greeks, uho could discover when there was to be an eclipse. Sulpitms Gailns among the Romans begun to succeed in this kind of prediction; and gave an essay of his skill very seasonably, the day before a battle was fought. "After these two, Hipparchus foretold the course of the sun and moon for 600 years calculated according to the different manner of reckoning the months, days, and hours, used by several nations, and for the different situations of places. Pliny admires him for taking an account of all the stars, and for acquainting us with their situations am! magnitudes. Hipparchus is also memorable for being the first who discovered the precession of the equinoxes.

, usually called the father of physic, was born in the island of Cos, about 460 B. C. He is said to have descended from Æsculapius, through a line of physicians who had all promoted the fame of the Coan school, and by his mother’s side he was the eighteenth lineal descendant from Hercules. He appears to have devoted himself to the medical art that he might perpetuate the honours of his family, and he has eclipsed them. Besides the empirical practice which was hereditary among them, he studied under Herodicus, who had invented the gymnastic medicine, and was instructed in philosophy and eloquence by Gorgias, a celebrated sophist and brother of Herodicus. He is also said to have been a pupil of Democritus, which appears improbable, and a follower of the doctrines of Heraclitus. In whatever study, however, he engaged, he appears to have pursued a rational plan, upon actual expedience, discarding the theories of those who never had practised the art, and hence is said to have been the first who separated the science of medicine from philosophy, or rather from mere speculation, which then assumed that name. Of the events of his life little is known with cer T tainty. He spent a great part of his time in travelling: during which he resided for a considerable period, at varipus places, in which he was occupied in the practise of his art. His chief abode was in the provinces of Thessaly and Thrace, especially at Larissa, the capital of Thessaly, where he composed several books. According to Soranus, he spent some time at the court of Macedon, where he signalized himself, in consultation with Kuryphon, a senior physician, by detecting the origin of the malady of the young Perdiccas. His observation of the emotion of the prince on the appearance of Phila, a mistress of his father, led him to pronounce that love alone was capable of curing the disease which it had occasioned. His fame caused him to receive invitations from diiFerent cities of Greece. He is said to have been requested by the inhabitants of Abciera to go and cure their celebrated fellowcitizen, Democritus, of the madness under which they supposed him to labour, whom he pronounced not mad; but, the wisest man in their city. In a speech ascribed to his son Thessalus, still extant, we are told that Illyria and Paeonia being ravaged by the plague, the inhabitants of those countries offered large sums of money to induce Hippocrates to come to their relief; but forseeing that the pestilence was likely to penetrate into Greece, he refused to quit his own country, but sent his two sons, and his sonin-law, through the diiFerent provinces, to convey the proper instructions for avoiding the infection; he himself went to Thessaly, and thence to Athens, where he conferred such eminent services on the citizens, that they issued a decree honouring him with a crown of gold, and initiating him and his family in the sacred mysteries of Ceres and Proserpine. Hippocrates is likewise reported to have refused an invitation from Artaxerxes, king of Persia, accompanied by a promise of every reward and honour which he might desire, to repair to his dominions during a season of pestilence, which he refused; and that when the enraged king ordered the inhabitants of Cos to deliver up Hippocrates, they declared their resolution to defend the life and liberty of their valued countryman at all hazards, and nothing was attempted by the Persian. Most of these stories, however, are deemed fictitious by the most intelligent critics. The cure of the young Perdiccas probably originated from the report of a similar cure ascribed to Erasistratus; and the interview with Deraocntus is not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The relation of the services of Hippocrates, during the plague at Atbeps, is altogether irreconcileable with the accounts of Galen and of Thucydides: besides, that plague commenced during the Peioponnesiin war, in the second year of the 87th olympiad, at which time Hippocrates was about thirty" years old, and therefore could not have had two sons or a son-in-law in a condition to practise. Dr. Ackerman justly conjectures, that these fables were all invented after the death of Hippocrates, and ascribed to him by the followers of the dogmatic sect, of which he was regarded as the founder. The letters and other pieces, which are preserved with the works of Hippocrates, and on the authority of which these anecdotes are related, are generally deemed spurious.

After a long life spent in the successful practice of his art, in perfecting his rational system of medical inquiry, and in forming disciples worthy to supply his place, Hippocrates died t Larissa in Thessaly, at the age of 85, or 90, or, as others affirm, of 104, or even 109 years. He was buried between that city and Gyrtona. Besides two sons, Thessalus and Draco, both eminent practitioners, he left a dan g liter, married to his favourite pupil, Poly bus, who arranged and published the works of his great master; he left also a number of disciples.

How dubious soever many of the circumstances of the life of Hippocrates may be, it is not questioned that he acquired a reputation, which has ranked him high among the great men of Greece, and which may be traced from age to age, from the time in which he flourished through all succeeding periods. He has not only passed, by almost universal consent, for the father of physic and the prince of physicians, but his opinions were every where respected as oracles, not only in the schools of medicine, but in the courts of law. Philosophers of every sect were eager to rend, to quote, and to comment upon his writings. He has shared with Plato the title of divine; and not only statues, but temples were erected to his memory, and his altars were covered with incense, like those of Æscuiapius himself. Indeed the qualifications and duties required in the character of the physician, were never more fully exemplified than in his conduct, or more eloquently described than by his pen. He had formed a very exalted notion of the dignity and usefulness of his profession, which is only lowered, he said, in the public estimation, by the ignorance of its professors; and he supported this dignity in his own person by the most rigid attention to the morality of private lite, by great simplicity, candour, and benevolence in all his intercourse with the sick, and by unwearied zeal in investigating the nature and progress of diseases, and in administering to their cure. He is said to have admitted no one to his instructions without the solemnity of an oath, the form of which is transmitted to us among his writings. The books attributed to Hippocrates amount to sevemytwo in number, of which, however, a considerable part are regarded as spurious; some containing opinions which were not prevalent till long after the age of Hippocrates, and some differing altogether in style and composition from the genuine writings of that master, which are composed in the ionic dialect, and are distinguished by a remarkable conciseness, and, as it were, compression oflanguage, which at times, indeed, borders upon obscurity. Some pieces have been obviously written after the commencement of the Christian tera; and Galen affirms that several interpolations and alterations were made by Dioscorides and Artemidorus, surnamed Capito, in the time of Adrian. Polybus, the son-in-law of Hippocrates, who collected and edited his works, is believed to have written some of the pieces, and Thessalus and Draco, his sons, as well as Hippocrates III. and IV., his grandsons, are supposed to have written others, especially several of the books of “Epidemies.” The following, however, are generally deemed original productions of Hippocrates the Coan namely, 1. The essay “On Air, Water*, and Soils” 2. The first and third books of “Epidemics” 3. The book On Prognostics 4. The fir&t and second books of “Predictions;” and 5. The books of “Aphorisms” but the two last contain many interpolations 6. The treatise *' On the Diet in acute diseases“7. That *' On Wounds of the Head.” Haller includes several more treatises in the list of genuine works of Hippocrates, which have “been disputed, even from ancient times such as those” On the Nature of Man“”On the Humours;“”On Fractures;“”On the Joints;" tnd one or two others.

Being again settled in Paris, he continued his mathematical studies with the utmost intenseness: and published some works, which gained him so much reputation, that he was made a member of the academy of sciences in 1678. The minister Colbert having formed a design of a better chart or map of the kingdom than any whica tiad hitherto been taken, de la Hire was nominated, with Picard, to make the necessary observations. He went to Bretagne in 1679, to Cayenne in 1680, to Calais and Dunkirk in 168, and into Provence in 1682. In these peregrinations he did not confine nis attention to their main object, but philosophized upon every thing that occurred, and particularly upon the variations of the magnetic needle, upon refractions, and upon the height of mountains, as determined by the barometer. In 1683 he was employed in continuing the meridian line, which Picard had begun in 1669. De la Hire continued it to the north of Paris, while Cassini pushed it on to the south: but Colbert dying the same year, the work was left unfinished. He was next employed, with other geometricians of the academy, 'in. taking the necessary levels for those grand aqueducts which Louis XIV. was about to make.

* Archbishop Seeker one day, at be Christians, replied, “If they were, his table, when the Monthly Reviewers it was certainly ‘secundum usum Winwt-re said, by one of the company, to ton’.” the list of persons to be created doctors of physic: but either by chance or management, his name was not found in the last list; and he had not his degree of M. D, till about a month after, by a particular mandamus. He was elected F. R. S. in 1726, when he was very young, and had the honour of being made known to the learned world as a philosopher, by “A Letter from the rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F. R. S. occasioned by the present controversy among the mathematicians concerning the proportion of Velocity and Force in bodies in motion.” He was made registrar of Hereford while his father filled that see; and was appointed physician to his majesty’s household so early as June 9, 1742. Jt is remarkable, that he was for some years physician to both the royal households; having been appointed to that of the prince of Wales, Jan. 4, 1745-6, in the place of Dr. Lamotte, a Scotch physician, whom the prince had himself ordered to be struck out of the list, on some imprudent behaviour at the Smyrna coffee-house at the time of the rebellion in 1745. The appointment was attended with some circumstances of particular honour to Dr. Hoadly. The prince himself, before the warrant could be finished, ordered the style to be altered; and that he should be called physician to the household, and not extraordinary, as the other had been: observing, that this would secure that place to him in case of a demise, and be a bar against any one getting over him. Nay, not content with this, his royal highness voluntarily wrote a letter to the bishop with his own hand “that he was glad of this opportunity of giving him a token of his gratitude for his services formerly to his family; and that he was his affectionate Frederic, P.” Dr. Hoadly is said to have filled these posts with singular honour. He married, 1. Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Betts, esq. of Suffolk, counsellor at law, by whom he had one son, Benjamin, that died an infant. 2 Anne, daughter and co-heiress of the honourable general Armstrong, by whom he left no issue. He died in the lifetime of his father, Aug. 10, 1757, athishouM it Chelsea, which he had built ten years before. He published, 1. “Three Letters on the Organs of Respiration, read at the royal college of physicians, London, A. D. 1737, being the Gulstonian lectures for that year. To which is added, an Appendix, containing remarks on some experiments of Dr. Houston, published in the Transactions of the Royal Society for the year 1736, by Benjamin Hoadly, M. B. fellow of the college of physicians, and of the royal society, London,” 1740, 4to. 2. “Oratio anniversaria in Theatro Coll. Medicor. Londinensium, ex Harveii instttuto habita die 18 Oct. A. D. 1742, a Benj. Hoadly, M. D. Coll. Med. & S. R. S.” 1742, esteemed a very elegant piece of Latin. 3. “The Suspicious Husband, a Comedy.” 4. “Observations on a Series of Electrical experiments, by Dr. Hoadly and Mr. Wilson, F. R. S.” 1756, 4to. The doctor was, in his private character, an amiable humane man, and an agreeable sprightly companion. In his profession he was learned and judicious; and, as a writer, has been long known in the theatrical world as the author of a comedy, “The Suspicious Husband,” which appeared first in 1747, and has kept its place on every stage since with undiminished attractions.

His several preferments he received in the following order of time: the rectory of Michelmersh, March 8, 1737; that of Wroughton in Wiltshire, Sept. 8, 1737; and that of Alresfurd, and a prebend of Winchester, 29th of November in the same year. On June 9, 1743, he was instituted to the rectory of St. Mary near Southampton, and on Dec. 16, 1746, collated to that of Overton. He was the first person on whom archbishop Herring conferred the degree of a doctor. In May 1760, he was appointed to the mastership of St. Cross; and all these preferments he enjoyed until his death, except the living of Wroughton and the prebend of Winchester. He wrote some poems in “Dodsley’s Collection,” and is supposed very materially to have assisted his brother in “The Suspicious Husband.” He likewise published, as we have already noticed, his father’s works in 3 vols. folio. After living to the age of 64, the delight of his friends, he died March 16, 1776, and with him the name of Hoadly became extinct. He was the author of five dramas: 1. The Contrast,“a comedy, acted at Lincoln’s-mn-fields, 1731, but not printed. 2.” Love’s Revenge,“a pastoral, 1737. 3.” Phoebe,“another pastoral, 1748. 4.” Jephtha,“an oratorio, 1737. 5. And another entitled” The Force of Truth,“1764. He also revised Lillo’s” Arden of Feversham,“and wrote the fifth act of Miller’s” Mahomet.“He left several dramatic works in ms. behind him, and among the rest,” The Housekeeper, a farce,“on the plan of” High Life below Stairs,“in favour of which piece it was rejected by Mr. Garrick, together with a tragedy on a religious subject. So great, however, was the doctor’s fondness for theatrical exhibitions, that no visitors were ever long in his house before they were solicited to accept a part in some interlude or other. He himself, with Garrick and Hogarth, once performed a laughable parody on the scene in” Julius Caesar“where the ghost appears to Brutus-, Hogarth personated the spectre; but so unretentive was his memory, that, although his speech consisted only of a few lines, he was unable to get them by heart. At last they hit on the following expedient in his favour. The verses he was to deliver were written in such large letters on the outside of an illuminated paper lanthorn, that he could read them when he entered with it in his hand on the stage. Hogarth prepared the play-bill on this occasion, with characteristic ornaments, the original drawing of which is still preserved. Dr. Koadly’s tragedy was on the story of lord Cromwell, anil he once intended to give it to the stage. In a letter dated June 27, 1765, he says,” My affair with Mr. Garrick is coming upon the carpet again;“Aug. 1, 1765, he thus apologizes to Mr. Bowyer, to whom he intended to present the copy-right:” Vour kind concern, c. demanded an earlier acknowledgment, had I not delayed till an absolute answer came from irn friend David Garrick, with his fixed resolution never more ‘to strut and fret his hour upon the stage again.’ This decree has unhinged my schemes with regard to lord Cromwell, for nothing but the concurrence of so many circumstances in my favour (his entire disinterested friendship for me and the good doctor’s memory; Mrs. Hoadly’s bringing on a piece of the doctor’s at the same time the story of mine being on a religious subject, &c. and the peculiar advantage of David’s unparalleled performance in it) could have persuaded me to break through the prudery of my profession, and (in my station in the church) produce a play upon the stage." For the prudery of his profession, however, he appears to have had very little regard, and on that profession conferred very little honour. With all his preferments, which were very valuable, he is known only as the author of the dramatic pieces above mentioned, nor do they entitle him to a very high rank among writers for the stage.

In London the young painter looked around in vain for the encouragement which he had hoped to find in the historical department of his profession; and the impoverished state of his family not allowing him any alternative, he immediately resorted to portrait-painting, in which, from his superior talents, he was sure to find an unfailing resource. In this situation of his circumstances he formed a matrimonial engagement with a young lady of the name of Barker, between whose relations and his own there had long subsisted the most cordial intimacy, arising from mutual respect. Among the connexions of Miss Barker’s family were some who were established at Bath, and Mr. Hoare soon received an invitation to settle at that city, where, as there was no person of any eminence in his profession, he might reasonably look to the highest prospects of success. He accordingly accepted the invitation, and fully realized the expectations of his friends in every point. His painting-room was the resort of all that could boast the attractions either of beauty or fashion; and the number of his sitters was for a long time so great, as scarcely to allow him a momentary interval of relaxation, much less sufficient leisure for such an attention to the higher performances of his art as formed the constant object of his wishes.

His eminent success in his portraits brought to his gallery all the distinguished characters of the time, who occasionally visited Bath for health or pleasure; among whom, were Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Legge, Mr. Grenville, Lord Chesterfield, &c. &c. and his acquaintance with them was improved into friendship on their part, by the variety of his learning, the amenity of his manners, the ingenuousness of his mind, and the high respectability of his domestic establishment. To the list of his friends and patrons were soon added the virtuous Allen, and his learned nephew-in-law, Warburton; and Mr. Allen’s house, where he was always a welcome visitor, gave him also an introduction to Pope, and other distinguished inmates of Prior-park.

Not long after the meeting of the long parliament, Nov. 3, 1640, when all things fell into confusion, he withdrew, for the sake of living in quiet, to Paris; where he associated himself with those learned men, who, under the protection of Cardinal Richelieu, sought, by conferring their notions together, to promote every kind of useful knowledge. He had not been long there, when by the good offices of his friend Mersenne, he became known to Des Cartes, and afterwards held a correspondence with him upon mathematical subjects, as appears from the letters of Hobbes published in the works of Des Cartes. But when that philosopher printed afterwards his “Meditations,” in which he attempted to establish points of the highest consequence from innate ideas, Hobbes took the liberty of dissenting from him; as did also Gassendi, with whom Hobbes contracted a very close friendship, which was not interrupted till the death of the former. In 1642, he printed a few copies of his book “De Give,” which raised him many adversaries, by whom he was charged with instilling principles of a dangerous tendency. Immediately after the appearance of this book, Des Cartes said of it to a friend, “I am of opinion that the author of the book ‘ De Give,’ is the same person who wrote the third objection against my ‘ Meditations.’ I think him a much greater master of morality, than of metaphysics or natural philosophy; though I can by no means approve of his principles or maxims, which are very bad and extremely dangerous, because they suppose all men to be wicked, or give them occasion to be so. His whole design is to write in favour of monarchy, which might be done to more advantage than he has done, upon maxims more virtuous and solid. He has wrote likewise greatly to the disadvantage of the church and the Roman catholic religion, so that if he is not particularly supported by some powerful interest, I do not see how he can escape having his book censured.” The learned Conringius censures him very severely for boasting, in regard to this performance, “that though physics were a new science, yet civil philosophy was still newer, since it could not be styled older than his book * De Give;' whereas,” says Conringius, “there is nothing good in that work of his that was not always known.” But vanity was throughout life a prevailing foible with Hobbes.

In 1650 was published at London a small treatise by Hobbes entitled “Human Nature,” and another, “De corpore politico, or, of the Elements of the Law.” The latter was presented to Gassendi, and read by him a few months before his death; who is said first to have kissed it, and then to have delivered his opinion of it in these words: tl This treatise is indeed small in bulk, but in my judgment the very marrow of science.“All this time Hobbes had been digesting with great pains his religious, political, and moral principles into a complete system, which he called the” Leviathan,“and which was printed in English at London in that and the year following. He caused a copy of it, very fairly written on vellum *, to be presented to Charles II.; but after that monarch was informed that the English divines considered it as a book tending to subvert both religion and civil government, he is said to have withdrawn his countenance from the author, and by the marquis of Ormond to have forbidden him to come into his presence. After the publication of his” Leviathan," Hobbes returned to England, and passed the summer commonly at his patron the earl of Devonshire’s seat in Derbyshire, -and his

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

After this account of Hobbes, which, though undoubtedly true in the main, may be thought too strongly coloured, it will be but justice to subjoin what lord Clarendon has said of him. This noble person, during his banishment, wrote a book in 1670, which was printed six years after at Oxford with this title, “A brief View of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbes’s book entitled Leviathan.” In the introduction the earl observes, that Mr. Hobbes’s *' Leviathan“” cohtains in it good learning of all kinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested in a very commendable, and in a vigorous and pleasant style: and that Mr. Hobbes himself was a man of excellent parts, of great wit, some reading, and somewhat more thinking; one who has spent many years in foreign parts and observations; understands the learned as well as the modern languages; hath long had the reputation of a great philosopher and mathematician; and in his age hath had conversation with very many worthy and extraordinary men: to which it may be, if he had been more indulgent in the more vigorous part of his life, it might have had greater influence upon the temper of his mind; whereas age seldom submits to those questions, inquiries, and contradictions, which the laws and liberty of conversation require. And it hath been always a lamentation among Mr. Hobbes’s friends, that he spent too much time in thinking, and too little in exercising those thoughts in the company of other men of the same, or of as good faculties; for want whereof his natural constitution, with age, contracted such a morosity, that doubting-and contradicting men were never grateful to him. In a word, Mr. Hobbes is one of the most ancient acquaintance I have in the world; and of whom I have always had a great esteem, as a man, who, besides his eminent parts, learning, and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man of probity, and of a life free from scandal.“There have been few persons, whose writings have had a more pernicious influence in spreading irreligion and infidelity than those of Hobbes; and yet none of his treatises are directly levelled against revealed religion. He sometimes affects to speak with veneration of the sacred writings, and expressly declares, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet” as they are given by God in Holy Scripture, they are properly called laws; for the Holy Scripture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greatest right.“But though ha, seems here to make the laws of Scripture the Jaws of God, and to derive their force from his supreme authority, yet elsewhere he supposes them to have no authority, but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He sometimes seems to acknowledge inspiration to be a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God: at other times he treats the pretence to it as a sign of madness, and represents God’s speaking to the prophets in a dream, to be no more than the prophets dreaming that God spake unto them. He asserts, that we have no assurance of the certainty of Scripture but the authority of the church f, and this he resolves into the authority of the commonwealth; and declares, that till the sovereign ruler had prescribed them,” the precepts of Scripture were not obligatory laws, but only counsel or advice, which he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws could not without injustice observe;“that the word of the interpreter of Scripture is the word of God, and that the sovereign magistrate is the interpreter of Scripture, and of all doctrines, to whose authority we must stand. Nay, he carries it so far as to pronounce that Christians are bound in conscience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that” thought is free, but when it comes to confession of faith, the private reason must submit to the public, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.“Accordingly he allows the subject, being commanded by the sovereign, to deny Christ in words, holding the faith of him firmly in his heart; it being in this” not he, that denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country.“In the mean time he acknowledges the existence of God, and that we must of necessity ascribe the effects we behold to the eternal power of all powers, and cause of all causes; and he reproaches those as absurd, who call the world, or the soul of the world, God. But then he denies that we know any thing more of him than, that he exists, and seems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that whatever is not body is nothing at all. And though he sometimes seems to acknowledge religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worship due to God; prayer, thanksgivings, oblations, &c. yet he advances principles, which evidently tend to subvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this, that” from the fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales, publicly allowed, ariseth religion; not allowed, superstition:“and he resolves religion into things which he himself derides, namely,” opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual for prognostics.“He takes pains in many places to prove man a necessary agent, and openly derides the doctrine of a future state: for he says, that the belief of a future state after death,” is a belief grounded upon other men’s saying, that they knew it supernaturally; or, that they knew those, that knew them, that knew others that knew it supernaturally.“But it is not revealed religion only, of which Hobbes makes light; he goes farther, as will appear by running over a few more of his maxims. He asserts,” that, by the law of nature, every man hath a right to all things, and over all persons; and that the natural condition of man is a state of war, a war of all men against all men: that there is no way so reasonable for any man, as by force or wiles to gain a mastery over all other persons that he can, till he sees no other power strong enough to endanger him: that the civtt laws are the only rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest; and that, antecedently to such laws, every action is in its own nature indifferent; that there is nothing good or evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally just and unjust: that all things are measured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of society, where there is: that the power of the sovereign is absolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his subjects: that nothing the sovereign can do to the subject, can properly be called injurious or wrong; and that the, king’s word is sufficient to take any thing from the subject if need be, and that the king is judge of that need." This scheme evidently strikes at the foundation of all religion, natural and revealed. It tends not only to subvert the authority of Scripture, but to destroy God’s moral government of the world. It confounds the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice. It destroys the best principles of the human nature; and instead of that innate benevolence and social disposition which should unite men together, supposes all men to be naturally in a state of war with one another. It erects an absolute tyranny in the state and church, which it confounds, and maKes the will of the prince or governing power the sole standard of right and wrong.

Such principles in religion and politics would, as it may be imagined, raise adversaries. Hobbes accordingly was attacked by many considerable persons, and, what may seem more strange, by such as wrote against each other. Harrington, in his “Oceana,” very often attacks Hobbes; and so does sir Robert Filmer in his “Observations concerning the Original of Government.” We have already mentioned Bramhall and Clarendon; the former argued with great acuteness against that part of his system which relates to liberty and necessity, and afterwards attacked the whole in a piece, called “The Catching of the Leviathan,” published in 1685; in which he undertakes to demonstrate out of Hobbes’s own works, that no man, who is thoroughly an Hobbist, can be “a good Christian, or a good commonwealth’s man, or reconcile himself to himself.” Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, gave a summary view of Hobbes’s principles, in a book called “The Creed of Mr. Hobbes examined, 1670;” to which, we may add the two dialogues of Dr. Eachard between Timothy and Phiiautus, and Dr. Parker’s book, entitled “Disputationes de Deo &, Divina Providentia.” Dr. Henry More has also in different parts of his works canvassed and refuted several positions of Hobbes; and the philosopher of Malmesbury is said to have been so ingenuous as to own, that “whenever he discovered his own philosophy to be unsustainable, he would embrace the opinions of Dr. More.” But the two greatest works against him were, Cumberland’s book “De legibus Naturae,” and Cudworth’s “Intellectual System” for these authors do not employ themselves about his peculiar whimsies, or in vindicating revealed religion from his exceptions and cavils, but endeavour to establish the great principles of all religion and morality, which his scheme tended to subvert, and to shew that they have a real foundation in reason and nature.

There is one peculiarity related of Hobbes, which we have not yet mentioned in the course of our account of him his dread of apparitions and spirits. His friends indeed have called this a fable. “He was falsely accused,” say they, “by some, of being afraid to be alone, because he was afraid of spectres and apparitions; vain bugbears of fools, which he had chased away by the light of his philosophy.” They do not, however, deny, that he was afraid of being alone; they only insinuate, that it was for fear of being assassinated; but the fact probably was, that he had that tenacity of life which is observable in men whose religious principles are unsettled. Upon the whole, we may conclude, with the intelligent Brucker, that Hobbes was certainly possessed of vigorous faculties, and had he been sufficiently careful to form and improve his judgment, and to preserve his mind free from the bias of prejudice and passion, would undoubtedly have deserved a place in the first class of philosophers. The mathematical method Sf reasoning which he adopted, greatly assisted him in his researches; but he was often led into error, by assuming false or uncertain principles or axioms. The vehemence with which he engaged in -political contests biassed his judgment on questions of policy, and led him to frame such maxims and rules of government, as would be destructive of the peace and happiness of mankind. An arrogant contempt of the opinions of others, an impatience of contradiction, and a restless ambition to be distinguished as an innovator in philosophy, were qualities which appear to have contributed in no small degree to the perversion of his judgment. It is also to be remarked, that though he had the precept and example of lord Bacon to guide him, he neglected the new and fertile path of experimental philosophy. So little was he aware of the value of this kind of knowledge, that he censured the royal society of London, at its first institution, for attending more to minute experiment than general principles, and said, that if the name of a philosopher was to be obtained by relating a multifarious farrago of experiments, we might expect to see apothecaries, gardeners, and perfumers rank among philosophers. of publication, seems not unnecessary to close our account of him, 1. His “Translation of Thucydides,” Lond. 1628, and 1676, fol. reprinted in 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “De Mirabilibus Pecci,” a Latin poem, Lond. 1636, 8vo, 1666, 4to. 3. “Elementa philosophica seu politica de Give,” Paris, 1642, 4to, Amst. 1647, 12mo. 4. “An Answer to sir William Davenant’s Epistle or Preface to Gondibert,” Paris, 1650, 12mo, afterwards printed with Gondibert. 5. “Human Nature or the fundamental elements of policy,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 6. “De Corpore Politico; or the Elements of the Law,” Lond. 1650, 12mo. 7. “Leviathan; or the matter, form, and power of a Commonwealth,” ibid. 1651, and 1680, fol. 8. “A Compendium of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and Ilamus’s Logic.” y. “A Letter about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1654, 12mo. This was answered by Dr. Laney and bishop Bramhali. 10. “The Questions concerning Liberty, and Necessity, and Chance, stated and debated between Mr. Hobbes and Dr. Bramhall, bishop of London-Derry,” Lond. 1656, 4to. 11. “Elementorum Philosophiae sectio prima de Corpore,” ibid. 1655, 8vo; in English, 1656, in 4to. “Sectio jsecunda,” London, 1657, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, in 4-to. 12. “Six Lessons to the professors of mathematics of the institution of sir Henry Savile,” ibid. 1656, 4to, written against Mr. Seth Ward, and Dr. John Wallis. 13. “The Marks of the absurd Geometry, rural Language, &c. of Dr. John Wallis,” ibid. 1657, 8vo. 14. “Kxaminatio et emendatio Mathematicae hodiernae, sex Dialogis comprehensa,” ibid.

1661, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 17. “Problemata Physica, una cum magnitudine circuli,” Lond. 1662, 4to; Amsterdam, 1688, 4to. 18. “De principiis et ratiocinatione Geometrarum, contra fastuosum professorem,” Lond. 1666, 4toj Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 19. “Quadratura Circuli, cubatio sphaerse, duplicatio cubi; una cum responsione ad objectiones geometriae professoris Saviliani Oxoniae editas anno 1669.” Lond. 1669, 4to. 20. “Rosetutn Geometricum, sive propositiones aliquoc frustra antehac tentatae, cum censura brevi doctrinae Wallisiamede motn,” London, 1671, 4to, of which an account is given in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 72, for the year 1671. 21. Three Papers presented to the royal society against Dr. Wallis, with considerations on Dr. Wallis’s Answer to them,“Loud. 1671, 4to. 22.” Lux Mathematica, &c. censura doctrinae Wallisianse de Libra: Rosetum Hobbesii,“Lond. 1672, 4io. 23.” Principia et Problemata, aliquot G&ometrica ante desperata, nunc breviter explicata et demonstrata,“London, 1674, 4to. 24.” Epistola ad Dom. Anton, a Wood, Authorem Historiae et Antiquitat. Universit. Oxon.:“dated April the 20th, 1674, printed in half a sheet on one side.” It was written to Mr. Wood,“says Wood himself,” upon his complaint made to Mr. Hobbes of several deletions and additions made in and to his life and character (which be had written of him in that book) by the publisher (Dr. Jo. Fell) of the said Hist, and Antiq, to the great dishonour and disparagement of the said Mr. Hobbes. Whereupon, when that history was finished, came out a scurrilous answer to the said epistle, written by Dr. Fell, which is at “the end of the said history.” In this Answer Dr. Fell styles Mr. Hobbes, “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmsburiense animal-,” and tells us, that one Mr. J. A. had sent a magnificent eulogium of Mr. Hobbes drawn up by him, or more probably by Hobbes himself, in order to be inserted in the Hist, et Antiq. Univers. Oxon; but the editor finding in this eulogium a great many things foreign to the design of that work, and far from truth, he suppressed what he thought proper. 25. “A Letter to William duke of Newcastle, concerning the Controversy had with Dr. Laney, bishop of Ely, about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1670, 12mo. 26. “Decameron Physiologicum; or ten dialogues of natural philosophy, &c.” London, 1678, 8vo. To this is added “The Proportion of a strait line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant.” 27. “His last words and dying Legacy:” printed on one side of a sheet of paper in December 1679, and published by Charles Blunt, esq. from the “Leviathan,” in order to expose Mr. Hobbes’s doctrine. 28. His “Memorable Sayings in his books and at the table;” printed on one side of a broad sheet of paper, with his picture before them. 29. “Behemoth: The History of the Civil Wars of England from 1640 to 1660,” Lond. 1679, 8vo. 30. “Vita Thomae Hobbes,” a Latin poem written by himself, and printed at London in 4to, in the latter end of December 1679; and a fortnight after that, viz. about the 10th of January, it'was published in English verse by another hand, at London 1680, in five sheets in folio. The Latin copy was reprinted and subjoined to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium.” 31. “Historical narration of Heresy, and the punishment thereof,” London, 1680, in four sheets and an half in folio; and in 1682 in 8vo. This is chiefly extracted out of the second chapter De Hseresi of his Appendix to fche Leviathan. 32. “Vita Thomse Hobbes,” written by himself in prose, and printed at Caropolis, i.e. London, and prefixed to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium,” 1681, 8vo, and 1682, 4to. 33. “A Brief of the art of Rhetoric, containing in substance all that Aristotle hath written in his three books of that subject,” 12mo, without a date. It was afterwards published in two books, London, 1681, in 8vo, the first bearing the title of “The Art of Rhetoric,” and the other of “The Art of Rhetoric plainly set forth; with pertinent examples for the more ready understanding and practice of the same.” To which is added, 34. “A Dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the Common Laws of England.” Mr. Barrington in his Observations on the Statute of Treasons, says it appears by this dialogue, that Hobbes had considered most of the fundamental principles of the English law with great care and attention. 35. “An Answer to archhishop Bramhall’s Book called The catching of the Leviathan,” London, 1682, 8vo. 36. “Seven philosophical Problems, and two Propositions of Geometry,” London, 1682, 8vo, dedicated to the king in 1662. 37. (< An Apology for himself and his Writings.“38.” Historia Ecclesiastica carmine elegiaco concinnata.“Aug. Trinob. i. e. London, 1688, 8vo. 39.” Tractatus Opticus,“inserted in Mersennus’s” Cojitata' PhysieoMathematica,“Paris, 1644, 4to. 40.” Observationes in Cartesii de prima Philosophia Meditationes.“These objections are published in all the editions of Des Cartes’s” Meditations.“41.” The Voyage of Ulysses; or Homer’s Odysses,“book 9, 10, 11, 12. London, 1674, in 8vo And 42.” Homer’s Iliads and Odysses," London, 1675 and 1677, 12mo.

, a very eminent painter, is supposed to have been born about 1611, at Antwerp; but the master from whom he received his instruction is not known. He studied entirely after nature, sketching every scene that afforded him pleasure, and his choice was exceedingly picturesque. His grounds are always agreeably broken, and he was particularly fond of describing slopes diversified with shrubs, plants, or trees, which conducted the eye to some building, ruin, grove, or piece of water, and frequently to a delicate remote distance; every object perspectively contributing to delude our observation to that point. The forms of his trees are not unlike Ruysdael and Dekker; and in all his pictures he shews an admirable knowledge of the chiaroscuro. His colouring is extremely good, and his skies evidently shew that he made nature his principal director, by the shape and disposition of his clouds, as also by those peculiar tints, by which he expressed the rising and setting of the sun, the morning and evening. His touch is light, free, and firm; and his paintings have a very striking effect, by the happy distribution of his light and shadow. The figures which he himself designed are but indifferent, which was a defect imputable to Claude Lorraine and Caspar Poussin, as well as to Hobbima; but the latter, conscious of his inability in that respect, admitted but few figures into his designs, and those he usually placed somewhat removed from the immediate view, at a prudent distance from the front line. However, most of his pictures were supplied with figures by Ostade, Teniers, and other very famous masters, which must always give them a great additional value. The works of Hobbima are now exceedingly scarce, and industriously sought for. A very fine landscape of his, the property of the late Edward Coxe, esq. was sold a few years ago for nearly 700l.

, an ancient English poet, who scarcely, however, deserves the name, was born probably about 1370, and has been styled Chaucer’s disciple. He studied law at Chester’s Inn, in the Strand, and was a writer to the privy seal for above twenty years. When he quitted this office, or what means of subsistence he afterwards had, cannot be easily determined. Pits seems wrong in asserting that he was provided for by Humphrey duke of Gloucester. Nor is Bale more correct in saying that he had imbibed the religious tenets of Wickliff. From his poems the following scanty particulars of his history have been communicated by a learned friend: " He dwelt in the office of the privy seal, a writer * unto the seal twenty-four years come Easter, and that is nigh.‘ The king granted him an annuity of twenty marks in the exchequer, which it appears he had much difficulty in getting paid. He expresses much doubt of obtaining it from * yere to yere:’ fears it may not be continued when he is no longer able to ‘ serve’ (i. e. as a writer in the privy seal office). Besides this annuity he has but six marks coming in yearly * in noo tide.‘ Speaks of dwelling at home in his ’ pore coote,' and that more than two parts of his life are spent he is ignorant of husbandry;

* scarcely could skare away the kite;‘ can neither use plough or harrow, knows not * what land is good for what corn;’ unable to fill a cart or barrow from long use to writing; descants on the troubles and difficulties attending writing; says that ‘ hit is welle grett laboure,’ and contrasts very happily the life of an husbandman or artificer with that of a writer, adding that he has continued in writing twenty years and more. He ‘ whilom’ thought to have been a priest, but now is married, having long waited for a benefice; describes the corruption in his office, but that no share of the bribes come to the clerks. Name ‘ Okkleve’ acquainted with Chaucer has small knowledge of Latin and of French. He is advised to complain to the prince that he cannot get paid in the exchequer, and petition that his patent be removed into the haniper, but observes this cannot be done because of the ‘ ordinance,’ for

‘ longe after this shall noo graunt be chargeable.’ He says ‘ my lorde the prince is good lorde’ to him, and is advised to write him ‘ a goodlie tale or two,’ therein to avoid flattery, and write * nothinge that sowneth to vice,' " &c.

, an English physician, was the son of Dr. Thomas Hodges, dean of Hereford, of whom there are three printed sermons. He was educated in Westminster-school, and became a student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1648. In 1651 and 1654, he took the degrees of B. and M. A. and, in 1659, accumulated the degrees of B. and M. D. He settled in London, and was, in 1672, made fellow of the College of Physicians. He remained in the metropolis during the continuance of the plague in 1665, when most of the physicians, and Sydenham among the rest, retired to the country: and, with another of his brethren, he visited the infected during the whole of that terrible visitation. These two physicians, indeed, appear to have been appointed by the city of London to attend the diseased, with a stipend. Dr. Hodges was twice taken ill during the prevalence of the disease; but by the aid of timely remedies he recovered. His mode of performing his perilous duty was to receive early every morning, at his own house, the persons who came to give reports of the sick, and convalescents, for advice; he then made his forenoon visits to the infected, causing a pan of coals to be carried before him with perfumes, and chewing troches while he was in the sick chamber. He repeated his visits in the afternoon. His chief prophylactic was a liberal use of Spanish wine, and cheerful society after the business of the day. It is much to be lamented that such a man afterwards fell into unfortunate circumstances, and was confined for debt in Ludgate prison, where he died in 1684. His body was interred in the church of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, London, where a monument is erected to him. He is author of two works: 1. “Vindiciae Medicinse et Medicorum: An Apology for the Profession and Professors of Physic, &c. 1660,” 8vo. 2. “Aoj/t*oXoyi sive, pestis nuperoe apud populum Londinensem grassantis narratio historica,” 1672, 8vo. A translation of it into English was printed at London in 1720, 8vo, under the following title: “Loimologia, or, an Historical Account of the Plague of London in 1665, with precautionary Directions against the like Contagion. To which is added, an Essay on the different causes of pestilential diseases, and how they become contagious. With remarks on the infection now in France, and the most probable means to prevent its spreading here;” the latter by John Quincy, M. D. In 1721, there was printed at London, in 8vo, “A collection of very valuable and scarce pieces relating to the last plague in 1665;” among which is “An account of the first rise, progress, symptoms, and cure of the Plague; being the substance of a letter from Dr. Hodges to a person of quality, dated from his house in Watling-street, May the 8th, 1666.” The author of the preface to this collection calls our author “a faithful historian and diligent physician;” and tells us, that “he may be reckoned among the best observers in any age of physic, and has given us a true picture of the plague in his own time.”

, an English landscape painter, was born in London, in 1744, and received his tuition in the art from Wilson, whom he assisted for some time, and under whom he acquired a good eye for colouring, and great freedom and boldness of hand; but unluckily, like too many pupils, he caught the defects of his master more powerfully than his beauties; and was, in consequence, too loose in his definition of forms, by which means, that which added grace to the works of the master, became slovenliness in the pupil. “Hodges,” says Fuseli, “had the boldness and neglect of Wilson, but not genius enough to give authority to the former, or make us forgive the latter: too inaccurate for scene-painting, too mannered for local representation, and not sublime or comprehensive enough for poetic landscape; yet, by mere decision of hand, nearer to excellence than mediocrity; and, perhaps, superior to some who surpassed him in perspective, or diligence of execution.” He accepted an appointment to go out draughtsman with captain Cook on nis second voyage to the Soutn Seas, from which he returned after an absence of three years, and painted some pictures for the admiralty, of scenes in Otaheite and Ulietea. Afterwards, under the patronage of Warren Hastings, he visited the East Indies, where he acquired a decent fortune. On his return home, after practising the art some time, he engaged in commercial and banking speculations; which not proving successful, he sunk under the disappointment, and died in 1797.

, an eminent English divine, was born Jan. 1, 1659, atOcicombe in the county of Somerset, of which place his father was rector. He discovered while a boy, a great propensity to learning; and, in 1676, was admitted into Wadham-college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in 1684. When he was only in his twenty-first year he published his “Dissertation against Aristeas’ s History of the Seventy-two Interpreters.” The substance of that history of Aristeas, concerning the seventy-two Greek interpreters of the Bible, is this: Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and founder of the noble library at Alexandria, being desirous of enriching that library with all sorts of books, committed the care of it to Demetrius Phalereus, a noble Athenian then living in his court. Demetrius being informed, in the course of his inquiries, of the Law of Moses among the Jews, acquainted the king with it; who signified his pleasure, that a copy of that book, which was then only in Hebrew, should be sent for from Jerusalem, with interpreters from the same place to translate it into Greek. A deputation was accordingly sent to Eleazar the high-priest of the Jews at Jerusalem; who sent a copy of the Hebrew original, and seventy-two interpreters, six out of each of the twelve tribes, to translate it into Greek. When they were come to Egypt the king caused them to be conducted into the island of Pharos near Alexandria, in apartments prepared for them, where they completed their translation in seventy-two days. Such is the story told by Aristeas, who is said to be one of king Ptolemy’s court. Hody shews that it is the invention of some Hellenist Jew; that it is full of anachronisms and gross blunders; and, in short, was written on purpose to recommend and give greater authority to the Greek version of the Old Testament, which from this story has received the name of the Septuagint. This dissertation was received with the highest applause by all the learned, except Isaac Vossius. Charles du Fresne spoke highly of it in his observations on the “Chrouicon Paschale,” published in 1688; and Menage, in his notes upon the second edition of “Diogenes Laertius,” gave Hody the titles of “eruditissimus, doctissimus, elegantissimus, &c.” but Vossius alone was greatly dissatisfied with it. He had espoused the contrary opinion, and could not bear that such a boy as Hody should presume to contend with one of his age and reputation for letters. He published therefore an appendix to his “Observations on Pomponius Mela,” and subjoined an answer to this dissertation of Hody’s; in which, however, he did not enter much into the argument, but contents himself with treating Hody very contemptuously, vouchsafing him no better title than Juvenis Oxoniensis, and sometimes using worse language. When Vossius was asked afterwards, what induced him to treat a young man of promising hopes, and who had certainly deserved well of the republic of letters, so very harshly, he answered, that he had received some time before a rude Latin epistle from Oxford, of which he suspected Hody to be the author; and that this had made him deal more severely with him than he should otherwise have done. Vossius had indeed received such a letter; but it was written, according to the assertion of Creech, the translator of Lucretius, without Hody’s knowledge or approbation. When Hody published his “Dissertation, &c.” he told the reader in his preface, that he had three other books preparing upon the Hebrew text, and Greek version but he was now so entirely drawn away from these studies by other engagements, that he could not find time to complete his work, and to answer the objections of Vossius, till more than twenty years after. In 1704, he published it altogether, with this title, “De Bibliorum textibns originalibus, versionibus Grsecis, et Latina Vulgata, libri IV. &c.” The first book contains his dissertation against Aristeas’s history, which is here reprinted with improvements, and an answer to Vossius’s objections. In the second he treats of the true authors of the Greek version called the Septuagint; of the time when, and the reasons why, it was undertaken, and of the manner in which it was performed. The third is a history of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint version, and of the Latin Vulgate; shewing the authority of each in different ages, and that the Hebrew text has been always most esteemed and valued. In the fourth he gives an account of the rest of the Greek versions, namely, those of Symmachus, Aquila. and Theodotion; of Origen’s “Hexapla,” and other ancient editions; and subjoins lists of the books of the Bible at different times, which exhibit a concise, but full and clear view of the canon of Holy Scripture. Upon the whole, he thinks it probable, that the Greek version, called the Septuagint, was done in the time of the two Ptolemies, Lagus and Philadelphus; and that it was not done by order of king Ptolemy, or under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, in order to be deposited in the Alexandrine library, but by Hellenist Jews for the use of their own countrymen.

In 1689, he wrote the “Prolegomena” to John Malela’s “Chronicle,” printed at Oxford; and the year after was made chaplain to Stillingfieet bishop of Worcester, being tutor to his son at Wadham college. The deprivation of the bishops, who had refused the oaths to king William and queen Mary, engaged him in a controversy with Dodwell, who had till now been his friend, and had spoken handsomely and affectionately of him, in his “Dissertations upon Irenams,” printed in 1689. The pieces Hody published on this occasion were, in 1691, “The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the new bishops: or, a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, shewing, that although a bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the church ever made a separation, if the successor was not an heretic. Translated out of an ancient manuscript in the public library at Oxford,” one of the Baroccian Mss. He translated it afterwards into Latin, and prefixed to it some pieces out of ecclesiastical antiquity, relating to the same subject. Dodwell publishing an answer to it, entitled “A Vindication of the deprived bishops,” &c. in 1692, Hody replied, in a treatise which he styled “The Case of Sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation stated; in answer to a piece intituled, A Vindication of the deprived Bishops, &c. Together with the several pamphlets published as answers to the Baroccian Treatise, 1693.” The part he acted in this controversy recommended him so powerfully to Tillotson, who had succeeded Sancroft in the see of Canterbury, that he made him his domestic chaplain in May 1694. Here he drew up his dissertation “concerning the Resurrection of the same body,” which he dedicated to Stillingfleet, whose chaplain he had been from 1690. Tillotson dying November following, he was continued chaplain by Tenison his successor; who soon after gave him the rectory of Chart near Canterbury, vacant by the death of Wharton. This, before he was collated, he exchanged for the united parishes of St. Michael’s Royal and St. Martin’s Vintry, in London, being instituted to these in August 1695. In 1696, at the command of Tenison, he wrote “Animadversions on two pamphlets lately published by Mr. Collier, &c.” Whesi sir William Perkins and sir John Friend were executed that year for the assassination-plot, Collier, Cook, and Snatt, three nonjuring clergymen, formally pronounced upon them the absolution of the church, as it stands in the office for the visitation of the sick, and accompanied this ceremony with a solemn imposition of hands. For this imprudent action they were not only indicted, but also the archbishops and bishops published “A Declaration of their sense concerning those irregular and scandalous proceedings.” Snatt and Cook were cast into prison. Collier absconded, and from his privacy published two pamphlets to vindicate his own, and his brethren’s conduct; the one called, “A Defence of the Absolution given to sir William Perkins at the place of execution;” the other, “A Vindication thereof, occasioned by a paper, intituled, A Declaration of the sense of the archbishops and bishops, &c.”; in answer to which Hody published the “Animadversions” above-mentioned.

, of a noble family at Vienna, was born Feb. 24, 1580. After being eight years superintendant of Plaven in Saxony, he took holy orders at Prague in 1611. In 1613 he left Prague, and was appointed principal preacher to the elector of Saxony at Dresden, where he died March 4, 1645. He was a strenuous Lutheran, and wrote with as much zeal against Calvinists as Papists. His works, which are very numerous both in Latin and German, are not at this day much esteemed, or indeed known. Their titles, however, are given by the writers of his life, and among them we find, “Solida. detestatio Papas et Calvinistarum,” 4to. “Apologia pro B. Luthero contra Lampadium,” Leipsic, 1611, 4to. “Philosophise Aristotelicse, partes tres.” “Septem verborum Christi explicatio.” The greater part of his tracts appear evidently, from their titles, to be controversial.

, a learned German, was born at Augsburg in 1556; and spent his life in teaching the youth in the college of St. Anne, of which he was made principal by the magistrates of Augsburg, in 1593. They made him their library keeper also, and he acquitted himself with true literary zeal in this post: for he collected a great number of Mss. and printed books, especially Greek, and also of the best authors and the best editions, with which he enriched their library; and also published the most scarce and curious of the Mss. with his own notes. His publications were very numerous, among which were editions of the following authors, or at least of some part of their works; Origen, Philo Judseus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssen, Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Hori Apollinis Hieroglyphica, Appian, Photius, Procopius, Anna Comnena, &c. To some of these he added Latin translations, but published others in Greek only, with notes. Huetius has commended him, not only for the pains he took to discover old manuscripts, but also for his skill and ability in translating them. He composed, and published in 1595, “A Catalogue of the Greek Mss. in the Augsburg library,” which, for the judgment and order with which it is drawn up, is reckoned a masterpiece in its kind. He may justly be ranked among those who contributed to the revival of good learning in Europe: for, besides these labours for the public, he attended his college closely; and not only produced very good scholars, but is said to have furnished the bar with one thousand, and the church with two thousand, young men of talents. He died at Augsburg in 1617, much lamented, being a man of good as well as great qualities, and not less beloved than admired.

, a physician, was born of a good family, at Furstenwalde, in the electorate of Brandenbourg, Sept. 20, 1621; and was driven early from his native country by the plague, and also by the war that followed it. His parents, having little idea of letters or sciences, contented themselves with having him taught writing and arithmetic; but Hoffman’s taste for books and study made him very impatient under this confined instruction, and he was resolved, at all events, to be a scholar. He first gained over his mother to his scheme; but she died when he was only fifteen. This, however, fortunately proved no impediment to his purpose; for the schoolmaster of Furstenwalde, to which place after many removals he had now returned, was so struck with his talents and laudable ambition, that he instructed him carefully in secret. His father, convinced at length of his uncommon abilities, permitted him to follow his inclinations; and, in 1637, sent him to study in the college of Cologne. Famine and the plague drove him from hence to Kopnik, where he buried his father; and, in 1638, he went to Altdorf, to an uncle by his mother’s side, who was a professor of physic. Here he finished his studies in classical learning and philosophy, and then applied himself, with the utmost ardour, to physic. In 1641, when he had made some progress, he went to the university of Padua, which then abounded with men very learned in all sciences. Anatomy and botany were the great objects of his pursuit; and he became very deeply skilled in both. Baitholin tells us, that Hoffman, having dissected a turkey-cock, discovered the panacreatic duct, and shewed it to Versungus, a celebrated anatomist of Padua, with whom he lodged; who, taking the hint, demonstrated afterwards the same vessel in the human body. When he had been at Padua about three years, he returned to Altdorf, to assist his uncle, now growing infirm, in his business; and taking the degree of doctor, he applied himself very diligently to practice, in. which he had abundant success, and acquired great fame. In 1648, he was made professor extraordinary in anatomy and surgery; in 1649, professor of physic, and soon after member of the college of physicians; in 1653, professor of botany, and director of the physic-garden. He acquitted himself very ably in these various employments, not neglecting in the mean tiaie the business of his profession; in which his reputation was so extensive, that many princes of Gtrmany appointed him their physician. He died of an apoplexy in 1698, after having published several botanical works, and married three wives, by whom he had eighteen children. His works are, 1. “Altdorfi deliciae hortenses,” 1677, 4to. 2. “Appendix ad Catalogum Plantarum hortensium,” 16D1, 4to. 3. “Deliciae silvestres,” 1677, 4to. 4. “Florilegium Altdorfinum,” 1676, &c. 4to.

William Hogarth was born in 1697, or 1698, in the parish of St. Martin, Ludgate. The outset of his life, however, was unpromising. “He was bound,” says Mr. Walpole, “to a mean engraver of arms on plate.” Hogarth probably chose this occupation, as it required some skill in drawing, to which his genius was particularly turned, and which he contrived assiduously to cultivate. His master, it since appears, was Mr. Ellis Gamble, a silversmith of eminence, who resided in Cranbdurn-street, Leicester-fields. In this profession it is not unusual to bind apprentices to the single branch of engraving arms and cyphers on every species of metal, and in that particular department of the business young Hogarth was placed; “but before his time was expired he felt the impulse of genius, and that it directed him to painting.”

During his apprenticeship, he set out one Sunday, with two or three companions, on an excursion to Highgate. The weather being hot, they went into a public house, where they had not been long before a quarrel arose between some persons in the same room. One of the disputants struck the other on the head with a quart pot, and cut him very much. The blood running down the man’s face, together with the agony of the wound, which had distorted his features into a most hideous grin, presented Hogarth, who shewed himself thus early “apprised of the mode Nature intended he should pursue,” with too laughable a subject to be overlooked. He drew out his pencil, and produced on the spot one of the most ludicrous figures that ever was seen. What rendered this piece the more valuable was, that it exhibited an exact likeness of the man, with the portrait of his antagonist, and the figures in caricature of the principal persons gathered round him.

It happened in the early part of Hogarth’s life, that a nobleman who was uncommonly ugly and deformed, came to sit to him for his picture. It was executed with a skill that did honour to the artist’s abilities; but the likeness was rigidly observed, without even the necessary attention to compliment or flattery. The peer, disgusted at this counterpart of his dear self, never once thought of paying for a reflector that would only insult him with his deformities. Some time was suffered to elapse before the artist applied for his money; but afterwards many applications were made by him (who had then no need of a banker) for payment, but without success. The painter, however, at last hit upon an expedient which he knew must alarm the nobleman’s pride, and by that means answer his purpose. It was couched in the following card: “Mr. Hogarth’s dutiful respects to lord; finding that he does not mean to have the picture which was drawn for him, is informed again of Mr. H.'s necessity for the money; if, therefore, his lordship does not send for it in three days, it will be disposed of, with the addition of a tail, and some other little appendages, to Mr. Hare, the famous wild-beast man; Mr. H. having given that gentleman a conditional promise of it for an exhibition picture, on his lordship’s refusal.” This intimation had the desired effect. The picture was sent home, and committed to the flames.

Mr. Walpole has remarked, that if our artist “indulged his spirit of ridicule in personalities, it never proceeded beyond sketches and drawings,” and wonders “that he never, without intention, delivered the very features of any identical person.” But this elegant writer, who may be said to have received his education in a court, had perhaps few opportunities of acquaintance among the low popular characters with which Hogarth occasionally peopled his scenes. The friend who contributed this remark, was assured by an ancient gentleman of unquestionable veracity and acuteness of remark, that almost all the personages who attended the levee of the Rake were undoubted portraits; and that in “Southvvark Fair,” and the “Modern Midnight Conversation,” as many more were discoverable. In the former plate he pointed out Essex the dancingmaster; and in the latter, as well as in the second plate to the “Rake’s Progress,” Figg the prize-fighter. He mentioned several others by name, from his immediate knowledge both of the painter’s design and the characters represented; but the rest of the particulars by which he supported his assertions, have esca'ped the memory of our informant. While Hogarth was painting the “Rake’s Progress,” he had a summer reidence at Isleworth, and never failed to question the company who came to see these pictures if they knew for whom one or another figure was designed. When they guessed wrongly, he set them right.

The duke of Leeds has an original scene in the Beggars Opera, painted by Hogarth. It is that in which Lucy and Polly are on their knees before their respective fathers, to intercede for the life of* the hero of the piece. All the figures are either known or supposed to be portraits. If we are not misinformed, the late sir Thomas Robinson (better known perhaps by the name of long sir Thomas) is standing in one of the side-boxes. Macheath, unlike his spruce representative on our present stage, is a slouching bully; and Polly appears happily disencumbered of such a hoop as the daughter of Peachum within the reach of younger memories has worn. The duke gave 35l. for this picture at Mr. Rich’s auction. Another copy of the same scene was bought by the late Sir William Saunderson, and is now in the possession of sir Harry Gough. Mr. Walpoie has a picture of a scene in the same piece, where Macheath is going to execution. In this also the likenesses or' Walker and Miss Fenton, afterwards duchess of Bolton (the original Macheath and Polly) are preserved.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

In 1733 his genius became conspicuously known. The third scene of his “Harlot’s Progress,” introduced him to the notice of the great. At a board of treasury which was held a day or two after the appearance of that print, a copy of it was shewn by one of the lords, as containing, among other excellencies, a striking likeness of sir John Gonson. It gave universal satisfaction: from the treasury each lord repaired to the print-shop for a copy of it, and Hogarth rose completely into fame.

Hogarth had projected a “Happy Marriage,” by way of counterpart to his “Marriage a la Mode.” A design for the first of his intended six plates he had sketched out in colours; and the following is as accurate an account of it as could be furnished by a gentleman who long ago enjoyed only a few minutes sight of so great a curiosity. The time supposed was immediately after the return of the parties from church. The scene lay in the hall of an antiquated country mansion. On one side the married couple were represented sitting. Behind them was a group of their young friends of both sexes, in the act of breaking bridecake over their heads. In front appeared the father of the young lady, grasping a bumper, and drinking, with a seeming roar of exultation, to the future happiness of her and her husband. By his side was a table covered with refreshments. Jollity rather than politeness was the designation of his character. Under the screen of the hall, several rustic musicians in grotesque attitudes, together with servants, tenants, &c. were arranged. Through the arch by which the room was entered, the eye was led along a passage into the kitchen, which afforded a glimpse of sacerdotal luxury. Before the dripping-pan stood a wellfed divine, in his gown and cassock, with his watch in his baud, giving directions to a cook, dressed all in white, who was employed in basting a haunch of venison. Among the faces of the principal figures, none but that of the young lady was completely finished. Hogarth had been often reproached for his inability to impart grace and dignity to his heroines. The bride was therefore meant to vindicate his pencil from so degrading an imputation. The effort, however, was unsuccessful. The girl was certainly pretty; but her features, if we may use the term, were uneducated. She might have attracted notice as a chambermaid, but would have fa-iled to extort applause as a woman of fashion. The clergyman and his culinary associate were more laboured than any other parts of the picture. It is natural for us to dwell longest on that division of a subject which is most congenial to our private feelings. The painter sat down with a resolution to delineate beauty improved by art, but seems, as usual, to have deviated into meanness, or could not help neglecting his original purpose, to luxuriate in such ideas as his situation in early life had fitted him to express. He found himself, in short, out of his element in the parlour, and therefore hastened in quest of ease and amusement, to the kitchen fire. Churchill, with more force than delicacy, once observed of him, that he only painted the backside of nature. It must be allowed, that such an artist, however excellent ia his walk, was better qualified to represent the low-born parent than the royal preserver of a foundling.

Hogarth had one failing in common with most people who attain wealth and eminence without the aid of liberal education. He affected to despise every kind of knowledge which he did not possess. Having established his fame with little or no obligation to literature, he either conceived it to be needless, or decried it because it lay out of his reach. His sentiments, in short, resembled those of Jack Cade, who pronounced sentence on the clerk of Chatham, because he could write and read. Till, in evil hour, this celebrated artist commenced author, and was obliged to employ the friends already mentioned to correct his “Analysis of Beauty,” he did not seem to have discovered that even spelling was a necessary qualification; and yet he had ventured to ridicule the late Mr. Rich’s deficiency as to this particular, in a note which lies before the Rake whose play is refused while he remains in confinement for debt. Before the time of which we are now speaking, one of our artist’s common topics of declamation, was the uselessness of books to a man of his profession. In Beerstreet, among other volumes consigned by him to the pastry-cook, we find “Turnbull on Ancient Painting,” a treatise which Hogarth should have been able to understand before he ventured to condemn. Garrick himself, however, was not more ductile to flattery. A word in favour of “Sigismunda,” might have commanded a proof print, or forced an original sketch out of our artist’s hands. The person who supplied this remark owed one of Hogarth’s scarcest performances to the success of a compliment, which might have seemed extravagant even to sir Godfrey Kneller.

The following well-authenticated story will also serve to shew how much more easy it is to detect ill-placed or hyperbolical adulation respecting others, than when applied to ourselves. Hogarth being at dinner with the celebrated Cheselden, and some other company, was told that Mr>. John Freke, surgeon of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, a few evenings before at Dick’s coffee-house, had asserted that Greene was as eminent in composition as Handel. “That fellow Freke,” replied Hogarth, “is always shooting his bolt absurdly one way or another! Handel is a giant in music; Greene only a light Florimel kind of a composer.” —“Ay,” said, the informant, “but at the same time Mr. Freke declared you were as good a portrait-painter as Vandyck.”—“There he was in the right,” adds Hogarth: “and so I am, give me my time, and let one choose my subject!”

“The print of Mr. Wilkes was soon after published, drawn from the life by William Hogarth. It must be allowed to be an excellent compound caricatura, or a caricatura of what nature had already caricatured. I know but one short apology that can be made for this gentleman, or, to speak more properly, for the person of Mr. Wilkes. It is, that he did not make himself, and that he never was solicitous about the ease of his soul, as Shakspeare calls it, only so far as to keep it clean and in health. I never heard that he once hung over the glassy stream, like another Narcissus, admiring the image in it, nor that he ever stole an amorous look at his counterfeit in a side mirrour. His form, such as it is, ought to give him no pain, because it is capable of giving pleasure to others. I fancy he finds himself tolerably happy in the clay-cottage to which he is tenant for life, because he has learnt to keep it in good order. While the share of health and animal spirits, which, heaven has given him, shall hold out, I can scarcely imagine he will be one moment peevish about the outside of so precarious, so temporary a habitation, or will even be brought to own, ingenium Galba male habitat. Monsieur est mal logé.

Of Hogarth’s smaller plates many were destroyed. When be wanted a piece of copper on a sudden, he would take any plate from which he had already worked off such a number of impressions as he supposed he should sell. He then sent it to be effaced, beat out, or otherwise altered to his present purpose.

, better known by his German name Hans Holbein, a most excellent painter, was born, according to some accounts, at Basil in Switzerland in 1498, but Charles Patin places his birth three years earlier, supposing it very improbable that he could have arrived at such maturity of judgment and perfection in painting, as he shewed in 1514 and 1516, if he had been born so late as 1498. He learned the rudiments of his art from his father John Holbein, who was a painter, and had removed from Augsburg to Basil; but the superiority of his genius soon raised him above his master. He painted our Saviour’s Passion in the town house of Basil; and in the fish-market of the same town, a Dance of peasants, and Death’s dance. These pieces were exceedingly striking to the curious; and Erasmus was so affected with them, that he requested of him to draw his picture, and was ever after his friend. Holbein, in the mean time, though a great genius and fine artist, had no elegance or delicacy of manners, but was given to wine and revelling company; for which he met with the following gentle rebuke from Erasmus. When Erasmus wrote his “Moriæ Encomium,” or “Panegyric upon Folly,” he sent a copy of it to Hans Holbein, who was so pleased with the several descriptions of folly there given, that he designed them all in the margin; and where he had not room to draw the whole figures, pasted a piece of paper to the leaves. He then returned the book to Erasmus, who seeing that he had represented an amorous fool by the figure of a fat Dutch lover, hugging his bottle and his lass, wrote under it, “Hans Holbein,” and so sent it back to the painter. Holbein, however, to be revenged of him, drew the picture of Erasmus for a musty book-worm, who busied himself in scraping together old M'Ss. and antiquities, and wrote. under it “Adagia.”

It is observed by most authors, that Holbein always painted with his left hand; though Walpole objects against that tradition, (what he considers as a proof), that in a portrait of Holbein painted by himself, which was in the Arundelian collection, he is represented holding the pencil in the right hand. But that evidence cannot be sufficient to set aside so general a testimony of the most authentic writers on this subject; because, although habit and practice might enable him to handle the pencil familiarly with his left hand, yet, as it is so unusual, it must have had but an unseemly and awkward appearance in a picture; which probably might have been his real inducement for representing himself without such a particularity. Besides, the writer of Holbein’s life, at the end of the treatise by De Piles, mentions a print by Hollar, still extant, which describes Holbein drawing with his left hand. Nor is it so extraordinary or incredible a circumstance; for other artists, mentioned in this volume, are remarked for the very same habit; particularly Mozzo of Antwerp, who worked with the left; and Amico Aspertino, as well as Ludovico Cangiagio, who worked equally well with both hands. This great artist died of the plague at London in 1554; some think at his lodgings in Whitehall, where he had lived from the time that the king became his patron,' but Vertue rather thought at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in. the priory of Christ church near Aldgate, then called Uuke’s-place. Strype says that he was buried in St. Catherine Cree church; but this seems doubtful.

, a Danish historian, lawyer, and poet, was born at Bergen in Norway, in 1685. His family is said by some to have been low, by others noble; but it is agreed that he commenced life in very poor circumstances, and picked up his education in his travels through various parts of Europe, where he subsisted either by charity, or by his personal efforts of various kinds. On his return to Copenhagen, he found means to be appointed assessor of the consistory court, which place affording him a competent subsistence, he was able to indulge his genius, and produced several works, which gave him great celebrity. Among these are some comedies, a volume of which has been translated into French. He wrote also a History of Denmark, in 3 vols. 4to, which has been considered as the best that hitherto has been produced, though in some parts rather minute and uninteresting. Two volumes of “Moral Thoughts,” and a work entitled “The Danish Spectator,” were produced by him: and he is generally considered as the author of the “Iter subterraneum of Klimius,” a satirical romance, something in the style of Gulliver’s Travels. Most of these have been translated also into German, and are much esteemed in that country. His “Introduction to Universal History” was translated into English by Dr. Gregory Sharpe, with notes, 1755, 8vo. By his publications, and his place of assessor, he had osconomy enough to amass a considerable fortune, and even in his life gave 70,000 crowns to the university of Zealand, for the education of young noblesse; thinking it right that as his wealth had been acquired by literature, it should be employed in its support. This munificence obtained him the title of baron. At his death, which happened in 1754, he left also a fund of 16,000 crowns to portion out a certain number of young women, selected from the families of citizens in Copenhagen.

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer and translator, was born in Orange-court, Leicesterfields, Dec. 22, 1744. His father was in the humble occupation of a shoe-maker, and does not appear to have given his son any education. The first employment mentioned, in which the latter was concerned, was as servant to the hon. Mr. Vernon, of whose race-horses he had the care, and became very expert in the art of horsemanship. He is said also to have worked for many years at his father’s trade. He possessed, however, good natural abilities, and a thirst for knowledge, of which he accumulated a considerable fund, and learned with facility and success the French, German, and Italian languages. When about his twenty-fifth year, he conceived a passion for the stage, and his first performance was in Ireland. He had afterwards an engagement of the same kind in London, but never attained any eminence as an actor, although he always might be seen to understand his part better than those to whom nature was more liberal. He quitted the stage in 1781, after the performance of his first play, “Duplicity,” which was successful enough to encourage his perseverance as a dramatic writer. From this time he contributed upwards of thirty pieces, which were either acted on the London stages, or printed without having been performed. Scarcely any of them, however, have obtained a permanent situation on the boards. He published also the following novels “Alwyn,” 1780; “Anna St. Ives,” 1792; “Hugh Trevor,” 1794; and “Brian Perdue,” 1807. His translations were, “The private Life of Voltaire,” 12mo; “Memoirs of Baron Trenck,” 3 vols. 12mo; Mirabeau f $ “Secret History of the Court of Berlin,” 2 vols. 8vo; madame de Genlis’s “Tales of the Castle,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The posthumous Works of Frederick II. of Prussia,” 13 vols. 8vo; “An abridgment of Lavater’s Physiognomy,” 3 vols. 8vo. Mr. Holcroft having imbibed the revolutionary principles of France, had joined some societies in this country, which brought him under suspicion of being concerned with Hardy, Tooke, and Thelwall, who were tried for high treason in 1794, but they being acquitted, Mr. Holcroft was discharged without being put upon his trial. His last work was his “Travels,” in Germany and France, 2 vols. 4to, which, like some other of his speculations, was less advantageous to his bookseller than to himself. Iri 1782 he published a poem called “Huntan happiness, or the Sceptic,” which attracted little notice on the score of poetical merit, but contained many of those loose sentiments on religion, which he was accustomed to deliver with more dogmatism than became a man so little acquainted with the subject. In these, however, he persisted almost to the last, when, on his death-bed, he is said to have acknowledged his error. He died March 23, 1809.

, an English Roman catholic divine, was born in Lancashire in 1596, and in 1618 was admitted a student in the English college at Doway, where he took the name of Johnson. Here he improved himself in the classics, and studied philosophy and divinity, and going to Paris in 1623, took the degree of D. D. in that university, to which he continued attached during the remainder of his life, having no other preferment but that of penitentiary or confessor in the parish church of St. Nicholas du Chardonet. He died about 1665, esteemed one of the ablest controversial divines of his time, and in this respect has been highly praised by Dupin. Some suspected him of Jansenism, but his biographers wish to repell this charge, as they think it. Among his works are three, which chiefly contributed to his fame, 1. “Analysis Fidei,” Paris, 1652, 8vo, translated into English by W. G. 4to, 1658. Of this Dupin has given a long analysis. It was reprinted by Barbou in 1766, and contains a brief summary of the whole ceconomy of faith, its principles and motives, with their application to controversial questions. It is considered as argumentative and sound. 2. “Marginal Notes on the New Testament,” Paris, 1660, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “A Letter concerning Mr. White’s Treatise De Medio Animarum statu,” Paris, 1661, 4to.

, a learned English philosopher, was born in Nottinghamshire, educated in Pembroke hall, Cambridge, and, in 1642, became rector of Blechingdon, Oxfordshire. In 1660 he proceeded D. D. was afterwards canon of Ely, fellow of the royal society, canon of St. Paul’s, sub-dean of the royal chapel, and sub-almoner to his majesty. He gained particular celebrky by teaching a young gentleman of distinction, who was born deaf and dumb, to speak, an attempt at that time unprecedented. This gentleman’s name was Alexander Popham, son of colonel Edward Popham, uho was some time an admiral in the service of the long parliament. The cure was performed by him in his house at Blechingdon, in 1659; but Popham, losing what he had been taught by Holder, after he was called home to his friends, was sent to Dr. Wallis, who brought him to his speech again. On this subject Holder published a book entitled “The Elements of Speech; an essay of inquiry into the natural production of letters: with an appendix concerning persons that are deaf and dumb,” 1669, 8vo. In the appendix he relates how soon, and by what methods, he brought Popham to speak. In this essay he has analysed, dissected, and classed the letters of our alphabet so minutely and clearly, that it is well worthy the attentive perusal of every lover of philology, but particularly, says Dr. Burney, of lyric poets and composers of vocal music; to whom it will point out such harsh and untunable combinations of letters and syllables as from their difficult utterance impede and corrupt the voice in its passage. In 1678 he published, in 4to, “A Supplement to the Philosophical Transactions of July 1670, with some Reflections on Dr. Wailis’s Letter there inserted.” This was written to claim the glory of having taught Popham to speak, which Wallis in the letter there mentioned had claimed to himself: upon which the doctor soon after published, “A Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions, particularly those of July 1670, in answer to the cavils of Dr. William Holder,” 1678,“4to. Holder was skilled in the theory and practice of music, and composed some anthems, three or four of which are preserved in Dr. Tud way’s collection in the British museum. In 1694 he published” A Discourse concerning Time,“in which, among other things, the deficiency of the Julian Calendar was explained, and the method of reforming it demonstrated, which was afterwards adopted in the change of style. It is to be lamented that in treating this subject with so much clearness and ability, so good a musician did not extend his reflections on the artificial parts of time, to its divisions and proportions in musical measures; a subject upon which the abbate Sacchi has written in Italian,” Del Tempo nella Musica;" but which rhythmically, or metrically considered in common with poetry, has not yet been sufficiently discussed in our own language.

The same year was published by Dr. Holder, “A Treatise on the natural grounds of Harmony,” in which the propagation of sound, the ratio of vibrations, their coincidence in forming consonance, sympathetic resonance, or sons harmoniyites, the difference between arithmetical, geometrical, and harmonic proportions, and the author’s opinion concerning the music of the ancients, to whom he denies the use of harmony, or music in parts, are all so ably treated, and clearly explained, that this book may be read with profit and pleasure by most practical musicians, though unacquainted with geometry, mathematics, and harmonics, or the philosophy of sound. This book is said, in the introduction, to have been drawn up chiefly for the sake and service of the gentlemen of the chapel royal, of which he was sub-dean, and in which, as well as other cathedrals to which his power extended, he is said to have been a severe disciplinarian; for, being so excellent a judge and composer himself, it is natural to suppose that he would be the less likely to tolerate neglect and ignorance in the performance of the choral service. Michael Wise, who perhaps had fallen under his lash, used to call him Mr. Snub-dean. Dr. Holder died at Amen Corner, London, Jan. 24, 1696-7, and was buried in St. Paul’s, with his wife, who was only sister to sir Christopher Wren. Dr. Holder had a considerable share in the early education of that afterwards eminent architect.

, a very polite and elegant Scholar, son of the rev. Thomas Holdsworth, rector of North Stoneham, in the county of Southampton, was born Aug. 6, 1688, and trained at Winchester-school. He was thence elected demy of Magdalen college, Oxford, in July 1705; took the degree of M. A. in April 1711; became a college tutor, and had many pupils. In 1715, when he was to be chosen into a fellowship, he resigned his demyship, and left the college, because unwilling to swear allegiance to the new government. The remainder of his life was spent in travelling with young noblemen and gentlemen as a tutor: in 1741 and 1744 he was at Rome in this capacity, with Mr. Pitt and with Mr. Drake and Mr. Townson. He died of a fever at lord Digby’s house at Coleshill in Warwickshire, Dec. 30, 1746. He was the author of the “Muscipula,” a poem, esteemed a masterpiece in its kind, written with the purity of Virgil and the pleasantry of Lucian, and of which there is a good English translation by Dr. John Hoadly, in vol. V. of “Dodsley’s Miscellanies,” and another among Dr. Cobden’s poems. He was the author also of a dissertation entitled “Pharsalia and Philippi; or the two Philippi in Virgil’s Georgics attempted to be explained and reconciled to history, 1741,” 4to; and of “Remarks and Dissertations on Virgil; with some other classical observations, published with several notes and additional remarks by Mr. Spence, 1768,” 4to. Mr. Spenoe speaks of him in his Polymetis, as one who understood Virgil in a more masterly manner than any person he ever knew. The late Charles Jennens, esq. erected a monument to his memory at Gopsal in Leicestershire.

, sometimes written Oldsworth, and Oldisworth, a learned and loyal English divine, the youngest son of Richard Holdsworth, a celebrated preacher at Newcastlerupon-Tyne, was born in 1590, and after the death of his father was committed to the care of the rev. William Pearson, a clergyman of the same place, who had married his sister. He was first educated at Newcastle, and in July 1607 admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge. Jn 1610 he took his bachelor’s degree, in 1613 was chosen fellow of his college, in 1614 was made master of arts, and incorporated at Oxford in the same degree in 1617, and in. 1620 was chosen one of the twelve university preachers at Cambridge. While at college he was tutor, among others, to the famous sir Symond D'Ewes. After this he was for some time chaplain to sir Henry Hobart, lord chief justice of the common pleas, and then, had a living given him in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which he exchanged for the rectory of St. Peter the Poor, Broad-street, London. He settled there a little before the great sickness in 1625, during which he continued to do the duties of his office, became a very popular preacher, and was much followed by the puritans. In 1629 he was chosen professor of divinity at Gresham college, and in his lectures, afterwards published, he discovered an unusual extent and variety of learning. They were frequented by a great concourse of divines and young scholars. About 1631 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1633 archdeacon of Huntingdon. In the same year he stood candidate for the mastership of St. John’s college, but neither he nor his competitor, Dr. Lane, being acceptable at court, the king, by mandate, ordered Dr. Beale to be chosen. In 1637, however, Mr. Holdsworth was elected master of Emanuel college, and created doctor of divinity. In the same year he kept the act at Cambridge, and in 1639 was elected president of Sion college by the London clergy. In 1641 he resigned his professorship at Gresham college, and the rebellion having now begun, he was marked out as one of the sacrifices to popular prejudice, although he had before suffered somewhat from the court. While vice-chancellor Dr. Holdsworth had supplied the king with money contributed by the university, a crime not easily to be forgiven. When, however, the assembly of divines was called, Dr. Holdsworth was nominated one of the number, but never sat among them. Soon after in obedience to the king’s mandate, he caused such of his majesty’s declarations to be printed at Cambridge as were formerly published at York, for which, and, as Dr. Fuller says, a sermon preached then by him, he was forced to leave the university before the expiration of his office as vice-chancellor. After some concealment he was apprehended near London, and imprisoned, first in Ely house, and then in the Tower. Such was the regard, however, in which he was held at Cambridge, that while under confinement he was elected Margaret professor of divinity, which he held until his death, although he could Meither attend the duties of it nor receive the profits; but his rectory of St. Peter the Poor, and the mastership of Emanuel, were both taken from him. It seems uncertain when he was released. We find him attending the king at Hampton Court in 1647; and in January following, when the parliament voted that no more addresses should be made to the king, he preached a bold sermon against that resolution, for which he was again imprisoned, but being released, assisted, on the king’s part, at the treaty in the Isle of Wight. The catastrophe that soon after befell his royal master is thought to have shortened his life, which terminated Aug. 29, 1649. He lived unmarried, and left his property to charitable uses, except his books, part of, which went to Emanuel college, and part to the public library at Cambridge. He was buried in the chnrch of St. Peter the Poor, where is a monument to his memory. He was of a comely appearance and venerable aspect; warm in his temper, but soon pacified; a great advocate for the king, and zealous in the cause of episcopacy. He was devout, charitable, and an excellent scholar. In his “Preelectiones” he shows not only an intimate acquaintance with the fathers and schoolmen, but likewise most of the eminent divines of later ages, popish as well as protestant, and his style is good. His works are, 1. “A Sermon preached in St. Mary’s, Cambridge, on his majesty’s inauguration,” 1642, 4to, the only thing he ever published. 2. “The Valley of Vision; or a clear sight of sundry sacred truths; delivered in twenty-one sermons,” Lond. 1651, 4to. These were taken in short hand, and Dr. Pearson says they are very defective. 3. “Praelectiones theologicae,” Lond. 1661, fol. published by his nephew, Dr. William Pearson, with a life of the author.

, an English historian, and famous for the Chronicles that go under his name, was descended from a family which lived at Bosely, in Cheshire: but neither the place nor time of his birth, nor scarcely any other circumstances of his life, are known. Some say he had an university education, and was a clergyman; while others, denying this, affirm that he was steward to Thomas Burdett, of Bromcote in the county of Warwick, esq. Be this as it will, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and to have had a particular turn for history. His “Chronicles” were first published in 1577, in 2 vols. folio; and then in 1587, in three, the two first of which are commonly bound together. In this second edition several sheets were castrated in the second and third volumes, because there were passages in them disagreeable to queen Elizabeth and her ministry: but the castrations were reprinted apart in 1723. Holinshed was not the sole author or compiler of this work, but was assisted in it by several other writers. The first volume opens with “An historical Description of the Island of Britaine, in three books,” by William Harrison; and then, “The Hislorie of England, from the time that it was first inhabited, until the time that it was last conquered,” by R. Holinshed. The second volume contains, “The description, conquest, inhabitation, and troublesome estate of Ireland; particularly the description of that kingdom:” by Richard Stanihurst. “The Conquest of Ireland, translated from the Latin of Giraldus Cambrensis,” by John Hooker, alias Vowell, of Exeter, gent. “The Chronicles of Ireland, beginning where Giraldus did end, continued untill the year 1509, from Philip Flatsburie, Henrie of Marleborow, Edmund Campian,” &c. by R. Holinshed; and from thence to 1586, by R. Stanihurst and J. Hooker. “The Description of Scotland, translated from the Latin of Hector Boethius,” by R. H. or W. H. “The Historie of Scotland, conteining the beginning, increase, proceedings, continuance, acts and government of the Scottish nation, from the original thereof unto the yeere 1571,” gathered by Raphael Holinshed, and continued from 1571 to 1586, by Francis Boteville, alias Thin, and others. The third volume begins at “Duke William the Norman, commonly called the Conqueror; and descends by degrees of yeeres to all the kings and queenes of England.” First compiled by R. Holinshed, and by him extended to 1577; augmented and continued to 1586, by John Stow, Fr. Thin, Abraham Fleming, and others. The time of this historian’s death is unknown; but it appears from his will, which Hearne prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Annals,” that it happened between 1578 and 1582.

He died Feb. 9, 1636, and was buried in the church of Coventry. He married a Staffordshire lady, by whom he had seven sons and three daughters, all of whom he survived except one son and his daughters. One of his sons, Henry, appears to have been a bookseller in London, and was editor of the “Heroologia Anglicana,” a valuable collection of English portraits, with short lives, but the latter are not very correct, or satisfactory. These portraits were chiefly engraved by the family of Pass, and many of them are valued as originals, having never been engraved since but as copies from these. They are sixty-five in number. He also published “Monumenta Sepulchralia Ecclesiae S. Pauli, Lond.” 4to, and, “A Book of Kings, being a true and lively effigies of all our English kings from the Conquest,” 1618. When he died is not mentioned.

After lord Arundel had finished his negotiations in Germany, he returned to England, and brought Hollar with him: where, however, he was not so entirely confined to his lordship’s service, but tnat he had the liberty to accept of employment from others. Accordingly, we soon find him to have been engaged by the printsellers; and Peter Stent, one of the most eminent among them, prevailed lipon him to make an ample view or prospect of and from the town of Greenwich, which he finished in two plates, 1637; the earliest dates of his works in this kingdom. In 1638, appeared his elegant prospect about Richmond; at which time he finished also several curious plates from the fine paintings in the Arundelian collection. In the midst of this employment, arrived Mary de Medicis, the queenmother of France, to visit her daughter Henrietta Maria queen of England; and with her an historian, who recorded the particulars of her journey and entry into this kingdom. His work, written in French, was printed at London in

1639, and adorned with several portraits of the royal family, etched for the purpose by the hand of Hollar. The same year was published the portrait of his patron the earl of Arundel on horseback; and afterwards he etched another of him in armour, and several views of his countryseat at Aldbrough in Surrey. In 1640, he seems to have been introduced into the service of the royal family,“togive the prince of Wales some taste in the art of designing; and it is intimated, that either before the -eruption of the civil wars, or at least before he was driven by them abroad, he was in the service of the duke of York. This year appeared his beautiful set of figures in twenty-eight plates, entitled,” Ornatus Muliebris Anglicanus," and containing the several habits of English women of all ranks or degrees: they are represented at full length, and have rendered him famous among the lovers of engraving. In 1641, were published his prints of king Charles and his queen: but now the civil wars being broke out, and his patron the earl of Arundel leaving the kingdom to attend upon the queen and the princess Mary, Hollar was left to support himself. He applied himself closely to his bu<iness, and published other parts of his works, after Holbein, Vandyck, &c. especially the portraits of several persons of quality of both sexes, ministers of state, commanders of the army, learned and eminent authors; and especially another set or two of female habits in divers nations in Europe. Whether he grew obnoxious as an adherent to the earl of Arundel, or as a malignant for drawing so many portraits of the royal party, is not expressly said: but now it seems he was molested, and driven to take shelter under the protection of one or more of them, till they were defeated, and he taken prisoner of xvar with them, upon the surrender of their garrison at Basing-house in Hampshire. This happened on Oct. 14, 1645; but Hollar, either making his escape, or otherwise obtaining his liberty, went over to the continent after the earl of Arundel, who resided at Antwerp, with his family, and had transported thither his most valuable collection of pictures.

He remained at Antwerp several years, copying from his patron’s collection, and working for printsellers, booksellers, and, publishers; but seems to have cultivated no interest among men of fortune and curiosity in the art, to dispose of them by subscription, or otherwise most to his advantage. In 1647, and 1648, he etched eight or ten of the painters’ heads with his own, with various other curious pieces, as the picture of Charles I. soon after his death, and of several of the royalists; and in the three following years, many portraits and landscapes after BreughUl, Ei sheimer, and Teniers, with the Triumphs of Death. He etched also Charles II. standing, with emblems; and also published a print of James duke of York, aetat. 18, aun. It>51, from a picture drawn of him when he was in Flanders, by Teniers. He was more punctual in his dates than roost other engravers, which have afforded very agreeable lights and directions, both as to his own personal history and performances, and to those of many others. At last, either not meeting with encouragement enough to keep him longer abroad, or invited by several magnificent and costly works proposed or preparing in England, in which his ornamental hand might be employed more to his advantage, he returned hither in 1652. Here he afterwards executed some of the most considerable of his publications: but though he was an artist superior to almost most others in genius as well as assiduity, yet he had the peculiar fate to work here, as he had done abroad, still in a state of subordination, and more to the profit of other people than himself. Notwithstanding his penurious pay, he is said to have contracted a voluntary affection to his extraordinary labour; so far, that he spent almost two-thirds of his time at it, and would not suffer himself to be drawn or disengaged from it, till his hour-glass had run to the last moment proposed. Thus he went on in full business, till the restoration of Charles II. brought home many of his friends, and him into fresh views of employment. It was but two years after that memorable epocha, that Evelyn published his “Sculptura, or the History and Art of Chalcography and engraving in copper:” in which he gave the following very honourable account of Hollar: “Winceslaus Hollar,” says he, “a gentleman of Bohemia, comes in the next place: not that he is not before most of the rest for his choice and great industry, for we rank them very promiscuously both as to time and pre-eminence, but to bring up the rear of the Germans with a deserving person, whose indefatigable works in aqua fortis do infinitely recommend themselves by the excellent choice which he fyath made of the rare things furnished out of the Arundelian collection, and from most of the best hands and designs: for such were those of L. da Vinci, Fr. Parmensis, Titian, Julio Komano, A. Mantegna, Corregio, Perino del Vaga, Raphael Urbin, Seb. del Piombo, Palma, Albert Durer, Hans Holbein, Vandyck, Rubens, Breughel, Bassan, Elheimer, Brower, Artois, and divers other masters of prime note, whose drawings and paintings he hath faithfully copied; besides several books of landscapes, towns, solemnities, histories, heads, beasts, fowls, insects, vessels, and other signal pieces, not omitting what he hath etched after I>e Cleyn, Mr. Streter, and Dankerty, for sir Robert Stapleton’s * Juvenal,‘ Mr. Ross’s * Silius Italicus,’ ‘ Polyglotta Biblia,’ * The Monasticon,‘ first and second part, Mr. Dugdale’s ’ St. Paul’s,‘ and ’ Survey of Warwickshire,' with other innumerable frontispieces, and things by him published, and done after the life; and to be on that account more valued and esteemed, than where there has been more curiosity about chimeras, and things which are not in nature: so that of Mr. Hollar’s works we may justly pronounce, there is not a more useful and instructive collection to be made.”

Some of the first things Hollar performed after the Restoration, were, “A Map of Jerusalem;” “The Jewish Sacrifice in Solomon’s Temple;” “Maps of England, Middlesex, &c.” “View of St. George’s Hospital at Windsor;” “The Gate of John of Jerusalem near London;” and many animals, fruits, flowers, and insects, after Barlow and others: many heads of nobles, bishops, judges, and great men; several prospects about London, and London itself, as well before the great fire, as after its ruin and rebuilding: though the calamities of the fire and plague in 1655 are thought to have reduced him to such difficulties, as he could never entirely vanquish. He was afterwards sent to Tangier in Africa, in quality of his majesty’s designer, to take the various prospects there of the garrison, town, fortifications, and the circumjacent views of the country: and many of his drawings on the spot, dated 1669, preserved in the library of the late sir Hans Sloane, were within three or four years after made public, upon some of which Hollar styles himself “Stenographus Regis.” After his return to England, he was variously employed, in finishing his views of Tangier for publication, and taking several draughts at and about Windsor in 1671, with many representations in honour of the knights of the garter. About 1672, he travelled northward, and drew views of Lincoln, Southwell, Newark, and York Minster; and afterwards was engaged in etching of towns, castles, churches, and their fenestral figures, arms, &c. besides tombs, monumental effigies with their inscriptions, &c. in such numbers as it would almost be endless to enumerate. Few artists have been able to imitate his works; for which reason many lovers of the art, and all the curious both at home and abroad, have, from his time to ours, been zealous to collect them. But how liberal soever the) 7 might be in the purchase of his performances, the performer himseU, it seems, was so incompetently rewarded for them, that he could not, in his old age, keep himself free from the incumbrances of debt; though he, was variously and closely employed to a short time before his death. But as many of his plates are dated that year, in the very beginning of which he died, it is probable they were somewhat antedated by him, that the sculptures might appear of the same date with the book in which they were printed: thus, in “Thoroton’s Antiquities of Nottinghamshire,” some of them appear unfinished; and the 50 1st page, which is entirely blank, was probably Jeft so for a plate to be supplied. When he was upon the verge of his seventieth year, he had the misfortune to have an execution at his house in Gardiner’s-lane, Westminster: he desired only the liberty of dying in his bed, and that he might not be removed to any other prison but his grave. Whether this was granted him or not, is uncertain, but he died March 28, 1677, and, as appears from the parishregister of St. Margaret’s, was buried in the New Chapel Yard, near the place of his death. Noble and valuable as the monuments were which Hollar had raised for others, none was erected for him: nor has any person proposed an epitaph worthy of the fame and merits of the artist.

Mr. Grose, from the information of Oldys, has favoured the public with some anecdotes of the conscientiousness of this eminent artist which are not noticed by Vertue. He used to work for the booksellers at the rate of four-pence an hour; and always had an hour-glass before him. He was so very scrupulously exact, that, when obliged to attend the calls of nature, or whilst talking, though with persons for whom he was working, and about their own business, he constantly laid down the glass, to prevent the sand from running. It is to be lamented that such a man should have known distress. His works amount, according to Yertue’s catalogue, to nearly 2400 prints. They are generally etchings performed almost entirely with the point, yet possess great spirit, with astonishing freedom and lightness, especially when we consider how highly be has finished some of them. In drawing the human figure he was most defective; his outlines are stiff and incorrect, and the extremities marked without the least degree of knowledge. In some few instances, he had attempted to execute his plates with the graver only: but in that has failed very much.

, an English antiquary, born in 1662, at Skipton, in Craven, Yorkshire, became about 1695 clerk to William Petyt, esq. keeper of the records at the Tower; and continued near sixty years deputy to Mr. Petyt, Mr. Topham, and Mr. Polhill. On the death of Mr. Petyt, which happened Oct. 9, 1707, Mr. Holmes was, on account of his singular abilities and industry, appointed by lord Halifax (then president of a committee of the House of lords) to methodize and digest the records deposited in the Tower, at a yearly salary of 200l. which was continued to his death, Feb. 16, 1748-9, in the 87th year of his age. He was also barrack-master of the Tower. He married a daughter of Mr. Marshall, an eminent sword-cutler in Fleet-street, by whom he had an only son George, who was bred at Eton, and was clerk under his father, but died, aged 25, many years before him. Holmes re-published the first 17 volumes of Rymer’s “Fœdera,” in 1727. His curious collections of books, prints, and coins, &c. were sold by auction in 1749. His portrait was engraved by the society of antiquaries, with this inscription: "Vera effigies Georgii Holmes generosi, R. S. S. & tabularii publici in Turre Londinensi Vicecustodis; quo munere annos circiter LX summa fide & diligentia perfunctus, XIV kalend. Mart. A. D. MDCCXLVIII, ætatis suæ LXXXVII, fato demum concessit. In fratris sui erga se meritorum testimonium hanc tabulam Societas Antiquariorum Londini, eujus commoda semper promovit, sumptu suo æri incidendum curavit, MDCCXLIX. R. Van Bteek, p. 1743. G. Vertue del. & sculp.“—In Strype’s London, 1754, vol. I. p 746, is a fac-simile of an antique inscription over the little door ftext to the cloister in the Temple church. It was in old Saxon capital letters, engraved within an half-circle; denoting the year when the church was dedicated, and by whom, namely, Heraclius the patriarch of the church of the Holy Resurrection in Jerusalem; and to whom, namely, the Blessed Virgin; and the indulgence of forty days pardon to such who, according to the penance enjoined them, resorted thither yearly. This inscription, which was scarcely legible, and in 1695 was entirely broken by the workmen, having been exactly transcribed by Mr. Holmes, was by him communicated to Strype. Mrs. Holmes out-lived her husband, and received of government 200l. for his Mss. about the records, which were deposited and remain in his office to this day. Few men, in a similar office, were ever more able or willing to assist the researches of those who applied to him, than Mr. Holmes; and he received many handsome acknowledgements of his politeness and abilities, in that respect, from Browne Willis, Dr. Tovey, principal of New-Inn-hall, Oxford, Dr. Richardson, editor of” Godwin de Presulibus," and others.

His first publication was a sermon preached before the university of Oxford, entitled “The Resurrection of the body deduced from the Resurrection of Christ,” 1777, 4to, a very ingenious discourse, in which the subject is illustrated in a manner somewhat new. In the same year he published “Alfred, an Ode, with six Sonnets,” 4to, in which Gray’s style is attempted with considerable success. In 1782 he was chosen the third Bampton lecturer, and in 1783 published his eight lectures “on the prophecies and testimony of John the Baptist, and the parallel prophecies of Jesus Christ,” in which he displayed great abilities and judgment. These were followed, in 1788, by a very able defence of some of the essential doctrines of the church, respecting the nature and person, death and sufferings of Christ, in “Four Tracts; on the principle of religion, as a test of divine authority; on the principle of redemption; on the angelical message to the Virgin Mary, and on the resurrection of the body; with a discourse on humility,” 8vo, the whole illustrated by notes and authorities. He published also one or two other single sermons, and an ode for the enccenia at the installation of the duke of Portland in 1793; but what confers the highest honour on his abilities, critical talents, and industry, was his collation of the Mss. of the Septuagint version, which he appears to have begun about 1786. Induced to think that the means of determining the genuine tenor of the Scriptural text would be much enlarged if the Mss. of the Septuagint version were carefully collated, as those of the Hebrew had been, and the collations published in one view, he laid down his plan, the essential parts of which were: that all Mss. known or discoverable at home or abroad, if prior to the invention of printing, should be carefully collated with one printed text; and all particularities in which they differed from it distinctly noted; that printed editions and versions made from all or parts of that by the seventy, and citations from it by ecclesiastical writers (with a distinction of those who wrote before the time of Aquila or after it), should also be collated with the same printed text, and all their variations from it respectively ascertained; and that these materials, when collected, should all be reduced to one plain view, and printed under the text with which the several collations have been made, as by Dr. Kennicott or without the text, as by De Rossi. Upon these general principles, Dr. Holmes embarked on his enterprize, having in the first instance been patronized by the delegates of the Clarendon press, and by liberal subscriptions from other universities, and the public aflarge. The delegates of the press agreed to allow him 40l. a year for three years, “on his exhibiting to them his collations annually, to be deposited in the Bodleian library, and when the whole was finished, to be printed at the university press, at his expen -;e, airj for his benefit, or of his assigns, if he should live to complete his collations; or if they were left imperfect, they were to be at the discretion of the delegates, they undertaking to promote the finishing of them to the best of their power, and to publish them when finished, allowing to his assigns a just proportion of the profits.”

With these encouragements, Dr. Holmes exhibited in 1789 his first annual account, by which it appeared that eleven folio volumes of collations were deposited, at the end of that year, in the Bodleian library; subsequent annual accounts followed, and at the end of 1795, the total number of ms volumes deposited in that library was seventy-three, and the sum received by subscriptions 4445l. which, liberal as it may seem, fell very far short of the expences incurred by the editor. Notwithstanding this he proceeded in the last-mentioned year to submit two folio specimens to the opinion of scholars and critics, the first containing chapters I. and II. of Genesis, and the second, chapter I. according to the Vatican text, the divisions of chapters and verses in which somewhat differs from the Vulgate. He was aware, however, that his original plan was so extensively laborious, that no perseverance or life would have been equal to its execution. He determined, therefore, to contract it, and in this form published in 1798 part of his first volume, containing the book of Genesis, which exhibits a very extraordinary monument of diligence. This was followed in 1801, by another portion of the same volume, containing Exodus and Leviticus; and in 1804 the volume was completed by the addition of Numbers and Deuteronomy, with a valuable preface, giving a history 'of the Septuagint and its various editions. Dr. Holmes then published the prophecy of Daniel, according to Theodotion and the Septuagint, departing from his proposed order, as if by a presentiment of his end. The loss of such a man at this critical time was unquestionably great, and was duly appreciated by every scholar who was a judge of his labours. They felt therefore a proportional gratification, in seeing the work resumed, in an uniform manner, after an interruption of only four years, by the rev. James Parsons, M. A. of Wadhatn college, who in 1810 published the first part of vol. II. containing the book of Joshua, and who appears in every respect qualified to carry on the laborious design with honour to himself and to the university.

, an ingenious and learned German, was born at Hamburg in 1596; and after a liberal education in his own country, went to France, and at Paris distinguished himself by uncommon parts and learning. He was educated a protestant, but afterwards by the persuasions of Sirmond the Jesuit, embraced the Roman catholic religion, and going from France to Rome, attached himself to cardinal Francis Barberini; who took him under his protection, and recommended him to favour. He was honoured by three popes, Urban VIII. Innocent X. and Alexander VII. The first gave him a canonry of St. Peter’s; the second made him librarian of the Vatican; and the third sent him, in 1665, to Christina of Sweden, whose formal profession of the Catholic faith he received at Inspruck. He spent his life in study, and died at Rome in 1661, Cardinal Barberini, whom he made his heir, caused a marble monument to be erected over his grave, with a Latin inscription much to his honour. He was very learned both in sacred and profane antiquity, was an acute critic, and wrote with the utmost purity and elegance. His works consisted chiefly of notes and dissertations, which have been highly esteemed for judgment and precision. Some of these were published by himself; but the greater part were communicated after his death, and inserted by his friends in their editions of authors, or other works that would admit them. His notes and emendations upon Eusebius’s book against Hierocles, upon Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras,” upon Apollonius’s “Argonautics,” upon the fragments of Demophilus, Democrates, Secundus, apd Sallustius the philosopher, upon Stephanus Byzantinus de Urbibus, &c. are to be found in the best editions of those authors. He wrote a “Dissertation upon the Life and Writings of Porphyry,” which is printed with his notes on Porphyry’s “Life of Pythagoras;” and other dissertations/ of his are inserted in Grsevius’s “Collection of Roman Antiquities,” and elsewhere.

In 1700, when lord Somers parted with the great seal, king William pressed chief justice Holt to accept of it: but he replied, that he never had but one chancery cause in his life, which he lost; and consequently could not think himself fitly qualified for so great a trust. He continued in his post twenty-two years, and maintained it with great reputation for steadiness, integrity, and complete knowledge in his profession. He applied himself with great assiduity to the functions of his important office. He was perfect master of the common law; and, as his judgment was most solid, his capacity vast, and understanding most clear, so he had a firmness of mind, and such a degree of resolution, as never could be brought to swerve in the least from what he thought to be law and justice. Upon great occasions he shewed an intrepid zeal in asserting the authority of the law; for he ventured to incur the indignation of both houses of parliament, by turns, when he thought the law was with him. Several cases of the utmost importance, and highly affecting the lives, rights, liberties, and property of the people, came in judgment before him. There was a remarkable clearness and perspicuity of ideas in his definitions; a distinct arrangement of them in the analysis of his arguments; and the real and natural difference of things was made most perceptible and obvious, when he distinguished between matters which bore a false resemblance to each other. Having thus rightly formed his premises, he scarcely ever erred in his conclusions; his arguments were instructive and convincing, and his integrity would not suffer him to deviate from judgment and truth, in compliance to his prince, or, as observed before, to either house of parliament. They are most of them faithfully and judiciously reported by that eminent lawyer, chief justice Raymond. His integrity and uprightness as a judge are celebrated by the author of the “Tatler,” No. 14, under the noble character of Verus the magistrate. There happened in the time of this chief justice a riot in Hoi born, occasioned by an abominable practice then prevailing, of decoying young persons of both sexes to the Plantations. The persons so decoyed they kept prisoners in a house in Holborn, till they could find an opportunity of shipping them off; which being discovered, the enraged populace were going to pull down the house. Notice of this being sent to Whitehall, a party of the guards were commanded to march to the place; but they first sent an officer to the chief justice to acquaint him with the design, and to desire him to send some of his people to attend the soldiers, in order to give it the better countenance. The officer having delivered his message, Holt said to him, “Suppose the populace should not disperse at your appearance, what are you to do then?” “Sir,” answered the officer, “we have orders to fire upon them.” “Have you, Sir? (replied Holt) then take notice of what I say; if there be one man killed, and you are tried before me, I will take care that you, and every soldier of your party, shall be hanged. Sir, (added he) go back to those who sent you, and acquaint them, that no officer of mine shall attend soldiers; and let them know at the same time, that the laws of this kingdom are not to be executed by the sword: these matters belong to the civil power, and you have nothing to do with them.” Upon this, the chief justice, ordering his tipstaves with a few constables to attend him, went himself in person to the place where the tumult was; expostulated with the mob; assured them that justice should be done upon the persons who were the objects of their indignation: and thus they all dispersed quietly.

At the close of the year 1736 he returned to Calcutta, and was elected an alderman in the mayor’s court; and in 1740 was appointed assistant surgeon to the hospital, which first gave him a solid establishment in the company’s service. In 1746 he succeeded to the place of principal physician and surgeon to the presidency; and in the years 1747 and 1748 was successively elected mayor of the corporation. In Sept. 1749 his bad state of health rendered it necessary for him to return to England, where he arrived in the March following. During this voyage he had leisure to arrange his materials on the theology and doctrines of the ancient and modern Brahmans, and to digest a plan which he had formed for correcting abuses in the Zemindar’s court at Calcutta. This scheme of reform he submitted to the court of directors, who, in consequence of the advantages it promised to produce, appointed him perpetual Zemindar, and twelfth, or youngest, in the council at the bpard of Calcutta; but with an exception to any further advancement in it. On his arrival in Calcutta, in August 1751, he immediately began his system of reform, which gave so much satisfaction to the directors, that the exception against his rising in the council was removed, and 4000 rupees added to his salary. The nature and object of this reform is fully delineated in his “India Tracts,” a 4to volume, which he published at London in 1764.

In 1756 he rose to be seventh in council, and in the month of June in that year, Surajah Dowlah, nabob of Bengal, attacked Calcutta. The governor and seniors in council having deserted the place, the remaining members of the board, with the inhabitants and troops, elected Mr. Holwell governor and commander in chief of the fort and presidency; who, supported by a few gallant friends, and the remains of a feeble garrison, bravely held out the fort to the last extremity; but a noble defence could not preserve an untenable place, or affect an ungenerous enemy. The opposition he had met with so incensed the nabob, that although on the surrender he had given Mr. Holwell his word that no harm should come to him, he ordered him and his unfortunate companions in arms, 146 persons in number, to be thrust into a close prison called the Black Hole, not eighteen feet square, into which no supply of air could come but by two small windows in one end. Here for one whole night they were confined, and in the morning only twenty-three were found alive, one of whom was Mr. Holwell, whose affecting and highly interesting “Narrative” of the event was published at London in 1758 . On his delivery from this place he was carried in irons to Muxadabad, but was released on July 31st following, by the intercession of the Begum, Surajah Dowlah’s grandmother, who was influenced to this act of compassion by the reports of his upright and lenient conduct to the natives during the time he presided in the Zemindar and Cutcherry courts. He soon after joined the wretched remains of the colony at Fultah. In December following the presidency was retaken by vice-admiral Watson and colonel Clive, and the governor and council re-established by them.

Mr. Holwell being in a most deplorable state of health, from his unparalleled sufferings, obtained leave to take dispatches for the company to England, and for that purpose embarked on board the Syren sloop, of no more than eighty tons burthen. In February 1757, after a most hazardous voyage of six months in that small vessel (a very curious journal pf which he afterwards published), he arrived in England; and in consideration of his meritorious services, eminent abilities, and distinguished integrity, was appointed, by a majority of fifteen against nine, in the court of directors, to return to Bengal as successor to colonel Clive in that government; but this appointment he, with great modesty, declined in favour of Mr. Manningham. He was then named second in council, and successor to that gentleman. In this situation he embarked on. board the Warren Indiamau in March 1758; but being detained by adverse winds till an election of new directors took place, they reversed the whole proceedings of the former court, and Mr. Holwell was returned to his previous situation as seventh in council. With what justice or liberality this proceeding was instituted we know not: Mr. Holwell, however, on his arrival in Bengal, found himself, by the departure of some senior members of the council, fourth in rank; and in 1759, from a similar removal, he became second, when colonel Clive resigned the government to him. The conduct of his administration, and the benefits the company derived from it, are displayed with equal truth and modesty in the “India Tracts” already mentioned.

At the close of the year 1760 he was superseded by Mr. Vansittart, and in February following he resigned all employment in the company’s service; and in the succeeding month embarked for England in a most wretched state of health, which it required upwards of twelve months residence and care to re-establish. Tired of the bustle of public life, he now made his election in favour of retirement and tranquillity, being possessed of an ample and independent fortune, acquired in the most honourable manner; although it has been complained that he did not receive those returns from the East India Company, to which he was entitled by his long and meritorious services. Mr. Holwell was the first European who studied the Hindu antiquities; and although he was unavoidably led into many errors concerning them, from his being totally unacquainted with the Sanscreet language, he must be allowed the merit of having pointed out the path which has finally conducted others to those repositories of learning and science. By the capture of Calcutta in 1756, governor Holwell lost many curious Hindu manuscripts, and among them two copies of the Sastras, or book of divine authority, written in the common Hinduee language, for which the commissioners of restitution allowed him two thousand Madras rupees. He also lost a translation of a considerable part of that work, on which he had employed eighteen months. However, during his residence in Bengal, after he was removed from the government, he resumed his researches, and having recovered some manuscripts by an unforeseen and extraordinary event, he was enabled, in August 1765, to publish the first part of his “Interesting historical events relative to Bengal and Indostan; as also the Mythology of the Gentoos; and a dissertation on the Metempsychosis,” Lond. 8vo. In 1766 and 1771 he published the second and third parts of the same work, in which there is much curious information, although in his reasonings he has been supposed to attribute too much of divine authority to the Sastras. One of his most valuable publications was “An account of the manner of inoculating for the small pox in India,” with observations on the medical practice and mode of treating that disease in the east. He published also “A new experiment for the prevention of crimes,” 1786, which consisted chiefly in establishing a system of rewards for virtue. His last publication, “Dissertations on the origin, nature, and pursuits of intelligent beings, and on Divine Providence, Religion, and religious Worship,” which appeared in 1788, bore some marks of the whims of old age, and contains some singular and fanciful opinions, such as that God created angels of different degrees, who on their fall became, the best of them, men, dogs, and horses; the worst, lions, tigers, and other wild beasts, &c. Mr. Holwell survived this publication about ten years, dying Monday, Nov. 5, 1798, at his house at Pinner, Middlesex. He was twice married, and of his family three of his children only survived him, lieut.-col. James Holwell, of Southborough in Kent; Mrs. Birch, the wife of William Birch, esq.; and Mrs. Swinney, relict of the late Dr. Swinney.

His works consist of twenty sermons, published at different times. “Technogamia, or the Marriage of Arts, a comedy,” 1630*. “Philosophise polito-barbarae specimen, in quo de anima & ejus habitibus intellectualibus qiuBstiones aliquot libris duobus illustrantur,” 1633, 4to. “Survey of the World, in ten books, a poem,” 1661, 8vo. But the work he is known for now is his “Translation of the Satires of Juvenal and Persius;” for though his poetry is but indifferent, his translation is allowed to be faithful, and his notes good. The second edition of his “Persius” was published in 1616; and the fourth at the end of the “Satires of Juvenal illustrated, with notes and sculptures,” 1673, folio. Dryden, in the dedication of his “Translation of Juvenal and Persius,” makes the following critique upon our author’s performance: “If/' says he,” rendering the exact sense of these authors, almost line for line, had been our business, Barten Holyday had done it already to our hands; and by the help of his learned notes and illustrations, not only Juvenal and Persius, but (what is yet more obscure) his own verses might be understood.“Speaking, a little further on, of close and literal translation, he adds, that” Holyday, who made this way his choice, seized the meaning of Juvenal, but the poetry has always escaped him.“In his account of Holyday’s writings, Wood has omitted an instructive and entertaining little work entitled” Comes jucundus in via," which he published anonymously in 1658. In the latter part of the second address to the reader, there is a quaint allusion to his name.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1616 at Stony-Thorp near Southam in Warwickshire, and educated in grammar learning under Mr. White at Coventry; from whence he was sent in Michaelmas term 1632, at the age of sixteen years, to Queen’s college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts July 5, 1636, and that of master, May 16, 1639, and became chaplain of the college. In the beginning of the civil wars, when Oxford became the seat of king Charles, and was garrisoned for his use, he was put into commission, for a captain of a foot company, consisting mostly of scholars. In this post he did great service, and had the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon him by the favour of his majesty, though no such matter occurs in the public register of the university, which was then sometimes neglected. After the surrender of the garrison of Oxford to the parliament, he, by the name of Thomas Holyoke, without the addition of master of arts, bachelor or doctor of divinity, obtained a licence from the university to practise physic, and settling in his own country, he practised with good success till the Restoration in 1660, in which year Thomas lord Leigh, baron of Stone Leigh in Warwickshire, presented him to the rectory of Whitnash near Warwick. He was soon after made prebendary of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton tn Staffordshire. In 1674 Robert lord Brook conferred upon him the donative of Breamour in Hampshire (which he had by the marriage of his lady), worth about two hundred pounds per annum; but, before he had enjoyed it a year, he died of a fever, June 10, 1675. His body was interred near that of his father in the church of St. Mary in Warwick. His Dictionary was published after his death in 1677, in fol. and, as Wood says, “is made upon the foundation laid by his father.” Before k are two epistles, one by the author’s son, Charles Holyoake of the Inner Temple, dedicating the work to lord Brooke, and another by Dr. Barlow, bishop of Lincoln, which contains many particulars of the work and its author. He had another son, the Rev. Henry Holyoake, who was for forty years master of Rugby school in Warwickshire, and died in 1731.

, or Halifax, or Sacrobosco, was, according to Leland, Bale, and Pits, born at Halifax in Yorkshire, which Mr. Watson thinks very improbable; according to Stainhurst, at Holywood near Dublin; and according to Dempster and Mackenzie, in Nithsdale in Scotland. There may perhaps have been more than one of the name to occasion this difference of opinion. Mackenzie informs us, that having finished his studies, he entered into orders, and became a canon regular of the order of St. Augustin in the famous monastery of Holywood in Nithsdale. The English biographers, on the contrary, tell us that he was educated at Oxford. They all agree however in asserting, that he spent most of his life at Paris; where, says Mackenzie, he was admitted a member of the university, June 5, 1221, under the syndics of the Scotch nation; and soon after was elected professor of mathematics, which he taught with applause for many years. According to the same author, he died in 1256, as appears from the inscription on his monument in the cloisters of the convent of St. Maturine at Paris.

With no other stock of learning than what he had acquired from this Mr. Wingate, he was, about 1712, bound by indenture to attend the office of a writer of the signet in Edinburgh, as preparatory to the profession of a writer or solicitor before the supreme court; but circumstances inspired him with the ambition of becoming an advocate; and now being sensible of his defective education, he resumed the study of the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added French and Italian, and likewise applied himself to the study of mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. These pursuits, which he followed at the same time with the study of the law, afforded, independently of their own value, a most agreeable variety of employment to his active mind. His attention appears to have been much turned to metaphysical investigation, for which he all his life entertained a strong predilection. About 1723, he carried on a correspondence with the celebrated Andrew Baxter, and Dr. Clarke, upon subjects of that kind. In January 1724, he was called to the bar, at a time when bath the bench and bar were filled by men of uncommon eminence. As he did not possess in any great degree the powers of an orator, he engaged for some time but a moderate share of practice as a barrister. In 1728, he published a folio volume of “Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Session,” executed with so much judgment, that he began to be regarded as a young man of talents, who had his profession at heart, and would spare no pains to acquit himself, with honour, in the most intricate causes in which he might be employed. His practice was quickly increased; and after 1732, when he published a small volume, entitled “Essays upon several subjects in Law,” he was justly considered as a profound and scientific lawyer. These essays afford an excellent example of the mode of reasoning which he afterwards pursued in most of his jurisprudential writings, and, in the opinion of his biographer, furnish an useful model for that species of investigation.

Mr. Home, in every period of his life, was fond of social intercourse, and with all his ardour of study, and variety of literary and professional occupations, a considerable portion of his time was devoted to the enjoyments of society in a numerous circle of acquaintance. Among his early friends or associates we find the names of colonel Forrester, Hamilton of Bangour, the earl of Findlater, Mr. Oswald, David Hume, and Dr. (afterwards bishop) Butler, with whom he had a correspondence. In 1741 be married miss Agatha Drummond, a younger daughter of James Drummond, esq. of Blair, in the county of Perth. His fortune being then comparatively small, ceconomy became a necessary virtue, but unfortunately, this lady, who had a taste for every thing that is elegant, was particularly fond of old china; and soon after her marriage had made such frequent purchases in that way as to impress her husband with some little apprehension of her extravagance. After some consideration, he devised an ingenious expedient to cure her of this propensity. He framed a will, bequeathing to his spouse the whole of the china that should be found in his possession at his death; and this deed he immediately put into her own hands. The success of the plot was complete; the lady was cured from, that moment of her passion for old china. This stratagem his biographer justly considers as a proof of the authors intimate knowledge of the human mind, and discernment of the power of the passions to balance and restrain each other. It is, indeed, in its contrivance and result, equally honourable to the husband and wife.

The mode in which Mr. Home occupied his time, both in town and country, appears to have been most judicious. In town he was an active and industrious barrister; in the country he was a scientific farmer on his paternal estate, which came to him in a very waste and unproductive condition. He had the honour to be among the first who introduced the English improvements in agriculture into Scotland. Amidst all this he found leisure, during the vacations of the court, to compose those various works which he has left to posterity. In 1741 he published, in 2 vols. fol. the “Decisions of the Court of Session, from its institution to the present time, abridged and digested tinder proper heads, in the form of a Dictionary,” a composition of great labour, the fruit of many years, and a work of the highest utility to the profession of the law in Scotland. In 1747 he published a small treatise entitled “Essays upon several subjects concerning British Antiquities.” The subjects are, the feudal law; the constitution of parliament; honour and dignity; succession or descent; and the hereditary and indefeasible rights of kings. These were delicate subjects at that time in Scotland, and the general doctrines perhaps more seasonable than now.

At the advanced period we have just mentioned, lord Kames’s constitution had suffered nothing from the attacks of old age. There was no sensible decay of his mental powers, or, what is yet more extraordinary, of the flow of his animal spirits, which had all the gaiety and vivacity of his early years. Indefatigable in the pursuit of knowledge; ever looking forward to some new object of attainment; one literary task was no sooner accomplished than another was entered upon with equal ardour and unabated perseverance. Jn 1777 he published “Elucidations respecting the Common and Statute Law of Scotland,” 8vo, in which it is his object to vindicate the municipal law of his country from the reproach it has incurred from the writings of the old Scotch jurists. In 1780 he published a supplement to his “Remarkable Decisions,” under the title of “Select Decisions of the Court of Session,” recording the cases most worthy of notice from 1752 to 176S.

His excellent biographer, the late lord Woodhouselec, has drawn up his character with impartiality and just discrimination, without dwelling extravagantly on his virtues, or offensively and impertinently on his foibles. The latter appear to have been of a kind perhaps inseparable from, humanity in some shape or other, such as a degree of fondness for flattery, and somewhat, although certainly in a small proportion, of literary jealousy. A suspicion of lord Kames’s religious principles has long prevailed in his own, country, and his biographer has taken such pains on this subject as to leave the reader with an impression that lord Kames was more a friend to revealed religion than he appears to be in some of his writings; but while those writings remain, we question whether the suspicion to which we allude can be effectually removed. Too much, however, cannot be said in favour of his genius and industry in many branches of literature; his private virtues and public spirit; his assiduity through a long and laborious life in the many honourable offices with which he was entrusted, and his zeal to encourage and promote every thing that tended to the improvement of his country, in laws, literature, commerce, manufactures, and agriculture. The preceding sketch has been taken, often literally, from lord Woodhouselee’s valuable work, which appeared in 1807, entitled “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the hon. Henry Home of Kames, &c.” 2 vols. 4to, which contains what we have been in other instances indebted to,“Sketches of the progress of Literature and general improvement in Scotland during the greater part of the eighteenth century.”

Not long after, while on a visit in England, he was introduced to Collins, the poet, at Winchester, and Collins addressed to him his “Ode on the Superstition of the Highlanders.” In 1750 Home was settled as minister of the parish of Athelstaneford in East Lothian, on the demise of the rev. Robert Blair, author of the “Grave;” but such a situation could not be very agreeable to one who had tasted the sweets of literary society, and who, in particular, had a paramount ambition to shine as a dramatic writer. His first tragedy was “Agis,”“with which it is said he went to London, where the managers refused it, and immediately returning home he wrote his” Douglas,“which Garrick peremptorily refused. By such discouragement, however, the ardour of the author was not to be suppressed. Being acquainted with the leading characters in Scotland, a ready reception of his play was secured; and accordingly” Douglas" was performed at the theatre in the Canongate, Edinburgh, in December 1756, Mr. Home and several of his clerical brethren being present. Such a departure from the decorum enjoined by the church of Scotland could not be overlooked, and the author was so threatened with ecclesiastical censures, and in reality became so obnoxious in the eyes of the people, that in the following year he resigned his living, and with it all connexion with the church, wearing ever afterwards a lay habit. In the mean time the presbytery of Edinburgh published an admonition and exhortation against stage-plays, which was ordered to be read in all the pulpits within their bounds on a Sunday appointed, immediately after divine service. In it there is no mention of Home or his play, although the latter was probably the cause. It merely contains a recapitulation of what had formerly been done by the church and the laws to discourage the theatres.

This opposition, which has been too hastily branded with the epithets of “bigotry and malice,” turned out much to Mr. Home’s advantage, whose friends contrived now to add to his other merits that of being a persecuted man; and David Hume, whose taste for the drama was the least of his qualifications, addressed his “Four Dissertations” to the author, and complimented him with possessing “the true theatric genius of Shakspeare and Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one, and licentiousness of the other.” With such recommendation, “Douglas” was presented at Covent-garden in March 14, 1757, but received at first with moderate applause. Its worth, however, was gradually acknowledged, and it is now fully established as a stock-piece. It would hare been happy for the author had he stopt here; but the success of “Douglas” had intoxicated him, and he went on from this time to 1778, producing “Agis,” “The Siege of Aquileia,” “The Fatal Discovery,” “Alonzo,” and Alfred,“none of which had even a temporary success. In the mean time lord Bute took him under his patronage, and procured him a pension. In March 1763 he was also appointed a commissioner for sick and wounded seamen, and for the exchange of prisoners; and in April of the same year was appointed conservator of the Scotch privileges at Campvere in Zealand. With his” Alfred,“which lived only three nights, he took his leave of the stage, and retired to Scotland, where he resided the greater part of his life. In. 1778, when the late duke of Buccleugh raised a regiment of militia, under the name of fencibles, Mr. Home received a captain’s commission, which he held until the peace. A few years ago, he published” The History of the Rebellion in Scotland in 1745-6," 4to, a work of which great expectations were formed, but whether he delayed it until too late, for he was now seventy-eight years old, or whether he did not feel himself at liberty to make use of all his materials, the public was not satisfied. For a considerable time prior to his death, his mental faculties were impaired, and in this distressful state he died at Merchiston-house, Sept. 4, 1808, at the advanced age of eightyfive.

A man of Magnesia, whose name was Menalippus, went to settle at Cumae, where he married the daughter of a citizen called Homyres, and had by her a daughter called Critheis. The father and mother dying, Critheis was left under the tuition of Cleonax her father’s friend; and, suffering herself to be deluded, became pregnant. The guardian, though his care had not prevented the misfortune, was however willing to conceal it; and therefore sent Critheis to Smyrna. Critheis being near her time, went one day to a festival, which the town of Smyrna was celebrating on the banks of the river Meles; where she was delivered of Homer, whom she called Melesigenes, because he was born on the banks of that river. Having nothing to maintain her, she was forced to spin: and a man of Smyrna called Phemius, who taught literature and music, having often seen Critheis, who lodged near him, and being pleased with her housewifery, took her into his house to spin the wool he received from his scholars for their schooling. Here she behaved herself so modestly and discreetly, that Phemius married her, and adopted her son, in whom he discovered a wonderful genius, and an excellent natural disposition. After the death of Phemius and Critheis, Homer succeeded to his father-in-law’s fortune and school; and was admired not only by the inhabitants of Smyrna, but by strangers, who resorted from all parts to that place of trade. A ship-master called Mentes, who was a man of wit, very learned, and a lover of poetry, was so pleased with Homer, that he persuaded him to leave his school, and to travel with him. Homer, whose mind was then employed upon his “Iliad,” and who thought it of great consequence to see the places of which he should have occasion to treat, embraced the opportunity, and during their several voyages, never failed carefully to note down what he thought worth observing. He travelled into Egypt, whence he brought into Greece the names of their gods, and the chief ceremonies of their worship. He visited Africa and Spain, in his return from which places he touched at Ithaca, and was there much troubled with a rheum falling upon his eyes. Mentes being in haste to visit Leucadia his native country, left Homer well recommeMcled to Mentor, one of the chief men of the island of Ithaca, and there he was informed of many things relating to Ulysses, which he afterwards made use of in composing his “Odyssey,” Mentes returning to Ithaca, found Homer cured. They embarked together; and after much time spent in visiting* the coasts of Peloponnesus and the Islands, they arrived at Colophon, where Homer was again troubled with the defluxion upon his eyes, which proved so violent, that he is said to have lost his sight . This misfortune made him resolve to return to Smyrna, where he finished his “Iliad.” Some time after, the baJ state of his affairs obliged him to go to Cumae, where he hoped to have found some relief. Stopping by the way at a place called the New Wall, which was the residence of a colony from Cumae, he lodged in the house of an armourer called Tichius, and recited some hymns he had made in honour of the Gods, and his poem of Amphiaraus’s expedition against Thebes. After staying here some time and being greatly admired, he went to Cumae; and passing through Larissa, he wrote the epitaph of Midas, king of Phrygia, then newly dead. At Cumas he was received with extraordinary joy, and his poems highly applauded; but when he proposed to immortalize their town, if they would allovr him a salary, he was answered, that “there would be no end of maintaining all the 'O^oi or Blind Men,” and hence got the name of Homer. From Cumae he went to Phocasa, where he recited his verses in public assemblies. Here one Thestoricles, a schoolmaster, offered to maintain him, if he would suffer him to transcribe his verses: which Homer complying with through mere necessity, the schoolmaster privily withdrew to Chios, and there grew rich with Homer’s poems, while Homer at Phocaea hardly earned his bread by repeating them.

This is the most regular life we have of JHomer; and though probably but little of it is exactly true, yet it has this advantage over all other accounts which remain of him, that it is more within the compass of probability. The only incontestable works which Homer has left behind him, are the “Iliad,” and the “Odyssey.” The “Batrachomyomachia,” or “Battle of the Frogs and Mice,” has been disputed, but yet is allowed to be his by many authors. The Hymns have been doubted also, and attributed by the scholiasts to Cynaethus the rhapsodist: but Thucydides, Lucian, and Pausanias, have cited them as genuine. We have the authority of the two former for that to Apollo; and of the last for a “Hymn to Ceres,” of which he has given us a fragment. The whole hymn has been lately found by Matthsei at Moscow, and was published by Ruhnkenius in 1782, at Leyden. A good translation has since been given by Mr. Hole. The Hymn to Mars is objected against; and likewise the first to Minerva. The “Hymn to Venus” has many of its lines copied by Virgil, in the interview between yEneas and that goddess in the first “Æneid.” But whether these hymns are Homer’s or not, they were always judged to be nearly as ancient, if not of the same age with him. Many other pieces were ascribed to him: “Epigrams,” the “Margites,” the “Cecropes,” the “Destruction of Oechalia,” and several more. Time may here have prevailed over Homer, by leaving only the names of these works, as memorials that such were once in being; but, while the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” remain, he seems like a leader, who, though he may have failed in a skirmish or two, has carried a victory, for which he will pass in triumph through all future ages.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

, an excellent classical scholar, the son of the rev. Henry Homer, rector of Birdingbury, in Warwickshire, who died a few months after this son, in 1791, was born in 1752, and at the age of seven was sent to Rugby school, where he remained seven years, and became the head-boy of about sixty. He afterwards went to Birmingham-school, where he remained three years more. In November 1768, he was admitted of Emanuel-college, Cambridge, under Dr. Farmer, where he became acquainted with Dr. Samuel Parr, and was in some measure directed in his studies by this eminent scholar. He proceeded regularly to his degree of B. A. in 1773, of M. A. in 1776, and that of B. D. in 1783. He was elected fellow of his college in 1778, but had lived in Warwickshire about three years before he became fellow, and returned to the university soon after his election. He then resided much at Cambridge, frequently visiting the public library, and making himself acquainted with the history or contents of many curious books which are noticed only by scholars, and particularly turned his attention to several philological works of great utility and high 'reputation. He was well versed in the notes subjoined to some of the best editions of various authors; and of his general erudition the reader will form no unfavourable opinion from the following account of the works in which he was engaged. He joined with Dr. Parr in the republication of Bellenden’s Tracts in 1787, and about the same year published three books of “Livy,” viz. the 1st, 25th, and 31st from Drachenborch’s edition, with dissertations, &c. This was followed by, 1. “Tractatus varii Latini aCrevier, Brotier,” &c. 1788. 2. Ovid’s “Epistles” ex editione Burman. 1789. 3. “Sallust. ex cditione Cortii,” 1789. 4. “Pliny, ex editione Cortii et Longolii,” 1790; 5. “Caesar, ex edit. Oudendorp,” 1790. 6. “Persius ex edit. Heninii.” 7. “Tacitus, ex edit, Brotier,” complete all but the Index. 8. “Livy” and “Quintilian,” in the press at the time of his death. He also intended to have published “Quintus Curtius,” but no steps were taken towards it. To these, however, may be added his “Tacitus de Moribus Germanorum et de Vita Agricolje,” 1788, and Tacitus “De Oratoribus,” 1789. Dr. Parr having considered him as a very proper person to undertake a variorum edition of Horace, he had made some progress in that work, which was finally published by Dr. Combe, and occasioned a paper-war between Dr. Combe and Dr. Parr, which we had rather refer to than detail. Mr. Homer, in consequence of some religious scruples, refused to take priest’s orders, when by the founder’s statutes he was required to take them, in order to preserve the rank he had attained in the college; in consequence of which his fellowship was declared vacant in June 1788. HediedMay4, 1791, of a decline, hastened, if not occasioned, by too close an attention to his literary pursuits. The works he left unfinished were completed by his brothers, but, we are sorry to hear, have not met with that encouragement from the public, which they amply merit.

, an Arabian, and celebrated translator of the ninth century, was a Christian and a native of Hira. Having quitted Bagdad, where he had been improperly treated, he went to Greece, and remained there two years, studying the language, and collecting a library of the best writers. He then returned to Bagdad, and some time after went to Persia, where he learned the Arabic, and then finally settled at Bagdad, and executed very valuable translations of the Elements of Euclid, the Almagestus of Ptolemy, and the writings of Hippocrates and other Greek authors. At the desire of Almamon or Abdaliah III. he translated into Arabic all the works of Aristotle; and for every book of that philosopher is said to have received from Almamon its weight in gold. An anecdote very honourable to him is told by Abulfaragius. One day, after some medical conversation, the Caliph said to him, “Teach me a prescription by which I may take off any enemy I please, without being discovered.” Honain declining to give an answer, and pleading ignorance, was imprisoned. Being brought again, after a year’s interval, into the Caliph’s presence, and still persisting in ignorance, though threatened with death, the Caliph smiled upon him, and said, “Be of good cheer, we were only trying thee, that we might have the greater confidence in thee.” As Honain upon this bowed down and kissed the earth, “What hindered thee,” says the Caliph, “from granting our request, when thou sawest us appear so ready to perform what we had threatened?” “Two things;” replied Honain, “my Religion, and my Profession. My religion, which commands me to do good to my enemies; and my profession, which was purely instituted for the benefit of mankind.” v Two noble laws," said the Caliph; and immediately presented him, according to the Eastern usage, with rich garments, and a sum of money. This Caliph was not only an, illustrious patron of the learned, but was himself no mean adept in several branches of science. He was well acquainted with astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy; and was frequently present at the conferences of learned men, entering with great spirit into the subjects of their debates. In the midst of the praise which is due to this Caliph, it must, however, be mentioned with regret, that, through an ill-judged partiality for his vernacular tongue, he gave orders that, after the Arabic versions were finished, the original Greek manuscripts should be burned. A similar folly seized the Caliphs of Africa: and to this cause we are, doubtless, to ascribe the entire loss of many ancient, writings. The diligence, however, with which this Caliph cultivated and encouraged learning, cancels’ in some measure this disgrace, and leaves him entitled to an honourable station among philosophers.

, another artist, well known in this kingdom, was born at Rotterdam in 1638, according to the most authentic writers, though Descamps fixes his birth in 1650. He appears to have been an universal master, painting, with equal readiness, landscapes, animals of all kinds, particularly dogs, huntings of wild animals, boars, deer, wolves, and foxes, as also conversations and fowls; but his favourite subjects were huntings. His manner seems peculiar to himself; it was bold and free; and, except Rubens and Snyders, few masters have painted animals in a greater style, or with more spirit. There is certainly a great deal of fire in his compositions; but his colouring is often extravagant, and his drawing extremely incorrect. In general his pencilling was harsh, and he delighted in a fiery tint; yet some of his small pictures are very neatly finished. There is a great inequality as to the merit of the works of Hondius, some of them being in every respect abundantly superior to others; but there is scarce any master whose compositions are so easily distinguishable as those of Hondius, by certain particularities in his touch, his taste of design, and his colouring.

Several of his pictures of dogs are much esteemed; and one especially is mentioned, in which he represented thirty different species of those animals, all being well designed, and every distinct animal being characterised with some peculiar air, action, expression, or attitude. As he was exceedingly harassed and tormented with the gout, the works of his latter time are more negligently executed than those which he finished in his prime; and, therefore, they very much contribute to lessen the reputation he had acquired by some of his more studied and better finished performances. His most capital picture is the burning of Troy, in which there are a variety of figures, many of them well designed, and disposed with judgment. Houbraken also mentions a candle-light of this master’s hand, in which appeared a fine opposition of light and shadow, and the figures were extremely well designed and well coloured. When he came to England is not known. Vertue says he was a man of humour. He lived on Ludgate-hill, but died of a severe fit of the gout in 1695 at the Blackmoor’s head, over against Water-lane, Fleet-street. Iodocus or Jesse Hondius is supposed to have been his grandfather. He was born at Wackerne, a small town in Flanders, in 1563, and died in 1611. He was a self-taught engraver both on copper and ivory, and a letter-founder; in all which branches he attained great excellence. He studied geography also, and in 1607 published a work entitled “Descriptio Geographica orbis terrarum,” in folio.

, a celebrated artist, called also Gerardo Dalle Notti, from his principal subjects, was born at Utrecht in 1592, and was a disciple of Abraham Bloemavt; but completed his studies at Home, where he continued several years, employed there by persons of the first rank, and particularly by prince Justiniani. He imitated the style of Caravaggio, with whose vivid tone and powerful masses of light and shade, he attempted to combine correctness of outline, refinement of forms, graceful attitudes, and that dignity which ought to be the characteristic of sacred subjects. In this he often succeeded. His subjects are generally night-pieces as large as life, and illuminated by torch or candle-light. Among his numerous pictures, that of our Saviour before the Tribunal of Pilate, in the gallery Justiniani, for energy, dignity, and contrast, is the most celebrated. Soon after his return to his own country he visited London, and obtained the favour of king Charles I. by several grand performances and portraits; especially by one allegorical picture, in which he represented the portraits of the king and queen, in the characters of two deities, and the portrait of the. duke of Buckingham in the character of Mercury, introducing the liberal arts to that monarch and his consort. For that composition, which was well drawn and extremely well coloured, the king presented him with three thousand florins, a service of plate for twelve persons, and a beautiful horse; and he had afterwards the honour to instruct the queen of Bohemia, and the princesses her children, in drawing.

, a very celebrated Dutch philologer, was born at Leyden, in the latter end of January 1712. His parents were poor, but of great probity; and, had it not been for a very laudable ambition in his father to make his son a scholar, the obscurity of a mechanical trade would probably have concealed his powers through life. At ten years of age he was sent to school, but for a considerable time gave not the slightest proof of talents for literature, so completely depressed was he by the wanton tyranny of a severe master. When at length he was removed into another class, and was under a milder teacher, his powers began to expand, and he took the lead among those of his standing, instead of holding an inferior place. So early as at fifteen he began the task of teaching others, to alleviate the expences of his parents, being now highly qualified for such an undertaking. He was employed in teaching the inferior classes of the school to which he still belonged. While he was yet employed in his studies, he lost his father; but this misfortune rather redoubled his efforts than subdued his spirit. In 1732, before he had exceeded his twentieth year, he obtained the appointment of co-rector (or under-master) at Gorcum. Within nine months the magistrates of the city of Woerden gave him an appointment there, which induced him to think of matrimony. He married in March 1733, and began the care of this school in May, the same year. By this wife, who died in 1738, he had three sons and two daughters. In the same year he was solicited by the magistrates of Culembourg to undertake the care of their school, to which, with much reluctance in leaving his former situation, he at length consented. Here he took a second wife, who produced him eight children; and here, notwithstanding solicitations from other places, he continued for several years. At length, much fatigued by incessant attention to a great number of scholars, he went in 1745 to Breda, on a more liberal appointment. The very next year, Breda being harassed by a French invasion, Hoogeveen was obliged to send his collection of books to Leyden, and literary pursuits were at a stand. He remained, however, sixteen years at Breda, and had determined there to end his days, but Providence decided otherwise. The malice and turbulence of a person who had taken up some unreasonable cause of offence against him, inclined him to leave Breda. His intention being known, he was liberally invited to Dort, whither he transferred his residence in 1761. From this place, after living there three years, he was in a manner forced away by the importunity and liberality of the city of Delft. On his first arrival there, he encountered some difficulties from calumny and malice, but he weathered the storm, and remained there the remainder of his life in peace and honour. He died about Nov. 1, 1794, leaving some surviving children by both his marriages.

, a Dutch designer and engraver, who nourished towards the close of the seventeenth century, bad a lively imagination, by which he was sometimes led astray and his works must be viewed with some allowance for incorrectness of design and injudicious choice of subjects, which were in general of an allegorical cast, or distinguished by a kind of low caricature. His works are chiefly extant in certain editions of books for which he was employed; as, 1. Plates for the Old and New Testament, in folio, published by Basnage in 1704. 2. Plates to “the Academy of the Art of Wrestling,” in Dutch, 1674, and in French in 1712. 3. Plates to the Bible, with Dutch explanations. 4. Plates for the Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Amsterdam, 1735, small folio. 5. Plates to Fontaine’s Fables, 1685, 2 vols. 8vo. 6. To Boccace, 1695, 2 vols. 8vo. 7. To the Tales of the Queen of Navarre. 8. To the “Cent Nouvelles nouvelles,” 1701? 2 vols. 8vo. Such of his plates as are to be met with separate from the works to which they belong, bear a higher price.

, an eminent English mathematician, and one of the most inventive geniuses that the world has ever seen, was son of Mr. John Hooke, rector of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight, and born there July 18, 1635. He was designed for the church; but being of a weakly constitution, and very subject to the head-ache, he was left to follow the bent of his genius, which led him to mechanics, and first appeared in his making little toys, which he did with wonderful art and dexterity. Seeing, on one occasion, an old brass clock taken to pieces, he made a wooden one that would go: he made likewise a small ship about a yard long, fitly shaped, masted, and rigged, with a contrivance to make it fire small guns, as it was sailing across a haven of some breadth. These indications led his friends to think of some trade for him in which such talents might be useful; and after his father’s death in 1648, as he had also a turn for drawing, he was placed with sir Peter Lely, but the smell of the oil-colours increased his headaches, and he quitted painting in a very short time. Afterwards he was kindly taken by Dr. Busby into his house, and supported there while he attended Westminster-school. Here he not only acquired Greek and Latin, together with some knowledge of Hebrew and other oriental languages, but also made himself master of a good part of Euclid’s Elements; and Wood adds, that while he lived with Dr. Busby he “learned of his own accord to play twenty lessons on the organ, and invented thirty several ways of flying as himself and Dr. Wilkins of Wadham- college have reported.” About 1653 he went to Christ-church, Oxford, and in 1655 was introduced to the philosophical society there; where, discovering his mechanic genius, he was first employed to assist Dr. Willis in his operations of chemistry, and afterwards recommended to Mr. Boyle, whom he served many years in the same capacity. He was also instructed about this time by Dr. Seth Ward, Savilian professor of astronomy, in that science; and from henceforward distinguished himself by a greater number of important inventions and improvements of the mechanic kind, than any one man had ever discovered. Among these were several astronomical instruments for making observations both at sea and land; and he was particularly serviceable to Boyle, in completing the air-pump. Wood tells us, that he also explained “Euclid’s Elements,” and “Des Cartes’s Philosophy,” to Boyle. In Nov. 1662, sir Robert Moray, then president, having proposed him for curator of experiments to the Royal Society, he was unanimously accepted, and it was ordered that Boyle should have the thanks of the society for dispensing with him for their use; and that he should come and sit among them, and both exhibit every day three or four of his own experiments, and take care of such others as should be mentioned to him by the society. He executed this office so much to their satisfaction, that when that body was established by the royal charter, his name was in the list of those who were first nominated by the council, May 20, 1663; and he was admitted accordingly, June 3, with a peculiar exemption from all payments. Sept. 28 of the same year, he was nominated by Clarendon, chancellor of Oxford, for the degree of M.A.; and Oct. 19, it was ordered that the repository of the Royal Society should be committed to his care, the white gallery in Gresham-college being appointed for that use. In May 1664, he began to read the astronomical lecture at Gresham for the professor, Dr. Pope, theri in Italy; and the same year was made professor of mechanics to the Royal Society by Sir John Cutler, with a salary of 50l. per annum, which that gentleman, the founder, v settled upon him for life. On Jan. 11, 1664-5, he was elected by that society curator of experiments for life, with an additional salary of“30l. per annum to sir John Cutler’s annuity, settled on him” pro tempore:“and, March folJowing, was elected professor of geometry in Greshamcollege. In 1665, he published in folio his” Micrographia, or some philosophical descriptions of minute bodies, made by magnifying glasses, with observations and enquiries thereupon:" and the same year, during the recess of the Royal Society on account of the plague, attended Dr. Wilkins and other ingenious gentlemen into Surrey, where they made several experiments. In Sept. 1666, he produced his plan for rebuilding the city of London, then destroyed by the great fire; which was approved by the lord -may or and court of aldermen. According to it, all the chief streets were to have been built in regular lines; all the other cross streets to have turned out of them at right angles; and all the churches, public buildings, marketplacesj &c. to have beetl fixed in proper and convenient places; but the nature of the property, and the impossibility of raising funds to indemnify the landholders who would be injured by this scheme, prevented its being carried into execution. The rebuilding of the city, however, according to the act of parliament, requiring an able person to set out the ground to the several proprietors, Hooke was appointed one of the city surveyors, and Oliver, a glass-painter, the other. In this employment he acquired the greatest part of that estate of which he died possessed; as appeared sufficiently evident from a large iron chest of money found after his death, locked down with a key in it, and a date of the time, which shewed that the contents had been so shut up for above thirty years, and seldom disturbed, for he almost starved himself and all in his house.

In 1687, his brother’s daughter, Mrs. Grace Hooke, who had lived with him several years, died; and he was so affected at her death, that he hardly ever recovered it, but was observed from that time to grow less active, more melancholy, and, if possible, more cynical than ever. At the same time a chancery-suit, in which he was concerned with sir John Cutler, on account of his salary for reading the Cutlerian lectures, made him very uneasy, and increased his disorder. In 1691, he was employed in forming the plan of the hospital near Hoxton, (bun Jed by Aske, alderman of London, who appointed archbishop Tillotson one of his executors; and in December the same year, Hooke was created M. D. by a warrant from that prelate. He is also said to have been the architect of Bedlam, and the College of Physicians. In July 1696, his chancerysuit for sir John Cutler’s salary was determined in his favour, to his inexpressible satisfaction. His joy on that occasion was found in his diary thus expressed “Domshlgissa that is, Deo Optimo Maximo sit honor, laus, gloria, in saecula saeculorum. Amen. I was born on this day of July, 1635, and God has given me a new birth: may I never forget his mercies to me! whilst he gives me breath may I praise him!” The same year an order was granted to him for repeating most of his experiments, at the expence of the Royal Society, upon a promise of his finishing the accounts, observations, and deductions from them, and of perfecting the description of all the instruments contrived by him, which his increasing illness and general decay rendered him unable to perform. For the two or three last years of his life he is said to have sat night and day at a table, engrossed with his inventions and studies, and never to have gone to bed, or even undressed; and in this wasting condition, and quite emaciated, he died March 3, 1702, at his lodgings in Gresham-college, and was buried in St. Helen’s church, Bishopsgate- street, his corpse being attended by all the members of the Royal Society then in London.

Waller, the writer of his life, has given the following character of him, which, though not an amiable one, seems to be drawn with candour and impartiality. He was in person but a despicable figure; short of stature, very crooked, pale, lean, and of a meagre aspect, with dark brown hair, very long, and hanging over his face, uncut, and lank. Suitable to this person, his temper was penurious, melancholy, mistrustful, and jealous; which qualities increased upon him with his years. He set out in his youth with a collegiate or rather a monastic recluseness, and afterwards led the life of a cynical hermit; scarcely allowing himself necessaries, notwithstanding the great increase of his fortunes after the fire in London . He declared sometimes, that he had a great project in his head as to the disposal of his estate, for the advancement of natural knowledge, and to promote the ends and designs for which the Royal Society was instituted; to build a handsome fabric for the society’s use, with a library, repository, laboratory, and other conveniences for making experiments; and to found and endow a physico-mechanic lecture like that of sir John Cutler. But though he was often solicited by his friends to put his designs down in writing, and make his will as to the disposal of his estate, yet he could never be prevailed on to do it, but died without any will that could be found. In like manner, with respect to his philosophical treasures, when he first became known to the learned world, he was very communicative of his inventions and discoveries, but afterwards grew close and reserved to a fault; alleclging for an excuse, that some persons challenged his discoveries for their own, and took occasion from his hints to perfect what he had not finished. For this reason he would suggest nothing, till he had time to perfect it himself; so that many things are lost which he affirmed he knew, though he was not supposed to know every thing which he affirmed. For instance, not many weeks before his death, he told Mr. Waller and others, that he knew a certain and infallible method of discovering the longitude at sea; yet it is evident that his friends distrusted his asseveration of this discovery; and how little credit was then given to it in general, appears from Waller’s own account. “Hooke,” says he, “suffering this invention to be undiscovered to the last, gave some persons cause to question, whether he was ever the possessor of it; and to doubt whether what in theory seemed very promising, would answer when put in practice. Others indeed more severely judged, that it was only a kind of boasting in him to assert that which had not been performed though attempted by many.” In the religious part of his character he was so far exemplary, that he always expressed a great veneration for the Deity, and seldom received any remarkable benefit in life, or made any considerable discovery in nature, or invented any useful contrivance, or found out any difficult problem, without setting down his acknowledgment to God, as many places in his diary plainly shew. He frequently studied the sacred writings in the originals; for he vvas acquainted with the ancient languages, as well as with all the parts of mathematics. “To conclude,” says Waller, “all Ins errors and blemishes were more than made amends for by the greatness and extent of his natural and acquired p-trts, and more than common if not wonderful sagacity, in diving into the most hidden secrets of nature, and in contriving proper methods of forcing her to confess the truth, by driving and pursuing the Proteus through all her changes to her last and utmost recesses. There needs no other proof of this, than the great number of experiments he made, with the contrivances for them, amounting to some hundreds; his new and useful instruments and inventions, which were numerous; his admirable facility and clearness in explaining the phenomena of nature, and demonstrating his assertions; his happy talent in adapting theories to the phenomena observed, and contriving easy and plain, not pompous and amusing, experiments to back and prove those theories; proceeding from obsenations to theories, and from theories to farther trials, which he asserted to be the most proper method to succeed in the interpretation of nature. For these his happy qualifications he was much respected by the most learned philosophers at home and abroad; and as with all his failures he may be reckoned among the great men of the last age, so, had he been free from them, possibly he might have stood in the front.”

His papers being put by his friends into the hands of Richard Waller, esq. secretary to the Royal Society, that gentleman collected such as he thought worthy of the press, and published them under the tide of his “Posthumous Works,” in 1705, to which he prefixed an account of his life, in folio.- It is thought, that this gentleman would have published more of Hooke’s manuscripts, had he lived. Mr. Professor Robison of Edinburgh, who ascribes the invention of spring watches to Hooke, had an opportunity of seeing some of Hooke’s Mss. that had been rescued from the fire at the burning of Gresham-college, and says that they are full of systematic views many of them, it must be acknowledged, hasty, inaccurate, and futile, but still systematical. Hooke called them algebras, and considered thein as having a sort of inventive power, or rather as means of discovering things unknown by a process somewhat similar to that art He valued himself highly on account of this view of science, which he thought peculiar to himself: and he frequently speaks of others, even the most eminent, as childishly contenting themselves with partial views of the corners of things. He was likewise very apt to consider other inventors as encroacbers on his systems, which he held as a kind of property, being seriously determined to prosecute them all in their turn, and never recollecting that any new object immediately called him off, and engaged him for a while in the most eager pursuit. His algebras had given him many signal helps, and he had no doubt of carrying them through in every investigation. Stimulated by this overfond expectation, when a discovery was mentioned to him he was too apt to think and to say, that he had long ago invented the same thing, when the truth probably was, that the course of his systematic thoughts on the subjects with which it was connected had really suggested it to him, with such vivacity, or with such notions of its importance, as to make him set it down in his register in its own systematic place, which was his constant practice: but it was put out of his mind by some new object of pursuit. These remarks are part of a series, by the same learned professor, on the merits and inventions of Dr. Hooke, which are new, and highly necessary to enable the reader to form a just estimate of Hooke as a benefactor to science. They are to be found in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica,” under the article Watch, and in Dr. Gleig’s supplement to that work, under Hooke. No English biographer appears to have done so much justice to our philosopher. 1 >

an English historian, was born at Exeter, about the year 1524. His father Hobert Hooker, a wealthy citizen, was in 1529 mayor of that city. Dr. Moreman, vicar of Menhinit in Cornwall, was his tutor in grammar, after which he studied at Oxford, but in what college Wood was not able to discover. Having left the University, he travelled to Germany, and resided some time at Cologn, where he studied the law; and thence to Strasburgh, where he heard the divinity lectures of Peter Martyr. He intended also to have visited France, Spain, and Italy, but a war breaking out, he returned to England, and, residing at his native city, Exeter, was elected chamberlain in 1554, being the first person who held that office; and in 1571 he represented Exeter in parliament. He died in 1601, and was buried in the cathedral of Exeter. His works are, 1. “Order and usage of keeping of Parliaments in Ireland.” The ms. of this is in Trinity-college-library, Dublin. He had been sent into Ireland by sir Peter Carew to negotiate his affairs there, and was elected burgess for Athenry in the parliament of 1568. This tract is printed with his Irish Chronicle in Holinshed. 2. “The events of Comets, or blazing stars, made upon the sight of the comet Pagonia, which appeared in November and December 1577.” Lond. 1577, 8vo. 3. “An addition to the Chronicles of Ireland from 1546 to 1568,” in the second volume of Holinshed. 4. “Catalogue of the bishops of Exeter,” and “a Description of Exeter,” in the third volume of Holinshed. 5. A translation of the history of the conquest of Ireland from Giraldus Cambrensis, in the second volume of Holinshed, and some other pieces not printed. This gentleman was uncle to the celebrated Richard Hooker.

, an eminent English divine, and author of an excellent work, entitled “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books,” was born at Heavytree near Exeter, about the end of March 1554. His parents, not being rich, intended him for a trade; but his schoolmaster at Exeter prevailed with them to continue him at school, assuring them, that his natural endowments and learning were both so remarkable, that he must of necessity be taken notice of, and that God would provide him some patron who would free them from any future care or charge about him. Accordingly his uncle John Hooker, the subject of the preceding article, who was then chamberlain of the town, began to notice him; and being known to Jewell, made a visit to that prelate at Salisbury soon after, and “besought him for charity’s sake to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar; bill the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning; and that the bishop therefore would become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for he was a boy of remarkable hopes.” The bishop examining into his merits, found him to be what the uncle had represented him, and took him immediately under his protection. He got him admitted, in 1567, one of the clerks of Corpus-Christi college in Oxford, and settled a pension on him; which, with the contributions of his uncle, afforded him a very comfortable subsistence. In 1571, Hooker had the misfortune to lose his patron, together with his pension. Providence, however, raised him up two other patrons, in Dr. Cole, then president of the college, and Dr. Edwyn Sandys, bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of York. To the latter of these Jewell had recommended him so effectually before his death, that though of Cambridge himself, he immediately resolved to send his son Edwyn to Oxford, to be pupil to Hooker, who yet was not much older; for, said he, “I will have a tutor for my son, that shall teach him learning by instruction, and virtue by example.” Hooker had also another considerable pupil, namely, George Cranmer, grand nephew to Cranmer the archbishop and martyr; with whom, as well as with Sandys, he cultivated a strict and lasting friendship. In 1573, he was chosen scholar of Corpus, and in 1577, having taken his master’s degree, was elected fellow of his college; and about two years after, being well skilled in the Oriental languages, was appointed deputy-professor of Hebrew, in the room of Kingsmill, who was disordered in his senses. In 1581, he entered into orders; and soon after, being appointed to preach at St. Paul’s-cross in London, was so unhappy as to be drawn into a most unfortunate marriage; of which, as it is one of the most memorable circumstances of his life, we shall give the particulars as they are related by Walton. There was then belonging to the church of St. Paul’s, a house called the Shunamites house, set apart for the reception and entertainment of the preachers at St. Paul’s cross, two days before, and one day after the sermon. That house was then kept by Mr. John Churchman, formerly a substantial draper in Watluig-sti'eet, but now reduced to poverty. Walton says, that Churchman was a person of virtue, but that he cannot say quite so much of his wife. To this house Hooker came from Oxford so wet and weary, that he was afraid he should not be able to perform his duty the Sunday following: Mrs. Churchman, however, nursed him so well, mat he presently recovered from the ill effects of his journey. For this he was very thankful; so much indeed that, as Walton expresses it, be thought himself bound in conscience to believe all she said; so the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he had a very tender constitution; and that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such a one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such a one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” Hooker, not considering “that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light,” and fearing no guile, because he meant none, gave her a power to choose a wife for him; promising, upon a fair summons, to return to London, and accept of her choice, which he did in that or the year following. Now, says Walton, the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s which Solomon compares to a dripping-house; that is, says Wood, she was “a clownish silly woman, and withal a mere Xantippe.”

But whatever value Hooker himself might put upon his books of “Ecclesiastical JPolity,” he could not in that respect exceed the estimate which has been formed by the general judgment of mankind, with the exception only of the enemies of our church establishment. This work has ever been admired for soundness of reasoning, and prodigious extent of learning; and the author has universally acquired from it the honourable titles of “the judicious,” and “the learned.” When James I. ascended the throne of England, he is said to have asked Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker, from whose books of “Ecclesiastical Polity” he had so much profited; and being informed by the archbishop that he died a year before the queen, he expressed the greatest disappointment, and the deepest concern. Charles I. it is well known, earnestly recommended the reading of Hooker’s books to his son; and they have ever since been held in the highest veneration and esteem by all. An anecdote is preserved by the writer of his life, which, if true, shews that his fame was by no means confined to his own country, but reached even the ears of the pope himself. Cardinal ALen and Dr. Stapleton, though both in Italy when his books were published, were yet so affected with the fame of them, that they contrived to have them sent for; and after reading them, are said to have told the pope, then Clement VIII. that “though his holiness had not yet met with an English book, as he was pleased to say, whose writer deserved the name of an author, yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and so they did not doubt it would appear to his holiness, if it was in Latin; which was, that ‘a pure obscure English priest had written four such books of law and church polity, in so majestic a style, and with such clear demonstrations of reason,’ that in all their readings they had not met with any thing that exceeded him.” This begetting in the pope a desire tq know the contents, Stapleton read to him the first book in Latin upon which the pope said, “there is no learning that this man hath not searched into nothing too hard for his understanding. This man indeed deserves the name of an author. His books will get reverence by age; for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning;” all which, whether the pope said it or no, we take to be strictly true.

, a celebrated divine of New England, whose works frequently occur in our public libraries, and may render their author the object of curiosity, was born at MarHeld, in Leicestershire, in 1586, and was educated at Emanuel-college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow. On his leaving the university, he preached occasionally for some time in London, but in 1626 was chosen lectuier and assistant to a clergyman at Chelmsford, where he officiated with great reputation, until silenced for non-conformity by Laud, then bishop of London. On this occasion forty-seven of the neighbouring clergy sent a petition to the bishop, attesting his orthodoxy and peaceable disposition. But this had no effect; and even when Mr. Hooker set up a grammar-school in the neighbourhood of Chelmsford, he was cited to appear before the high commission court, which determined him to go to Holland, where he preached for two or three years, and in 1633 went to New-England, and became pastor of the church of Hertford, in the colony of Connecticut, and from his pious services and usefulness, was called the father of that colony. He died July 7, 1647. Among his works are, 1. “An exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” Lond. 1645, 4to. 2. “The Saint’s Guide,” ibid. 1645, 12mo. 3. “A Survey of the Summe of Church Discipline, wherein the way of the churches of New England is warranted,” ibid. 164-8, 4to. 4. “The Covenant of Grace opened in several Sermons,” ibid. 1649, 4to. 5. “The Saints’ Dignity and Duty,” ibid. 1651, 4to.

, an eminent English divine, son of George Hooper, gent, was born at Grimley, in Worcestershire, Nov. 18, 1640, and educated in grammar and classical learning first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at Westminster-school, where he was a king’s scholar. From thence he was elected to Christ-church in Oxford, in 1657, where he took his degrees at the regular times and distinguished himself above his contemporaries by his superior knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, Greek and Roman antiquities, and the oriental languages, in which last he was assisted by Dr. Pocock. In 1672 he became chaplain to Morley, bishop of Winchester, who collated him to the rectory of Havant, in Hampshire, which, the situation being unhealthy, he resigned for the rectory of East Woodhay, in the same county. In July 1673 he took the degree of B. D. and not long afterwards became chaplain to archbishop Sheldon, who begged that favour of the bishop of Winchester, and who in 1675 gave him the rectory of Lambeth, and afterwards the precentorship of Exeter. In 1677 he commenced D. D. and the same year, being made almoner to the princess of Orange, he went over to Holland, where, at the request of her royal highness, he regulated her chapel according to the usage of the church of England. After one year’s attendance, he repassed the sea, in order to complete his marriage to Abigail, daughter of Richard Guildford, gent, the treaty for which had been set on foot before his departure. He then went back to her highness, who had obtained a promise from him to that purpose; but, after a stay of about eight months, she consented to let him return home. In 1680 he is said to have been offered the divinity-professorship at Oxford, but the succession to that chair had been secured to Dr. Jane. About the same time, however, Dr. Hooper was made king’s chaplain. In 1685, by the king’s command, he attended the duke of Monmouth, and had much free conversation with him in the Tower, both the evening before, and the day of his execution, on which, that unhappy nobleman assured him “be had made his peace with God,” the nature of which persuasion Dr. Hooper solemnly entreated him to consider well, and then waited on him in his last moments. The following year he took a share in the popish controversy, and wrote a treatise, which will be mentioned presently with his works. In 1691, he succeeded Dr. Sharp in the deanery of Canterbury. As he never made tae least application for preferment, queen Mary surprised him vvitn this offer, when the king her husband was absent in Holland. With a disinterestedness not very common, he now proposed to resign either of his livings, but the queen observed that though the king and she never gave two livings to one man, yet they never took them away,“and ordered him to keep both. However, he resigned the rectory of Woodhay. He was made chaplain to their majesties the same year. In 1698, when a preceptor was chosen forttie duke of Gloucester, though both the royal parents of that prince pressed earnestly to have Hooper, and no objection was ever made against him, yet the king named bishop Burnet for that service. In 1701, he was chosen prolocutor to the lower house of convocation and the same year was offered the primacy cf Ireland by the earl of Rochester, then lord-lieutenant, which he declined. In May 1703, he was nominated to the bishopric of St. Asaph. This he accepted, though against his inclination on this occasion be resigned Lambeth, but retained his other preferments with this bishopric, in which, indeed, he continued but a few months, and on that account he generously refused the usual mortuaries or pensions, then so great a burthen to the clergy of Wales, saying” They should never pay so dear for the sight of him." In March following, being translated to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, he earnestly requested her majesty to dispense with the order, not only on account of the sudden charge of such a translation, as well as a reluctance to remove, but aiso in regard to his friend Dr. Ken, the deprived bishop of that place, for whom he begged the bishopric. The queen, readily complied vvitb Hooper’s request; but the offer being declined by Ken, Hooper at his importunity yielded to become his successor. He now relinquished the deanery of Canterbury, but wished to have retained the precentorship of Exeter in commendam, solely for the use of Dr. Ken. But this was not agreeable to Dr. Trelauney, bishop of Exeter. His intention, however, was supplied by the bounty of the queen, who conferred an annual pension of 200l. on the deprived prelate. In 1705, bishop Hooper distinguished himself in the debate on the danger of the church, which, with many other persons, he apprehended to be more than imaginary. His observation was candid; he complained with justice of that invidious distinction which the terms high church and low church occasioned, and of that enmity which they tended to produce. In the debate in 1706, he spoke against the union between England and Scotland, but grounded his arguments on 'fears which have not been realized. In 1709-10, when the articles of Sachevereli’s impeachment were debated, he endeavoured to excuse that divine, and entered his protest against the vote, which he could not prevent.

But, whatever were his political opinions, his prudent, courteous, and liberal behaviour in his diocese, secured the esteem both of the laity and clergy. To the latter he was a faithful friend. For while he confined his preferments to those of his own diocese, his disposal of them was judicious and disinterested. The modest were often dignified without any expectation, and the diligent were always advanced without the least solicitation. His regulation also in official proceedings was so conspicuous, that “no tedious formalities protracted business, no imperious officers insulted the clergy.” The regard which he experienced, inseparably attached him to this diocese, and it is said that he could not be prevailed on to accept the see of London on the death of Dr. Compton, or that of York on the death of Dr. Sharp.

, an eminent prelate and martyr, was horn in Somersetshire, in 1495, and entered of Merton college, Oxford, in 1514, under the tuition of his uncle John Hooper, a fellow of that house. In 1518 he was admitted B. A.; the only degree he took in this university. It is supposed that he afterwards became one of the number of Cistercians, or white monks, and contir nued some years, until, becoming averse to a monastic life, he returned to Oxford, where, by the writings of some of the reformers which had reached that place, he was in-r duced to embrace the principles of protestantism. In. 1539, when the statute of the six articles was put in execution, he left Oxford, and got into the service of sir Thomas Arundel, a Devonshire gentleman, to whom he became chaplain, and steward of his estate; but this gentleman discovering his principles, withdrew his protection, and he was then obliged to go to France, where he conti r nued for some time among the reformed, until his dislike of some of their proceedings made him return to England; but, being again in danger here, he in the disguise of a, sailor escaped to Ireland, and thence to Holland and Swisserland. At Zurich be met with Bullinger, himself a refugee from his country for the sake of religion, and who, therefore, gave Hooper a friendly reception. During his residence here, Hooper married a Burgundian lady.

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

, a Scotch lawyer, was the son of Henry Hope, a merchant of Edinburgh, who had many commercial transactions with Holland, where he afterwards resided, and where he married Jacque or Jacqueline de Tott. His son Thomas soon distinguished himself at the bar; and was made king’s advocate in 1627, when he was also created a baronet by Charles I. He however attached himself to the covenanters, and was consulted by them in all difficult points. The king nevertheless, perhaps either to render him suspected to that party, or with a view to win him over, appointed sir Thomas commissioner to the general assembly in August 1643.

, son of the preceding, was born at Exeter, in 1664; but his father being taken chaplain to Ireland, he received the early part of his education at Trinity college, Dublin; and afterwards was a student at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1688. The rebellion breaking out in Ireland in that year, he returned thither, and exerted his early valour in the cause of his country, religion, and liberty. When public tranquillity was restored, he came again into Elngland, and formed an acquaintance with gentlemen of wit, whose age and genius were most agreeable to his own. In 1694 he published some “Epistolary Poems and Translations,” which may be seen in Nichols’s “Select Collec-' tion;” and in 1695 he shewed his genius as a dramatic writer, by “Pyrrhus king of Egypt,” a tragedy, to which Congreve wrote the epilogue. He published also in that year, “The History of Love,” a connection of select fables from. “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” 1695; which, by the sweetness of his numbers and easiness of his thoughts, procured him considerable reputation. With Dryden in particular he became a great favourite. He afterwards published the “Art of Love,” which, Jacob says, “added to his fame, and happily brought him acquainted with the earl of Dorset, and other persons of distinction, who were fond of his company, through the agreeableness of his temper, and the pleasantry of his conversation. It was in his power to have made his fortune in any scene of life; but he was always more ready to serve others than mindful of his own affairs; and by the excesses of hard drinking, and too passionate an addiction to women, he died a martyr to the cause in the thirty-sixth year of his age.” Mr. Nichols has preserved in his collection an admirable hymn, “written about an hour before his death, when in great pain.” His “Court-Prospect,” in which many of the principal nobility are very handsomely complimented, is called by Jacob “an excellent piece;” and of his other poems he adds, “that they are all remarkable for the purity of their diction, and the harmony of their numbers.” Mr. Hopkins was also the author of two other tragedies; “Boadicea Queen of Britain,” 1697; and “Friendship improved, or the Female Warrior,” with a humourous prologue, comparing a poet to a merchant, a comparison which will hold in most particulars except that of accumulating wealth. The author, who was at Londonderry when this tragedy came out, inscribed it to Edward Coke of Norfolk, esq. in a dedication remarkably modest and pathetic. It is dated Nov. 1, 1699, and concludes, “I now begin to experience how much the mind may be influenced by the body. My Muse is confined, at present, to a weak and sickly tenement; and the winter season will go near to overbear her, together with her household. There are storms and tempests to beat tier down, or frosts to bind her up and kill her; and she has no friend on her side but youth to hear her through; If that can sustain the attack, and hold out till spring comes to relieve me, one use I shall make of fa<ther life shall be to shew how much I am, sir, your most devoted humble servant, C. Hopkins.”

, another son of the bishop of Londonderry, who deviated likewise from his father’s character, was born January 1, 1675. Like his elder brother, his poetry turned principally on’subjects of love; like him too, his prospects in lite appear to have terminated unfortunately. He published, in 1693, “The Triumphs of Peace, or the Glories of Nassau; a Pindaric poem occasioned by the conclusion of the peace between the Confederacy and France; written at the time of his grace the duke of Ormond’s entrance into Dublin.” “The design of this poem,” the author says in his preface, “begins, after the method of Pindar, to one great man, and rises to another; first touches the duke, then celebrates the actions of the king, and so returns to the praises of the duke again.” In the same year he published “The Victory of Death; or the Fall of Beauty; a visionary Pindaric poem, occasioned by the ever to-be-deplored death of the right honourable the lady Cutts,” 8vo. But the principal performance of J. Hopkins was “Amasia, or the works of the Muses, a collection of Poems,” 1700, in 3 vols. Each of these little volumes is divided into three books, and each book is inscribed to some beautiful patroness, among whom the tKichess of Grafton stands foremost. The last Ijook is inscribed “To the memory of Amasia,” whom he addresses throughout these volumes in the character of Sylvius. There is a vein of seriousness, if not of poetry, runs through the whole performance. Many of Ovid’s stories are very decently imitated “most of them,” he says, “have been very well performed by my brother, and published some years since mine were written in another kingdom before I knew of his.” In one of his dedications he tells the lady Olympia Robartes, “Your ladyship’s father, the late earl of Radnor, when governor of Ireland, was the kind patron to mine: he raised him to the first steps by which v he afterwards ascended to the dignities he bore; to those, which rendered his labours more conspicuous, and set in a more advantageous light those living merits, which now make his memory beloved. These, and yet greater temporal honours, your family heaped on him, by making even me in some sort related and allied to you, by his inter-marriage with your sister the lady Araminta. How imprudent a vanity is it in me to boast a father so meritorious! how may 1 be ashamed to prove myself his son, by poetry, the only qualification he so much excelled in, but yet esteemed no excellence. I bring but a bad proof of birth, laying my claim in that only thing he would not own. These are, however, madam, but the products of immature years; and riper age, may, I hope, bring forth more solid works.” We have never seen any other of his writings: nor hare been able to collect any farther particulars of his life: but there is a portrait of him, under his poetical name of Sylvius.

, a learned divine of the church of England, was born at Evesham, in Worcestershire, in August 1647, and was the son of the rev. George Hopkins, whom Hickes terms a pious and learned divine, and who was ejected for non- conformity. At school his son was so great a proficient, that at twelve years of age he translated an English poem into Latin verse, which was printed some time before the restoration. At thirteen he was admitted commoner of Trinity-college, Oxford, under the learned Mr. Stratford, afterwards bishop of Chester. He proceeded M. A. in 1668, sometime before which he removed from Trinity-college to St. Mary-hall. He was much noticed by Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, who, it is supposed, recommended him to the Hon. Henry Coventry, as his chaplain and companion in his embassy to Sweden; on which he set out in Sept. 1671. While in Sweden, Mr. Hopkins applied himself to the study of northern antiquities, having previously studied the Saxon. After his return in 1675, by Mr. Coventry’s recommendation, he was preferred to a prebend in Worcester cathedral; and from his installation, began to collect materials for a history of this church, some of which fell afterwards into the hands of Wharton and other antiquaries. In June 1678 he was made curate of Mortlake in Surrey, and about 1680 was chosen Sunday lecturer of the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, and in 1686 was preferred to the vicarage of Lindridge in Worcestershire. In 1697 he was chosen master of St. Oswald’s hospital in “Worcester, of the profits of which he made a fund for the use of the hospital, and the benefit of his poor brethren there. He had proceeded D. D. at Oxford in 1692. He died of a violent fever May 18, 1700, and was interred in Worcester cathedral. Hickes, who prefixed his Life to a volume of his Sermons, published in 1708, 8vo, gives him a high character for piety, learning, and benevolence. He was a great benefactor to the library of Worcester cathedral. Although a man of extensive reading and study, he published only, 1.” Bertram or Ratram, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, &c. wherein M. Boileau’s version and notes upon Bertram are considered, and his unfair dealings in both detected.“Of this a second edition appeared in 1688. 2.” Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian, in three letters to a country friend;“and a Latin translation, with notes, of a small tract, written in the Saxon tongue, on the burialplaces of the Saxon saints, which Dr. Hickes published in his” Septentrional Grammar,“Oxford, 1705. Dr. Hopkins also assisted Gibson in correcting his Latin version of the Saxon Chronicle; and made a new translation, with notes and additions, of the article” Worcestershire" in Camden’s Britannia, published by Gibson.

, or Horus Apollo, was a grammarian, according to Suidas, of Panoplus in Egypt, who taught first at Alexandria, and then at Constantinople, under the reign of Theodosius, about the year 380. There are extant under his name two books “concerning the Hieroglyphics of the Egyptians,” which Aldus first published in Greek in 1505, folio. They have often been republished since, with a Latin version and notes; but the best edition is that by Cornelius de Pauw at Utrecht, in 1727, 4to. Meanwhile there are many Rorapollos of antiquity; and it is not certain, that the grammarian of Alexandria was the author of these books. Suidas does not ascribe them to him; and Fabricius is of opinion, that they belong rather to another Horus Apollo of more ancient standing, who flourished about 1500 B. C. and wrote upon Hieroglyphics in the Egyptian language, and from whose work an extract rather than a version has been made of these two books in Greek.

, an ancient Roman poet, and the. most popular of all the classical writers, flourished in the age of Augustus, and was born at Venusium, a town of Apulia, or of Lucania, Dec. 8, U. C; 68y, i.e. 65 B. C. His father, the son of a freedman, and a tax-gatherer, being a man of good sense, knew the necessity of instructing his son by setting before him the examples of all sorts of persons, and shewing him what behaviour. he should imitate, and what he should avoid spur? ring him on all the while to this imitation, by pointing out the good effects ofvirtue, and the ill effects of vice. With this view he removed him to Rome when about ten years of age, where he had the advantage of an education under the best masters and when, he was about eighteen, was sent to Athens, where he acquired all the accomplishments that polite learning and education could bestow.

His love for retirement seems to have increased with his age, and for some years he was only at Rome in the spring, passing the summer in the country, and the winter at Tarentum. He never could be prevailed on to undertake any great work, though he was strongly solicited to it; yet his gratitude to Augustus called upon him sometimes to sing his triumphs over Pompey and Antony, or the victorious exploits of Tiberius and Drusus. His “Carmen saeculare” be composed at the express command of Augustus; and to oblige him, wrote also the first epistle of the second book. That prince had kindly reproached him with having said so little of him in his writings; and asked him in a letter written on this occasion, “whether he thought it would disgrace him with posterity, if he should seem to have been intimate with him r” upon which he addressed the epistle just mentioned to him.

Horace, although not a philosopher in the strictest sense, discovered an inclination for the Epicurean philosophy during the greatest part of his life; but at the latter end of it, seems to have leaned a little towards the Stoic. He was of a cheerful temper, fond of ease and liberty, and went pretty far into the gallantries of his times, until he advanced in years. Dacier has very justly said that he was a poet in his philosophy, and a philosopher in his poetry. He met with his greatest misfortune, when his beloved friend and patron Maecenas died; and this event is supposed to have touched him so sensibly, that he did not survive it long enough to lament him in an elegy. He died not many days after, aged fifty-seven, Nov. 17, in the year of Rome 746, about eight years B. C. He was buried near Maecenas’s tomb, and declared in his last words Augustus his heir; the violence of his distemper being such, that be was not able to sign his will. In his person he was very short and corpulent, as we learn from a fragment of a letter of Augustus to him, preserved in his life by Suetonius; where the emperor compares him to the book he sent him, which was a little short thick volume. He was grey-haired about forty; subject to sore eyes, which made him use but little exercise; and of a constitution probably not the best, by its being unable to support him to a more advanced age, though he seems to have managed it with very great care. Confident of immortal fame from his works, as all allow he very justly might be, he expressed his indifference to any magnificent funeral rites, or fruitless sorrows for his death.

Of an author so well known, and whose merits have been so often and so minutely canvassed by classical critics, it would be unnecessary to say much in this place. Yet we know not how to refrain from adding the sentiments of an eminent living scholar, which cannot easily be rivalled for acuteness and elegance. The writings of Horace, says this learned critic, are familiar to us from our earliest boyhood, They carry with them attractions which are felt in every period of life, and almost every rank of society, They charm alike by the harmony of the numbers, and the pttrity of the fiction. They exhilarate the gay, and interest the serious, according to the different kinds of subjects upon which the poet is employed. Professing neither the precision of analysis, nor the copiousness of system, they have advantages, which, among the ordinary class of writers, analysis and system rarely attain. They exhibit human imperfections as they really are, and human excellence as it practically ought to be. They develope every principle of the virtuous in morals, and describe every modification of the decorous in manners. They please without the glare of ornament, and they instruct without the formality of precept. They are the produce of a mind enlightened by study, invigorated by observation; comprehensive, but not visionary; delicate, but not fastidious; too sagacious to be warped by prejudice, and too generous to be cramped by suspicion. They are distinguished by language adapted to the sentiment, and by effort proportioned to the occasion. They contain elegance without affectation, grandeur without bombast, satire without buffoonery, and philosophy without jargon. Hence it is that the writings of Horace are more extensively read, and more clearly understood, than those of almost any other classical author. The explanation of obscure passages, and the discussion of conjectural readings, form a part of the education which is given in our public schools. The merits of commentators, as well as of the poet himself, are the subjects of our conversation; and Horace, like our own countryman Shakspeare, has conferred celebrity upon many a scholar, who has been able to adjust his text, or to unfold his allusions. The works of some Roman and more Greek writers are involved in such obscurity, that no literary adventurer should presume to publish a variorum edition of them, unless he has explored the deepest recesses of criticism. But in respect to Horace, every man of letters knows where information is to be had, and every man of judgment will feel little difficulty in applying it to useful and even ornamental purposes.

, a learned English divine, was born at Haxay in Lincolnshire, in 1707. His father was vicar of Haxay, but both he and his wife died when their son was very young. The provision made for him was 400l. which barely defrayed the expence of his education, first at Epworth, and then at Gainsborough. He was then entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he obtained a small exhibition, but afterwards was elected to a fellowship of Magdalen, which extricated him from many difficulties, his poor inheritance having been long before expended. He took his master’s degree at Lincoln previous to this, in 1733, and when admitted into orders preached before the university with great approbation; and becoming known as a young man of much learning and personal merit, Dr. Smallbroke, bishop of Lichfield, who had appointed him his chaplain, collated him successively to the vicarage of Eccleshall, and the curacy of Gnosall, to which were afterwards added a canonry of Lichfield and the vicarage of Hanbury, on which last promotion he resigned Gnosall. The whole, however, of these preferments, even with the addition of his fellowship, were scarcely equal to his expences, for he had very little notion of accounts, or care about worldly things. He was afterwards promoted by his college to the rectory of Stanlake, and then quitted Eccleshall, preferring Stanlake from its retired situation, where he might indulge his favourite propensity to reading and meditation, and have easy access to his beloved Oxford. He took his degree of B. D. in 1743, and that of D. D. in 1745, and died at Stanlake, Jan. 22, 1773.

At the early age of nineteen, Mr. Home had imbibed a very favourable opinion of the sentiments of Mr. Hutchinson; which he afterwards adopted and disseminated without disguise. Supported by the learning and zeal of his friends, Mr. Watson of University college, Dr. Hodges, provost of Oriel, and Dr. Patten, of Corpus, he ably vindicated his principles against the intemperate invectives to which their novelty exposed them. That part indeed of the Hutchinsonian controversy which relates to Hebrew etymology was discountenanced by Mr. Home as, in a great measure, fanciful and arbitrary. He considered it of infinitely more importance to be employed in investigating facts than to be disputing about verbal criticisms. The principles of Mr. Hutchinson beginning to extend their influence in the university, in 1756 a bold attack was made upon them in an anonymous pamphlet, entitled “A Word to the Hutchinsonians.” Mr. Home, considering himself more particularly called upon for a defence, as being personally aimed at in the animadversions, produced an Apology, which has been universally admired for in temper, learning, and good sense. The question agitated seems rather to involve the very essense of religion, than to concern Mr. Hutchinson or his principles. The pamphlet was attributed by the public in general, and Mr. Home in particular, to Mr. Kennicott, of Exeter college; a man who had distinguished himself by an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew, and two masterly dissertations, one on the Tree of Life, the other on the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel.

In 1784 this Letter was followed by his “Letters on Infidelity;” which abound with instruction and entertainment, and are exceedingly well adapted both to arm the minds of youth against the dangerous tendency of philosophizing infidelity, and to counteract any impression, which its specious garb and licentious easy temper may have already made. The unsoundness of Mr. Hume’s opinions, and the futility of his arguments, are displayed in so happy a strain of ridicule, that none, says one of his biographers, “but an unbeliever can be angry, or even feel displeased.” The latter part of these Letters is employed in attempting to shew the fallacy of some miscellaneous objections against Christianity, brought forward by a more modern advocate for infidelity.

The works of bishop Home amount to a good many articles, which we shall notice in chronological order: 1. <( The Theology and Philosophy in Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis explained; or a brief attempt to demonstrate that the Newtonian system is perfectly agreeable to the notions of the wisest antients, and that mathematical principles are the only sure ones,“Lond. 1751, 8vo. 2.” A fair, candid, and impartial state of the Case between sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson,“&c. Oxford, 1753, 8vo. 3.” Spicilegium Shuckfordianum or a nosegay for the critics,“&c. Lond. 1754, 12mo. 4.” Christ and the Holy Ghost the supporters of the Spiritual Life,“&c. two sermons preached before the university of Oxford, 1755, 8vo. 5.” The Almighty justified in Judgment,“a sermon, 1756. 6.” An Apology for certain gentlemen in the university of Oxford, aspersed in a late anonymous Pamphlet,“1756, 8vo. 7.” A view of Mr. Kennicott’s method of correcting the Hebrew Text,“&c. Oxford, 1760, 8vo. 8.” Considerations on the Life and Death of St. John the Baptist,“Oxford, 1772, 8vo. This pleasing tract contained the substance of several sermons preached annually at Magdalen-college, in Oxford, the course of which had commenced in 1755. A second edition in 12mo, was published at Oxford in 1777. 9.” Considerations on the projected Reformation of the Church of England. In a letter to the right hon. lord North. By a clergyman,“London, 1772, 4to. 10.” A Commentary on the Book of Psalms,“&c. &c. Oxford, 1776, 2 vols, 4to. Reprinted in 8vo, in 1778, and three times since. With what satisfaction this good man composed this pious work, may best be judged frora, the following passage in his preface. * Could the author flatter himself that any one would have half the pleasure in reading the following exposition, which he hath had in writing it, he would not fear the loss of his labour. The employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, the din of politics, and the noise of folly. Vanity and vexation fiew away for a season, care and disquietude came not near his dwelling. He arose fresh as the morning to his task; the silence of the night invited him to pursue it; and he can truly say that food and rest were not preferred before it. Every psalm improved infinitely on his acquaintance with it, and no one gave him uneasiness but the last; for then he grieved that his work was done. Happier hours than those which have been spent in these meditations on the songs of Sion he never expects to see in this world. Very pleasantly did they pass, and move smoothly and swiftly along foi; when thus engaged he counted no time. They are gone, but have left a relish and a fragrance on the mind, and the remembrance of them is sweet.” 11. “A Letter to Adam Smith, LL. D. on the Life, Death, and Philosophy of David Hume, esq. By one” of the people called Christians,“Oxford, 1777, 12mo, 12.” Discourses on several subjects and occasions,“Oxford, 1779, 2 vols. 8vo. These sermons have gone through five editions. 13.” Letters on Infidelity,“Oxford, 1784, 12mo. 14” The Duty of contending for the Faith,“Jude, Ver. 3. preached at the primary visitation of the most reverend John lord archbishop of Canterbury, July 1, 1786. To which is subjoined, a” Discourse on the Trinity in Unity, Matth. xxviii. 19.“1786, 4to. These sermons, with fourteen others preached on particular occasions, and all published separately, were collected into one volume, 8vo, at Oxford, in 17y5. The two have also been published in 12mo, by the society for promoting Christian knowledge, and are among the books distributed by that society. 15.” A letter to the rev. Dr. Priestley, by an Undergraduate,“Oxford, 1787. 16.” Observations on the Case of the Protestant Dissenters, with reference to the Corporation and Test Acts,“Oxford, 1790, 8vo. 17.” Charge intended to have been delivered to the Clergy of Norwich, at the primary visitation,“1791, 4to. l. * Discourses on several subjects and occasions,” Oxford, 1794, 8vo, vols. 3 and 4; a posthumous publication. Ttyc four volumes have since been reprinted in an uniform edition; and lately an uniform edition of these and his other works, with his life, by Mr. Jones, has been printed in 6 vols. 8vo. Besides these, might be enumerated several occasional papers in different periodical publications, but particularly the papers signed Z. in the " Olla Podrida,‘-’ a periodical work, conducted by Mr. T. Monro, then bachelor of arts, and a demy of Magdalen college, Oxford.

, an English divine, was born at Baccharack, a town in the Lower Palatinate, in 1641. His father was recorder or secretary of that town, a strict protestant; and the doctor was brought up in the same manner, though some, we find, asserted that he was originally a papist. He was designed for the sacred ministry from his birth, and first sent to Heidelberg, where he studied divinity under Spanheim, afterwards professor at Leyden. When he was nineteen he came over to England, and was entered of Queen’s college, in Oxford, Dec. 1663; of which, by the interest of Barlow, the provost of that college, and afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was made chaplain soon after his admission. He was incorporated M. A. from the university of Wittemberg, Dec. 1663; and not long after made vicar of All Saints, in Oxford, a living in the gift of Lincoln-college. Here he < ontinued two years, and was then taken into the family of the duke of Albemarle, in quality of tutor to his son lord Torrington. The duke presented him to the rectory of Doulton, in Devonshire, aud procured him also a prebend in the church of Exeter. In 1669, before he married, he went over into Germany to see his friends, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was entertained with great respect at the court of the elector Palatine. At his return in 1671, he was chosen preacher in the Savoyj where he continued to officiate till he died . This, however, was but poor maintenance, the salary being small as well as precarious, and be continued in mean circumstances for some years, after the revolution; till, as his. biographer, bishop Kidder, says, it pleased God to raise up a friend who concerned himself on his behalf, namely, the lord admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. Before he went to sea, lord Russel waited on the queen to take leave and when he was with her, begged of her that she “would be pleased to bestow some preferment on Dr. Horneck.” The queen told him, that she “could not at present think of any way of preferring the doctor” and with this answer the admiral was dismissed. Some time after, the queen related what had passed to archbishop Tillotson; and added, that she “was anxious lest the ad-, miral should think her too unconcerned on the doctor’s behalf.” Consulting with him therefore what was to be done, Tillotson advised her to promise him the next prebend of Westminster that should happen to become void. This the queen did, and lived to make good her word in 1693. In 1681 he had commenced D. D. at Cambridge, and was afterwards made chaplain to king William and queen Mary. His prebend at Exeter lying at a great distance from him, he resigned it; and in Sept. 1694 was admitted to a prebend in the church of Wells, to which he was presented by his friend Dr. Kidder, bishop of Bath and Wells. It was no very profitable thing; and if it had been, he would have enjoyed but little of it, since he died so soon after as Jan. 1696, in his fifty-sixth year. His body being opened, it appeared that both his ureters were stopped; the one by a stone that entered the top of the ureter with a sharp end; the upper part of which was thick, and much too large to enter any farther; the other by stones of much less firmness and consistence. He was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument, with an handsome inscription upon it, was erected to his memory. He was, says Kidder, a man of very good learning, and had goou skill in the languages. He had applied himself to the Arabic from his youth, and retained it to his death. He had great skill in the Hebrew likewise nor was his skilllimited to the Biblical Hebrew only, but he was also a great master in the Rabbinical. He was a most diligent and indefatigable reader of the Scriptures in the original languages: “Sacras literas tractavit indefesso studio,” says his tutor Spanheiui of him: and adds, that he was then of an elevated wit, of which he gave a specimen in 1655, by publicly defending “A Dissertation upon the Vow of Jephthah concerning the sacrifice of his daughter.” He had great skill in ecclesiastical history, in controversial and casuistical divinity; and it is said, that few men were so frequently consulted in cases of conscience as Dr. Horneck. As to his pastoral care in all its branches, he is set forth as one of the greatest examples that ever lived. “He had the zeal, the spirit, the courage, of John the Baptist,” says Kidder, “and durst reprove a great man; and perhaps that man lived not, that was more conscientious in this matter. I very well knew a great man,” says the bishop, “and peer of the realm, from whom ne had just expectations of preferment; but this was so far from stopping his mouth, that he reproved him to his face, upon a very critical affair. He missed of his preferment, indeed, but saved his own soul. This freedom,” continues the bishop, “made his acquaintance and friendship very desirable by every good man, that would be better. He would in him be very sure of a friend, that would not suffer sin upon him. I may say of him what Pliny says of Corellius Rufus, whose death he laments, “amisi meæ vitæ testem,' &c. ‘I have lost a faithful witness of my life;’ and may add what he said upon that occasion to his friend Calvisius, ‘vereor ne negligentius vivam,’ ‘I am afraid lest for the time to come I should live more carelessly.’” His original works are, 1.” The great Law of Consideration: or, a discourse wherein the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life, are laid open,“London, 1676, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted with additions and corrections. 2.” A letter to a lady revolted to the Romish church,“London, 1678, 12mo. 3.” The happy Ascetick: or the best Exercise,“London, 1681, 8vo. To this is subjoined,” A letter to a person of quality concerning the holy lives of the primitive Christians.“4.” Delight and Judgment: or a prospect of the great day of Judgment, and its power to damp and imbitter sensual delights, sports, and recreations,“London, 1683, 12mo. 5.” The Fire of the Altar: or certain directions how to raise the soul into holy flames, before, at, and after the receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with suitable prayers and devotions,“London, 1683, 12mo. To this is prefixed,” A Dialogue between a Christian and his own Conscience, touching the true nature of the Christian Religion.“6.” The Exercise of Prayer; or a help to devotion; being a supplement to the Happy Ascetick, or best exercise, containing prayers and devotions suitable to the respective exercises, with additional prayers for several occasions,“London, 1685, 8vo. 7.” The first fruits of Reason: or, a discouse shewing the necessity of applying ourselves betimes to the serious practice of Religion,“London, 1685, 8vo. 8.” The Crucified Jesus: or a full account of the nature, end, design, and benefit of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with necessary dU rections, prayers, praises, and meditations, to be used by persons who come to the holy communion,“London, 1686, 8vo. 9.” Questions and Answers concerning the two Religions; viz. that of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome.“10.” An Answer to the Soldier’s Question: What shall we do?“11, Several single Sermons. 12.” Fifteen Sermons upon the fifth chapter of St. Matthew," London, 1698, 8vo.

Besides these he translated out of German into English, “A wonderful story or narrative of certain Swedish writers,” printed in Glanvil’s “Sadducismus Triumphatus” in the second edition of which book is a “Preface to the wonderful story,” with an addition of a “new relation from Sweden,” translated by him out of German. He translated likewise from Frepch into English, “An Antidote against a careless indifferency in matters of Religion in. opposition to those who believe that all religions are alike, and that it imports not what men profess,” London, 1693, with an introduction written by himself. He collected and published “Some discourses, sermons, and remains of Mr. Joseph Glanvil,” in 1681. He wrote likewise, in conjunction with Dr. Gilbert Burnet, “The last Confession, Prayers, and Meditations, of Lieutenant John Stern, delivered by him on the cart, immediately before his execution, to Dr. Burnet: together with the last Confession of George Borosky, signed by him in the prison, and sealed up in the lieutenant’s pacquet. With which an account is given of their deportment, both in the prison, and at the place of their execution, which was in the Pall-mall, on. the 10th of March, in the same place in which they had murdered Thomas Thynne, esq. on the 12th of February before, in 1681.” This was published at London, in folio, 1682.

, an historian in the 17th century, was born in the Palatinate. He visited most of the countries in Europe; was tutor to Thomas Morgan, a young English gentleman who lived at the Hague; and appointed professor of history, politics, and geography, at Harderwick; afterwards professor of history at Leyden, where, having sustained a great loss by confiding in an alchemical impostor, he became deranged, and died in 1670. His principal works are, “An Ecclesiastical History,” with an introduction to the universal political history; a curious and instructive work, which has been translated into French, and continued to 1704. “The History of England, during the year 1645, and 1646,” Leyden, 1648, 8vo. “History of the Origin of the Americans,” Hague, 1652, 8vo. “History of Philosophy,” in seven books, 1655, 4to. An edition of “Sulpitius Severus,” with notes, 8vo. “Noah’s Ark,” or, A History of Monarchies. This work is full of curious inquiries into the origin of each monarchy, &c. The above are all in Latin.

In 1768 he went to Christ church, Oxford, as private tutor to Heneage earl of Aylesbury, then lord Guernsey. To this university he appears to have become attached; and his first mathematical publication was elegantly printed at the Clarendon press, “Apollonii Pergaci inclinationum libri duo. Resthuebat S. Horsley,” 1770. This work was criticised with some severity at the time, but does not appear to have injured his rising reputation, especially wnh the members of the royal society, who chose him to the office of secretary in November 1773. In 1774 he was incorporated B.C. L. at Oxford, and immediately proceeded to the degree of D. C. L. and was presented by his patron, the earl of Aylesbury, to the rectory of Aldbiiry in. Surrey, with which he obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of Newington. In the same year he published “Remarks on the Observations made in the late Voyage towards the North Pole, for determining the acceleration, of the Pendulum, in latitude 79 51'. In a letter to the hon. Constantinefohn Phipps,” 4to. His intention in this pamphlet, which ought ever to be bound up with “Phipps’s Voyage,” is to correct two or three important errors and inaccuracies that had been introduced, by Israel Lyons, the mathematician employed on the voyage, in the numerous mathematical calculations which appear in that valuable work; and this it was acknowledged, was performed by our learned author with equal skill, delicacy, and candour. I>r. Horsley had long meditated a complete edition of the works of sir Isaac Newton, and in 1776 issued proposals for printing it, by subscription, in 5 vote. 4to, having obtained the royal permission to dedicate it to his majesty; but the commencement of it was for a considerable time delayed by severe domestic affliction, arising from the illness of his wife, for whom he had the tenderest regard. She died in the following year, and some time after, the works of Newton were put to press, but were not finally completed until 1785. In the mean time his great diligence and proficiency in various sciences attracted the notice of an excellent judge of literary merit, the late Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, who on his promotion to that see in 1777, appointed Dr. Horsley his domestic chaplain; and collated him to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral. He also, by the same interest, succeeded his father as clerk in orders at St. Martin’s in the Fields.

Dr. Horsley was throughout life an indefatigable student; he indulged no indolence in youth, and amidst an accumulation of preferments, contemplated no time when he might rest from his labours. His mind was constantly intent on some literary pursuit or discovery, and setting a high value on the fame he had acquired, his ambition was to justify the esteem of the public, and the liberality of his patrons. Knowing likewise, how much his fame was indebted to his theological contest, he endeavoured by laborious researches, to acquire that degree of accuracy which renders a controversialist invulnerable. It is evident that in the study of ecclesiastical history, particularly that of the early ages, on which his controversy with Priestley hinged, his range was most extensive, and it is no breach of charity to suppose that he vexed as well as surprized his antagonist, by proving himself more intimate with the minutiae of remote antiquity than himself, who, from a wish to become the re-founder of a sect, had made the subject the study of his whole life. Dr. Horsley, on the contrary, appears to have prepared himself as the exigencies of the times in which he lived demanded, and whether the subject was theological or political, he quickly accumulated a mass of knowledge which his genius enabled him to illustrate with all the charms of novelty. While the ablest champion of orthodoxy which the church has seen for many years, he was so much of an original thinker, and so independent of his predecessors or contemporaries, that his mode of defence was entirely his own, and his style and authoritative manner, like Warburton’s and Johnson’s, however dangerous to imitate, were yet, perhaps, the best that could be devised in the conflict of opinions with which he was surrounded. His writings possessed some of the most prominent features of his personal character, in which there was nothing lukewarm, nothing compromising. He disdained liberality itself, if it prescribed courtesy to men whose arrogance in matters of faith led by easy steps to more violent measures, and who, while they affected only a calm and impartial inquiry into the doctrines of the church, had nothing less in view than the destruction of her whole fabrick. Such men might expect to encounter with a roughness of temper which was natural to him on more common occasions, although in the latter qualified by much kindness of heart, benevolence, and charity. When he had once detected the ignorance of his opponents, and their misrepresentation of the ancient records to which they appealed,' when he found that they had no scruple to bend authorities to pre-conceived theory, and that their only way of prolonging a contest was by repeating the same assertions without additional proofs, he frequently assumed that high tone of contempt or irony which would have been out of place with opponents who had no other object in view than the establishment of truth.

As a preacher, or rather as a writer of sermons, Dr. Horsley might be allowed to stand in the first class, if we knew with whom of that class we can compare him. Some comparisons we have seen, the justice of which we do not think quite obvious. In force, profundity, and erudition, in precision and distinctness of ideas, in“aptitude and felicity of expression, and above all, in selection of 'subjects and original powers of thinking, Dr. Horsley’s Sermons have been very justly termed” compositions sui generis" Upon most of these accounts, or ^rather upon all in the aggregate, they remove him from a comparison with those who may have acquired‘ very just fame as popular preachers. Bishop Horsley ’everywhere addresses himself to scholars, philosophers, and biblical' critics. By these he was heard with delight, and by these his works will continue to be appreciated as the component parts of every theological library, although they may not assent to all his doctrines.

, an eminent physician, was born at Torgau in 1537; and took the degree of M. D. in the university of Francfort on the Oder, in 1562. He was offered the place of public physician in several places; and he practised successively at Sagan and Suidnitz in Silesia, and at Iglaw in Moravia, till 1580, when he was made physician in ordinary to the archduke of Austria; and four years after, quitting that place, was promoted to the medical professorship in the university of Helmstadt. The oration he delivered at his installation, “Of the Difficulties which attend the Study of Physic, and the means to remove them,” a very good one, is printed with his “Epistolse Philosophic” & Medicinales,“Lips. 1596, 8vo. Upon entering on this post, he distinguished himself by what was thought a great singularity; he joined devotion to the practice of physic. He always prayed to God to bless his prescriptions; and he published a form of prayer upon this subject, which he presented to the university. He acquitted himself worthily in his functions, and published some books which kept up the reputation he had already acquired, but among them was one which produced a contrary effect, his” Dissertation upon the Golden Tooth of a child in Silesia;“concerning which he suffered himself to be egregiously imposed upon. Van Dale has related in what manner this imposture was discovered. Horstius, in the mean time, took it for a great prodigy, which ought to be a comfort to those Christians who were oppressed by the Turks; as certainly foreboding the downfall of the Ottoman empire. Horstius’s dissertation was published at Leipsic, in 1595, 8vo, with another piece of his writing,” De Noctambulis,“or” Concerning those who walk in their sleep." He died about 1600.

, was a philologer, a writer of verses, and a historian. His real name is unknown; he took that of Hortensius, either because his father was a gardener, or because his family name signified gardener. He was born at Montfort, in the territory of Utrecht, in 1501, and studied at Louvain. Hortensius was for several years rector of the school at Naarden, and when that city was taken in 1572, he would have fallen a sacrifice to the military fury, had he not been preserved by the gratitude of' one who had been his pupil. His death happened at Naarden, in 1577. There are extant by him, besides satires, epithalamia, and other Latin poems, the following works: 1. Seven books, “De Bello Germanico,” under Charles V. 8vo. 2. “De Tumultu Anabaptistarum,” fol. 3. “De Secessionibus Ultrajectinis,” fol. 4. Commentaries on the six first books of the Æneid, and on Lucan. 5. Notes on four Comedies of Aristophanes.

, a Roman orator, was the contemporary and rival of Cicero, and so far his senior, that he was an established pleader some time before the appearance of the latter. He pleaded his first cause at the age of nineteen, in the consulship of L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Mutius Scevola, ninety-four years before the Christian aera, Cicero being then in his twelfth year. This early effort was crowned with great success, and he continued throughout his life a very favourite orator. His enemies, however, represented his action as extravagant, and gave him the name of Hortensia, from a celebrated dancer of that time. He proceeded also in the line of public honours, was military tribune, praetor, and in the year 68 B. C. consul, together with Q. Caecilius Metellus. He was an eminent member of the college of augurs, and was the person who elected Cicero into that body, being sworn to present a man of proper dignity. By him also Cicero was there inaugurated, for which reason, says that author, “it was my duty to regard him as a parent.” He died in the year 49 B. C.“; and Cicero, to whom the news of that event was brought when he was at Rhodes, in his return from Ciiicia, has left a most eloquent eulogy and lamentation upon him, in the opening of his celebrated treatise on orators entitled Brutus.” I considered him,“says that writer,” not, as many supposed, in the light of an adversary, or one who robbed me of any praise, but as a companion and sharer in my glorious labour. It was much more honourable to have such an opponent, than to stand unrivalled; more especially as neither his career was impeded by me, nor mine by him, but each, on the contrary, was always ready to assist the other by communication, advice, and kindness." If, however, Cicero was sincere in his attachment, it was surmised that Hortensius was not, and this is even insinuated in one of the epistles of Cicero. Hortensius amassed great wealth, but lived at the same time in a splendid and liberal manner; and it is said that at his death his cellars were found stocked with 10,000 hogsheads of wine. His orations have all perished; but it was the opinion of Quintillian, that they did not in perusal answer to the fame he obtained by speaking them. Hortensius must have been si^ty-four at the time of his death.

In Oct. 1641, he was elected professor of divinity at Gresham-coliege, and in May 1647, was elected preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s-inn, of which he was also a member. In 1649 he was created D. D. and the ensuing year was chosen vice-chancellor of Cambridge. In 1651 he appears to have resigned the office of preacher of Gray’s-inn; and marrying about the same time, he procured an order from parliament that he should not be obliged by that step to vacate his professorship at Gresham college. The Gresham committee, however, referring to the founder’s will, came to a resolution that the place was vacant, but did not at this time proceed to an election. In August 1652, Dr. Horton was incorporated D. D. in the university of Oxford, and the year following was nominated one of the triers or commissioners for the approbation of young ministers. In 1656, the Gresham committee resumed the affair of his professorship, and proceeded to a new election, but Dr. Horton obtained a fresh dispensation from Cromwell by means of secretary Thurloe, and continued in quiet possession, holding with it his headship of Queen’s college, Cambridge. On the restoration he was obliged to resign the headship to Dr. Martin, who had been ejected by the parliamentary visitors; and although he had interest enough at court to retain his professorship for a little time, he was obliged in 1661 to resign it. When the Savoy conference was appointed, he was nominated as an assistant on the side of the presbyterians, but, according to Baxter, never sat among them; and although one of the number of the divines ejected by the Bartholomew act, he conformed afterwards,- and in June 1666, was admitted to the vicarage of Great St. Helen, in Bishopsgate-street, London, which he held till his death, in March 1673.

, chancellor of France, and one of the most liberal-minded men of his time, was the son of a physician, and born at Aigneperse in Auvergne, in 1505. His father sent him to study in the most celebrated universities of France and Italy, where he distinguished himself at once by his genius for literature, and for business. Having diligently studied jurisprudence, he was quickly advanced to very honourable posts; being successively auditor of the congregation called the congregation of Rota at Rome, and counsellor in the parliament of Paris, which he held during twelve years. He has described in one of his poems his habits of life during this time. He rose at a very early hour, and in the autumnal, winter, and spring sessions, was often in the court of justice before day-break, and reluctantly rose from his seat, when the beadle, at ten o'clock (the hour of dinner) announced the breaking up of the court. He says, that he made it a rule to listen to all with patience, to interrupt no one, to express himself as concisely as possible, and to oppose unnecessary delays. He mentions, with evident satisfaction, the joy which he felt when the vacations allowed him to quit Paris, and breathe in the country. The cares of magistracy he then banished wholly from his thoughts, and endeavoured, by harmless relaxation, to enable himself, on his return to the discharge of his functions, to resume them with fresh vigour. “But,” says he, “there is nothing frivolous in my amusements; sometimes Xenophon is the companion of my walks; sometimes the divine Plato regales me with the discourses of Socrates. History and poetry have their turns; but my chief delight is in the sacred writings: what comfort, what holy calm, does the meditation of them confer!” L‘Hospital was then appointed by Henry II. to be his ambassador at the council of Trent, which was sitting at Bologna, By his own desire, he was soon recalled from that honourable employment, and on his return experienced, at first, some coldness from the court, but was soon restored to the royal favour, and appointed master of the requests. In the beginning of If 54- he was made superintendent of the royal finances in France. His merits in this post were of the most singular and exalted kind. By a severe ceconomy, he laboured to restore the royal treasure, exhausted by the prodigality of the king, Henry II. and the dishonest avarice of his favourites; he defied the enmity of those whose profits he destroyed, and was himself so rigidly disinterested, that after five or six years’ continuance in this place, he was unable to give a portion to his^daughter, and the deficiency was supplied by the liberality of the sovereign. On the death of Henry, in 1549, the cardinal of Lorraine,then at the head of affairs, introduced l’Hospital into the council of state. Hence he was removed by Margaret of Valois, who took him into Savoy, as her chancellor. But the confusions of France soon made it necessaryto recal a man of such firmness and undaunted integrity. In the midst of faction and fury, he was advanced to the high office of chancellor of that kingdom, where he maintained his, post, like a philosopher who was superior.‘to fear, or any species of weakness. At the breaking out of the conspiracy of Amboice, in 1560, and on all other occasions, he was the advocate for mercy and reconciliation; and by the edict of Romorantin, prevented the establishment of the inquisition in France. It was perhaps for reasons of this kind, and his general aversion to persecution for religion’s sake, that the violent Romanists ac>­cused him of being a concealed Protestant; forgetting that by such suspicions they paid the highest compliment to the spirit of Protestantism. The queen, Catherine of Medicis, who had contributed to the elevation of l’Hospital, being too violent to approve his pacific measures, ex-, eluded him from the council of war; on which he retired to his country- house at Vignay near Estampes. Some days after, when the seals were demanded of him, he resigned them without regret, saying, that “the affairs of the world were too corrupt for him to meddle with them.” In lettered ease, amusing himself with Latin poetry, and a select society of friends“, he truly enjoyed his retreat, till his happiness was interrupted by the atrocious day of St. Bartholomew, in 1572. Of this disgraceful massacre,- he thought as posterity has thought but, though his friends conceived it probable that he might be included in the proscription, ha disdained to seek his safety by flight. So firm was he, that when a party of horsemen actually advanced to his house, though without orders, for the horrid purpose of murdering him, he refused to close his gates” If the small one,“said he,” will not admit them, throw open the large“and he was preserved only by the arrival of another party, with express orders from the king to declare that he was not among the proscribed. The persons who made the lists, it was added, pardoned him the opposition he had always made to their projects.” I did not know,“said he coldly, without any change of countenance,” that I had done any thing to deserve either death or pardon." His motto is said to have been,

and certainly no person ever had a better right to assume that sublime device. This excellent magistrate, and truly, great man, died March 13, 1573, at the age of 68 years. “L' Hospital,” says Brantome, “was the greatest, worthiest, and most learned chancellor, that was ever known in France. His large white beard, pale countenance, austere manner, made all who saw him think they beheld a true portrait of St. Jerome, and he was called St. Jerome by the courtiers. All orders of men feared him; particularly the members of the courts of justice; and, when he examined them on their lives, their discharge of their duties, their capacities, or their knowledge, and particularly when he examined candidates for offices, and found them deficient, he made them feel it. He was profoundly vesrsed in polite learning, very eloquent, and an excellent pbdt^ His severity was never ill-naturec! he made due allowance” for the imperfections of human nature was always equtil ' and always firm. After his death his Vety enemies acknowledged that he was the greatest magistrate whom France had known, and that they did not “expect to see such another.” There are extant by him, 1. “Latin Poems,” Their unpretending simplicity is their greatest merit; but they shew such real dignity of character, they breathe so pure a spirit of virtue, and are full of such excellent sentiments of public and private worth, that they will always be read with pleasure. 2. “Speeches delivered in the meeting of the States at Orleans.” As an orator he shines much less than as a poet. 3. “Memoirs, containing Treaties of Peace,” &c. &c. It is said that he had also projected a history of his own time in Latin, but this he did not execute. The best edition of his poems is that of Amsterdam, 1732, 8vo. He left only one child, a daughter, married to Robert Hurault, whose children added the name of l‘Hospital to that of their father; hut the male line of this family also was extinct in 1706. Nevertheless, the memory of the chancellor has received the highest honours within a few years of the present time. In 1777, Louis XVI. erected a statue of white marble to him, and in the same year he was proposed by the French academy for the subject of an eloge. M. Guibert and the abbe Remi contended for the prize. It was adjudged to the latter, who did not, however, print his work; M. Guibert was less prudent, but his eloge gave little satisfaction. The celebrated Condorcet afterwards entered the lists, but with equal want of success. Such fastidiousness of public opinion showed the high veneration entertained for the character of L’ Hospital. In 1807, M. Bernardi published his “Essai sur la Vie, les Ecrits, et les Loix de Michel de L'Hospital,” in one vol. 8vo, a work written with taste and judgment; from these and other documents, Charles Butler, esq. has lately published an elegant “Essay on the Life” of L'Hospital, principally with a view to exhibit him as a friend to toleration.

, or L'Hoste (John), a learned mathematician of Nancy, towards the end of the sixteenth century, taught law and mathematics with uncommon reputation at Pont-a-Mousson, and was appointed superintendant of fortifications, and counsellor of war by Henry duke of Lorrain. His genius was extensive, penetrating, and formed for the sciences. He died in 1631, leaving several valuable works the principal ones are, “Le sommaire et l'usage de la Sphere Artificielle,” 4to “La Pratique de Géométrie,” 4to “Description et usage des principaux instrumens de Géométrie,” 4to “Du Quadran et quarré; Rayon astronomique Bâton de Jacob; interpretation du grand art de Raymond Lulle,” &c.

, born May 19, 1652, at Pont-de-Vesle, entered among the Jesuits in 1669, and acquired great skill in mathematics; accompanied the marechals d'Estrées and de Tourville, during twelve years, in all their naval expeditions, and gained their esteem. He was appointed king’s professor of mathematics at Toulon, and died there February 23, 1700, leaving, “Recueil des Traités de Mathematiques les plus necessaires a, un officier,” 3 volsi 12mo; “L'Art des armies navtrles, ou Traite” des evolutions navales,“Lyons, 1697, and more completely in 1727, folio. This work is not less historical than scientific, and contains an account of the most considerable naval events of the fifty preceding years. He presented it to Louis XIV. who received it graciously, and rewarded the author with 100 pistoles, and a pension of 600 livres a treatise on the construction of ships, which he wrote in consequence of some conversation with marechal de Tourville, is printed at the end of the preceding. In 1762, lieutenant O'Bryen published in 4to,” Naval Evolutions, or a System of Sea-discipline,“extracted from father L'Hoste’s” L'Art des armees navales."

, in Latin Hototnanus, a learned French civilian, was born in 1524, at Paris, where his family, originally of Breslau in Silesia, had flourished for some time. He made so; rapid a progress in the belles lettres, that at the age of fifteen, he was sent to Orleans to study the civil law, and in three years was received doctor to that faculty. His father, a counsellor in parliament, had already designed him for that employment; and therer fore sent for him home, and placed him at the bar. But Hotman was soon displeased with the chicanery of the court, and applied himself vigorously to the study of the Roman law and polite literature. At the age of twentythree, he was chosen to read public lectures in the schools pf Paris: but, relishing the opinions of Luther, on account of which many persons were put to death in France, and finding that he could not profess them at Paris, he Went to Lyons in 1548. Having now nothing to expect“from his father, who was greatly irritated at the change of his religion, he left France, and retired to Geneva; where he lived some time in Calvin’s house. From hence he went to Lausanne,' where the magistrates of Bern gave him the place of professor of polite literature. He published there some books, which, however, young as he was, were not his first publications; and married a French gentlewoman, who had also retired thither on account of religion. His merit was so universally known, that the magistrates of Strasburg offered him a professorship of civil law; which he accepted, and held till 1561, and during this period, received invitations from the duke of Prussia, the landgrave of Hesse, the dukes of Saxony, and even from queen Elizabeth of England; but did not accept them. He did not refuse, however, to go to the court of the king of Navarre, at the begining of the troubles; and he went twice into Germany, to desire assistance of Ferdinand, in the name of the princes of the blood, and even in the name of the queen-mother. The speech he made at the diet of Francfort is published. Upon his return to Strasburg, he was prevailed upon to teach civil law at Valence; which he did with such success, that he raised the reputation of that university. Three years after, he went to be professor at Bourges, by the invitation of Margaret of France, sister of Henry II. but left that city in about five months, and retired to Orleans to the heads of the party, who made great use of his advice. The peace which was made a month after, did not prevent him from apprehending the return of the storm: upon which account he retired to Sancerre, and there wrote an excellent book,” De Consolatione,“which his son published after his death. He returned afterwards to his professorship at Bourges, where he very narrowly escaped the massacre of 1572: which induced him to leave France, with a full resolution never to return. He then went to Geneva, where he read lectures upon the civil law. Some time after, he went to Basil, and taught civil law, and was so pleased with this situation, that he refused great offers from the prince of Orange and the States-general, who would have draxvn him to Leyden. The plague having obliged him to leave Basil, he retired to Montbeliard, where he lost his wife; and went afterwards to live with her sisters at Geneva. He returned once more to Basil, and there died in 1590, of a dropsy, which had kept him constantly in a state of indisposition for six years before. During this, he revised and digested his works for a new edition, which appeared at Geneva in 1599, in 3 vols. folio, with his life prefixed by Neveletus Doschius> The first two contain treatises upon the civil law; the third, pieces relating to the government of France, and the right of succession; five books of Roman antiquities; commentaries upon Tally’s” Orations and Epistles;“notes upon Caesar’s” Commentaries,“&c. His” Franco-Gallia,“or,” Account of the free state of France,“has been translated into English by lord Molesworth, author of” The Account of Denmark." He published also several other articles without his name; but, being of the controversial kind, they were probably not thought of consequence enough to be revived in the collection of his works.

These works are valuable for containing materials of a curious nature, and which were before only accessible to persons skilled in oriental languages. A catalogue of his other works may be seen in the “Bibliotheca Tigurina;” or the Latin life of Hottinger, published by Heidegger at Zurich, 1667: in either of which they are all drawn up and digested into regular order. — John James Hottinger his son, was also a learned protestant divine, succeeded Heidegger in the divinity chair at Zurich, and died Dec. 18, 1735, leaving a great number of works, chiefly “Theological Dissertations,” on important subjects.

His son Jacob was born December 25, 1698. By what master he was instructed in the art of engraving, we are not informed, but he was probably initiated in the art by his father; and Mr. Strutt supposes that he studied the neatest portraits of Edelink very attentively, especially that of Le Brun, which is usually prefixed to the engravings of Girard Audran, from his battles of Alexander. He worked, however, for some time with little profit, and with less celebrity; and he had arrived at the meridian of life before he engaged in that work by which he is best known; a work, which, notwithstanding some well-founded objections, will reflect honour on the several persons engaged in it. It seems to have been a plan of the accurate and industrious George Vertue, who proposed to give sets or classes of eminent men; but his design was adopted by others, and at length taken out of his hands, who, as lord Or ford observes, was best furnished with materials for such a work.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

, an English prelate, memorable for the firm and patriotic stand which he made against the tyranny and bigotry of James II. was the son of John Hough, a citizen of London, descended from the Houghs of Leighton in Cheshire, and iof Margaret, the daughter of John Byrche of Leacroft in the county of Stafford, esq. He was born in Middlesex, April 12, 1651; and, after having received his education either at Birmingham or Walsall in Staffordshire, was entered of Magdalen college, Oxford, Nov. 12, 1669, and in a few years was elected a fellow. He took orders in 1675, and in 1678 was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Ormond, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland, and went over with him to that country; but he returned soon after, and in 1685 was made a prebendary of Worcester. He was also presented to the rectory of Tempsford in Bedfordshire, in the gift of the crown. From these circumstances, it should seem that he must have been considered as a man of talents and merit, before he acted the conspicuous part he did in October 1687.

In March of that year, the presidentship of Magdalen college being vacant by the death of Dr. Henry Clarke, the usual notice was given that the election of a president would take place on the 13th of April; but the fellows being afterwards informed, that his majesty James II. had granted letters mandatory, requiring them to elect Mr. Anthony Farmer, who had not been fellow either of this or New college, as indispensably required by the statutes, who had also given strong proofs of indifference to all religions, and whom they thought unfit in other respects to be their president, petitioned the king, either to leave them to the discharge of their duty and conscience, and to their founder’s statutes, or to recommend such a person as might be more serviceable to his majesty and to the college. No answer being given to this petition, they met on the 13th of April, but adjourned first to the 14th, and then to the 15th, the last day limited by the statutes for the election of a president, and having still received no answer (except a verbal one by the rev. Thomas Smith, one of the fellows, from lord Sunderland, president of the council, which was, “that his majesty expected to be obeyed”) they proceeded to the election, according to the usual forms, and the Rev. Mr. Hough was chosen, who is stated in the college register to be “a gentleman of liberality and firmness, who, by the simplicity and purity of his moral character, by the mildness of his disposition, and the happy temperament of his virtues, and many good qualities, had given everyone reason to expect that he would be a distinguished ornament to the college, and to the whole university.”

The king, however, with whom no good advice had any weight, as soon as he arrived at Oxford, sent for the fellows, Sept. 4, to attend him in person, at three in the afternoon, at Christ Church, of which the bishop of Oxford was dean. The fellows accordingly attended, and presented a petition, recapitulating their obligations to obey the statutes, &c. which the king refused to accept, and threatened them, in a very gross manner, with the whole weight of his displeasure, if they did not admit the bishop of Oxford, which they intimated was not in their power; and having returned to their chapel, and being asked by the senior fellow whether they would elect the bishop of Oxford their president, they all answered in their turn, that it being contrary to their statutes, and to the positive oath which they had taken, they did not apprehend it was in their power. Their refusal was followed by the appointment of certain lords commissioners to visit the college. These were, Cartwright bishop of Chester, sir Robert Wright, chief justice of the king’s bench, and sir Thomas Jenner, baron of the exchequer, who cited the pretended president, as he was called, and the fellows, to appear before them at Magdalen college on Oct. 21, the day before which the commissioners had arrived at Oxford, with the parade of three troops of horse. Having assembled on the day appointed in the hall, and their commission read, the names of the president and fellows were called over, and Dr. Hough was mentioned first. It was upon this occasion that he behaved with that courage and intrepidity, prudence and temper, which will endear his memory to the latest posterity. The commissioners, however, struck his name out of the books of the college, and admonished the fellows and others of the society no longer to suhmit to his authority. At their next meeting the president came into court, and said, “My lords, you were pleased this morning to deprive me of my place of president of this college I do hereby protect against all your proceedings, and against all that you have done, or hereafter shall do, in prejudice of me and my right, as illegal, unjust, and null: and therefore I appeal to my sovereign lord the king in his courts of justice.” As he had refused them the keys, they sent for a smiHi to force the door of the president’s lodgings. Burnet savs, “the nation, as well as the university, looked on all this proceeding with a just indignation. It was thought an open piece of robbery and burglary, when men, authorized by no legal commission, came forcibly and turned men out of their possessions and freeholds.”

It is remarkable, and highly honourable to the college, that out of twenty-eight fellows, there were only two who at all submitted to these proceedings; the rest were all deprived of their fellowships; and those demies, or probationer fellows, who did not appear when summoned, amounting to fourteen, were removed and dismissed. These proceedings, harsh as they may seem, were confirmed by the commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, who met at Whitehall Dec. 10 following, and who, “having taken into consideration all that had passed in the business of St. Mary Magdalen college, Oxford, and the contemptuous and disobedient behaviour of Dr. John Hough, and several of the fellows of that college,” whom they named individually, declared and decreed, that they should be incapable of receiving, or being admitted to, any ecclesiastical dignity, benefice, or promotion. Such of them as were not yet in holy orders, were adjudged incapable of receiving or hieing admitted into the same and all archbishops, bishops, &c. were required to take notice of the said decree, and to yield obedience to it .

Soon after the revolution, viz. in April 1690, Dr. Hough was nominated bishop of Oxford, with a licence to hold the presidentship of Magdalen -college in commendam, which he did till he succeeded Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, in 1699. It must have been a singular satisfaction to him, as it was a most appropriate reward, that he should receive that mark of elevation in a place which was the scene of his degradation-, or rather of his exemplary fortitude and manly virtue; nor does it appear that this accession of rank at all altered the general benignity of his nature towards those with whom he was connected, either in his college or in his diocese; for even they who had taken a different part at the time of his election, or were of a different opinion with himself, were always treated by him with the greatest humanity and indulgence.

The remainder of bishop Hough’s life affords few incidents for biography, as he very seldom employed his pen, unless in correspondence, or other compositions not intended for the press, but the steady virtues of his character appeared throughout his whole conduct, and afforded subject for many a heart-felt and many a studied panegyric. Whilst in the see of Lichfield and Coventry, he repaired and almost rebuilt as well as adorned the episcopal house at Eccleshall, and afterwards, on his removal to Worcester, he rehuilt great part of the palace there, particularly the whole front, where his arms are impaled with those of the see in the pediment, and made considerable improvements at his other seat at the castle of Hardebury, so as to have laid out many thousand pounds upon them. He had before repaired the lodgings at Magdalen college at his own expence, and contributed 1000l. towards the hew building at that place of his education. He likewise contributed 1000l. towards building All Saints church in Worcester. In 1715 the metropolitan chair was offered to him, on the death of archbishop Tenison, which he declined, from the too modest and humble sentiments which he entertained of himself; but afterwards, in 1717, he succeeded bishop Lloyd in the see of Worcester. As his public benefactions have been just mentioned, it is necessary to add that his private acts of charity were very extensive. His usual manner of living was agreeable to his function, hospitable without profuseness, and his conversation with all was full of humanity and candour, as well as prudent and instructive.

His earliest biographer says, that *' his heavenly temper of mind, his contempt of the world, and his indifference to life, were most visible in the latter period of his own; his firm faith in the promises of the gospel exerted itself most remarkably in his declining years, as well in conversation with some of his friends about his hopes of a better state, and even in his own private thoughts on the nature of that state, as in several letters to others about the gradual decay of his body, the just sense he had of his approaching dissolution, and his entire resignation to the will of God. As he had on many occasions expressed his well-grounded hopes of immortality, so they gradually grew stronger on him, and seemed to be more vigorous in proportion to the decays of his body. Indeed, even the temper of his mind bore so just a proportion to his well-tempered constitution of body, as by an happy result of both, to extend his age to the beginning of his ninety-third year, and almost to the completion of the fifty-third year of his episcopate. But he cast only a cursory eye upon the minute distinctions of human life, as the whole is at best of a short duration. Bishop Hough’s lamp of life burnt clear,- if not bright, to the last^ and though his body was weak, he had no pain or sickness, as he himself acknowledged on several occasions, not only at a considerable distance from his death, but even a few minutes before he expired.“A little before his death, he wrote a letter to his friend lord Digby, where we find the following remarkable words” I am weak and forgetful In other respects 1 have ease to a degree beyond what I durst have thought on, when years began to multiply upon me. I wait contentedly for a deliverance out of this life into a better, in humble confidence, that by the mercy of God, through the merits of his Son, I shall stand at the resurrection on his right hand. And when you, my lord, have ended those days which are to come, which I pray may be many and comfortable, as innocently and as exemplary as those which are passed, I doubt not of our meeting in that state where the joys are unspeakable, and will always endure." He died March 8, 1743, and was buried in Worcester cathedral near his wife, where his memory is preserved by an elegant monument.

, a French poetess, was born at Paris in 1638, and possessed all the charms of her sex, and wit enough to shine in the age of Louis XIV. Her taste for poetry was cultivated by the celebrated poet Henault, who is said to have instructed her in all he knew, or imagined he knew; but she not only imitated him in his poetry, but also in his irreligion; for her verses savour strongly of Epicureanism. She composed epigrams, odes, eclogues, tragedies; but succeeded best in the idyllium or pastoral, which some affirm she carried to perfection. She died at Paris in 1694, and left a daughter of her own name, who had some talent for poetry, but inferior to that of her mother. The first verses, however, composed by this lady, bore away the prize at the French academy; which was highly to her honour, if it be true, as is reported, that Fontenelle wrote at the same time, and upon the same subject. She was a member of the academy of the Ilicovrati of Padua, as,was her mother, who was also of that of Aries. She died at Paris in 1718. The works of these two ladies were collectively published in 1747, in 2 vols. 12mo. Several maxims of the elder of these ladies are much cited by French writers; as, that on gaming, “On commence par tre dupe, on finit par etre fripon.” People begin dupes, and end rogues. And that on self-love: “Nul n'est content cle sa fortune, ni mécontent de son esprit.” No one is satisfied with his fortune, or dissatisfied with his talents.

, an able promoter of exotic botany in England, went first to the West Indies, in the character of a surgeon, and upon his return, after two years’ residence at Leyden, took his degrees in physic under Boerhaave, in 1728 and 1729. At Leyden he instituted a set of experiments on brutes; some of which were made in concert with the celebrated Van Swieten. They were afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions under the title of “Experimenta de perforatione thoracis, ejusque in respiratione affectibus,” the result of which proved, contrary to the common opinion, that animals could live and breathe for some time, although air was freely admitted into both cavities of the thorax. Soon after his return from Holland, he was in 1732 elected a fellow of the royal society, and went immediately to the West Indies, where he fell a sacrifice to the heat of the climate, July 14, 1733. He had previously sent over a description and figure of the dorsteria contrayerva, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXXVII. This was the first authentic account received of that drug, although known in England from the time of sir Francis Drake, or earlier. He also sent to his friend Mr. Miller, of Chelsea, the seeds of many rare and new plants collected by him in the islands. His ms Catalogue of plants also came into the hands of Mr. Miller, and after his death into the possession of sir Joseph Banks, who, out of respect to the memory of so deserving a man, gratified the botanists with the publication of them, under the title of " Reliquiae Houstonianae, 1781, 4to.

, a native of Paris, was eighteen years a member of the congregation called the oratory, and afterwards secretary to cardinal Dubois, by whom he was much esteemed. He was appointed in 1742 perpetual secretary to the French academy, but did not long enjoy his preferment, for he died the same year, being about fifty- four years old. He published a work entitled “La Verite” de la Religion Chretienne prouvée par les fails," the latter editions of which are far superior to the first. The best edition is that of Paris, 1741, 3 vols. 4to. This book had an astonishing success on its first appearance; but sunk afterwards into a state of discredit no less astonishing: it had been extolled too highly at first, ancl afterwards too much depreciated. The style is affected, and the author lays down useless principles, and, sometimes, even such as are dangerous and hurtful to his cause. His proofs are not always solid or well chosen; but he is particularly blameable for having separated the difficulties and objections from the proofs brought against them. By thus heaping objections on objections at the end of his work, and giving very short and concise answers for fear of repetitions, he gives greater forceto the former than to the latter, makes us lose sight of his proofs, and seems to destroy what he had established.

, earl of Surrey, and duke of Norfolk, an eminent commander in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in 1473, and brought up to arms, and soon after the accession of Henry was decorated with the knighthood of the garter. He served with his brother sir Edward, against sir Andrew Barton, a Scotch free-booter, or pirate, who perished in the action. Wuen his brother, sir Edward, was killed in an action near Brest, in 1513, he was appointed to the office in his stead, and in the capacity of high admiral he effectually cleared the channel of French cruisers. The victory of Flodden-field, in which the king of Scotland was slain, was chiefly owing to his valour and good conduct. For this his father was restored to the title of duke of Norfolk, and the title of earl of Surrey was conferred on him. In 1521 he was sent to Ireland as lordlieutenant, chiefly for the purpose, it was thought, of having him out of the way during the proceedings against his father-in-law, the duke of Buckingham. Here he was very instrumental in suppressing the rebellion, and having served there two years he returned, and had the command of the fleet against France. By the death of his father he succeeded to the title and estates as duke of Norfolk. Notwithstanding his great services, Henry, at the close of his tyrannical life and reign, caused the duke to be sent to the Tower on a charge of high treason, and his son to be beheaded in his presence. The death of the king saved the duke’s life. He was, however, detained prisoner during the whole of the reign of Edward VI. but one of the first acts of Mary, after her accession to the throne, was to liberate him. He was, after this, the principal instrument in suppressing the rebellion excited by sir Thomas Wyatt. He died in August 1554, having passed his eightieth year. He was father to the illustrious subject of our next article.

Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, was the eldest son of Thomas, the third duke of Norfolk, lord high treasurer of England in the reign of Henry VIII. by Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham. He was born either at his father’s seat at Framlingham, in Suffolk, or in the city of Westminster, and being a child of great hopes, all imaginable care was taken of his education. When he was very young he was companion, at Windsor castle, with Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, natural son to Henry VIII. and afterwards student in Cardinal college, now Christ Church, Oxford. In 1532 he was with the duke of Richmond at Paris, and continued there for some time in the prosecution of his studies, and learning the French language; and upon the death of that duke in July 1536, travelled into Germany, where he resided some time at the emperor’s court, and thence went to Florence, where he fell in love with the fair Geraldine, the great object of his poetical addresses, and in the grand duke’s court published a challenge against all who should dispute her beauty; which challenge being accepted, he came oft victorious. For this approved valour, the duke of Florence made him large offers to stay with him; but he refused them because he intended to defend the honour of his Geraldine in all the chief cities of Italy. But this design of his was diverted by letters sent to him by king Henry VIII. recalling him to England. He left Italy, therefore, where he had cultivated his poetical genius by the reading of the greatest writers of that country, and returned to his own country, where he was considered a one of the first of the English nobility, who adorned his high birth with the advantages of a polite taste and extensive literature. On the first of May, 1540, he was one of the chief of those who justed at Westminster, as a defendant, against sir John Dudley, sir Thomas Seymour, and other challengers, where he behaved himself with admirable courage, and great skill in the use of his arms, and, in 1542, served in the army, of which his father was lieutenant-genera!, and which, in October that year, entered Scotland, and burnt divers villages. In February or March following, he was confined to Windsor castle for eating flesh in Lent, contrary to the king’s proclamation of the 9th of February 1542. In 1544, upon the expedition to Boulogne, in France, he was field-marshal of the English army; and after taking that town, being then knight of the garter, he was in the beginning of September 1545, constituted the king’s lieutenant and captain-general of all his army within the town and country of Boulogne. During his command there in 1546, hearing that a convoy of provisions of the enemy was coming to the fort at Oultreau, he resolved to intercept it; but the Rhingrave, with' four thdusand Lanskinets, together with a considerable number of French under the marshal de Blez, making an obstinate defence, the Englisii were routed, anil sir Edward Poynings, with divers other gentlemen, killed, and the earl of Surrey himself obliged to fly; though it appears by a letter of his to the king, dated January 8, 1545-6, that this advantage cost the enemy a great number of men. But the king was so highly displeased with this ill success, that, from that time he contracted a prejudice against the earl, and, soon after, removed him from his command, appointing the earl of Hertford to succeed him. On this sir William Paget wrote to the earl of Surrey to advise him to procure some eminent post under the earl of Hertford, that he might not be unprovided in the town and field. The earl being desirous, in the mean time, to regain his former favour with the king, skirmished against the French, and routed them; but, soon after, writing over to the king’s council, that as the enemy had cast much larger cannon than had been yet seen, with which they imagined they should soon demolish Boulogne, it deserved consideration, whether the lower town should stand, as not being defensible, the council ordered him to return to England, in order to represent his sentiments more fully upon those points, and the earl of Hertford was immediately sent over in his room. This exasperating the earl of Surrey, occasioned him to let fall some expressions which savoured of revenge, and a dislike of the king, and an hatred of his counsellors; and was, probably, one great cause of his ruin soon after. His father, the duke of Norfolk, had endeavoured to ally himaelf to the earl of Hertford, and to his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, perceiving how much they were in the king’s favour, and how great an interest they were likely to have under the succeeding prince; and therefore he would have engaged his son, being then a widower (having lost his wife Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford), to marry the earl of Hertford’s daughter, and pressed his daughter, the duchess of Richmond, widow of the king’s natural son, to marry sir Thomas Seymour. But though the earl of Surrey advised his sister to the marriage projected for her, yet he would nol consent to that designed for himself; nor did the proposition about himself take effect. The Seymours could not but perceive the enmity which the earl bore them; and they might well be jealous of the greatness of the Howard family, which was not only too considerable for subjects, of itself, but was raised so high by the dependence of th whole popish party, both at home and abroad, that they were likely to be very dangerous competitors for the chief government of affairs, if the king should die, whose disease was now growing so fast upon him that he could not live many weeks. Nor is it improbable, that they persuaded the king, that, if the earl of Surrey should marry the princess Mary, it might embroil his son’s government, and, perhaps, ruin him. And it was suggested that he had some such high project in his thoughts, both by his continuing unmarried, and by his using the arms of Edward the Confessor, which, of late, he had given in his coat without a diminution. To complete the duke of Norfolk’s and his son’s ruin, his duchess, who had complained of his using her ill, and had been separated from him about four years, turned informer against him. And the earl and his sister, the duchess dowager of Richmond, being upon ill terms together, she discovered all she knew against him; as likewise did one Mrs. Holland, for whom the duke was believed to have had an unlawful affection. But all these discoveries amounted only to some passionate expressions of the son, and some complaints of the father, who thought he was not beloved by the king and his counsellors, and that he was ill used in not being trusted with the secret of affairs. However, all persons being encouraged to bring informations against them, sir Richard Southwel charged the earl of Surrey in some points of an higher nature; which the earl denied, and desired to be admitted, according to the martial law, to fight, in his shirt, with sir Richard. But, that not being granted, he and his father were committed prisoners to the Tower on the 12th of December 1546; and the earl, being a commoner, was brought to his trial in Guildhall, on the 13th of January following, Jbefore the lord chancellor, the lord mayor, and other commissioners; where he defended himself with great skill and address, sometimes denying the accusations, and weakening the credit of the witnesses against him, and sometimes interpreting the words objected to him in a far different sense from what had been represented. For the point of bearing the arms of Edward the Confessor, he justified himself by the authority of the heralds. And when a witness was produced, who pretended to repeat some high words of his lordship’s, by way of discourse, which concerned him nearly, and provoked the witness to return him a braving answer; the qarl left it to the jury to judge whether it was probable that this man should speak thus to him, and he not strike him again. In conclusion, he insisted upon his innocence, but was found guilty, and had sentence of death passed upon him. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 19th of January 1546-7; and his body interred in the church of All Hallows Barking, and afterwards removed to Framlingham, in Suffolk.

His next biographer to whom any respect is due was the late earl of Orford, in his Catalogue of “Royal and Noble Authors.” The account of Surrey, in this work, derives its chief merit from lord Orford’s ingenious explanation of the sonnet on Geraldine, which amounts to this, that Geraldine was Elizabeth (second daughter of Gerald Fitzgerald earl of Kildare), and afterwards third wife of Edward Clinton earl of Lincoln; and that Surrey probably saw her first at Hunsdon-house in Hertfordshire, where, as she was second cousin to the princesses Mary and Elizabeth, who were educated in this place, she might have been educated with them, and Surrey, as the companion of the duke of Richmond, the king’s natural son, might have had interviews with her, when the duke went to visit his sisters. All this is ingenious; but no light is thrown upon the personal history of the earl, and none of the difficulties, however obvious, in his courtship of Geraldine removed, or even hinted at; nor does lord Orford condescend to inquire into the dates of any event in his life.

"It is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels. They have the air of a romance. He made the tour of Europe in the true spirit of chivalry, and with the ideas of an Amadis: proclaiming the unparalleled charms of his mistress, and prepared to defend the cause of her beauty with the weapons of knight-errantry. Nor was this adventurous journey performed without the intervention of an enchanter. The first city in Italy which he proposed to visit was Florence, the capital of Tuscany, and the original seat of the ancestors of his Geraidine. In his way thither, he passed a few days at the emperor’s court ^ where he became acquainted with Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated adept in natural magic. This visionary philosopher shewed our hero, in a mirror of glass, a living image of Geraidine, reclining on a couch, sick, and reading one of his most tender sonnets by a waxen taper. His imagination, which wanted not the flattering F represeniations and artificial incentives of illusion, was heated anew by this interesting and affecting spectacle. Inflamed wiih every enthusiasm of the most romantic passion, he hastened to Florence and on his arrival, immediately published a defiance against any person who could handle a lance and was in love, whether Christian, Jew, Turk, Saracen, or Canibal, who should presume to dispute the superiority of Geraldine’s beauty. As the lady was pretended to be of Tuscan extraction, the pride of the Flo-, rentines was flattered on this occasion: and the grand duke of Tuscany permitted a general and unmolested ingress into his dominions of the combatants of all countries, till this important trial should be decided. The challenge was accepted, and the earl victorious. The shield which he presented to the duke before the tournament began, is exhibited in Vertue’s valuable plate of the Arundel family, and was actually in the possession of the late duke of Norfolk.

“Among these anecdotes of Surrey’s life, I had almost forgot to mention what became of his amour with the fair Geraldine. We lament to find that Surrey’s devotion to this lady did not end in a wedding, and that all his gallantries and verses availed so little. No memoirs of that incurious age have informed us whether her beauty was equalled by her cruelty; or whether her ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude, as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover. She appears, however, to have been afterwards the third wife of Edward Clinton, earl of Lincoln. Such also is the power of time and accident over amorous vows, that even Surrey himself outlived the violence of his passion. He married Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford, by whom he left several children. One of his daughters, Jane countess of Westmoreland, was among the learned ladies of that age, and became famous for her knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages.”

The birth of lord Surrey may be conjectured to have taken place some time between 1515 and 1520, probably the former, or at least earlier than 1520. He was, it is, universally agreed, the school companion of the duke of Richmond, who died in 1536, in his seventeenth year, and if we allow that Surrey was two or three years older, it will not much affect the high probability that he was a very young man at the time when his biographers made him fall in love with Geraldine, and maintain her beauty at Florence. None of the portraits of Surrey, as far as the present writer has been able to ascertain, mention his age, except that in the picture gallery at Oxford, on which is inscribed, that he was beheaded in “1547, set. 27.” The inscription, indeed, is in a hand posterior to the date of the picture (supposed to be by Holbein), but it may have been the hand of some successful inquirer. None of the books of peerage notice his birth or age, nor are these circumstances inserted on his monument at Framlingham. Conjecture, it has been already observed, supposes him to have been born some time between 1515 and 1520. If we take the earliest of these dates, it will still remain that his biographers have either crowded more events into his life than it was capable of holding, or that they have delayed his principal adventures until they become undeserving of credit, and inconsistent with his character.

Mr. Warton observes, that “it is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels;” but this is a matter of little consequence in refuting the account usually given of those travels, because all his biographers are agreed that he did not set out before 1536, At this time he had ten years only of life before him, which have been filled up in a very extraordinary manner. First, he travels over a part of Europe, vindicating the beauty of Geraldine in 1540 he is celebrated at the justs at Westminster in 1542 he goes to Scotland with his father’s army in 1543 (probably) he is imprisoned for eating flesh in lent ^in 1544 5, he is commander at Boulogne and lastly, amidst all these romantic adventures, or serious events, he has leisure to marry the daughter of the earl of Oxford, and beget five children, which we may suppose would occupy at least five or six of the above ten years, and those not the last five or six years, for we find him a widower a considerable time before his death. Among other accusations whispered in the ear of his jealous sovereign, one was his continuing unmarried (an expression which usually denotes a considerable length of time) after the period when a second marriage might be decent, in order that he might marry the princess Mary, in the event of the king’s death, and so disturb the succession of Edward. The placing of these events in this series would render the story of his knight-errantry sufficiently improbable, were we left without any information respecting the date of Surrey’s marriage, but that event renders the whole impossible, if we wish to preserve any respect for the consistency of his character. Surrey was actually married before the commencement of his travels in pursuit or in defence of Geraldine’s beauty. His eldest son, Thomas, third duke of Norfolk, was eighteen years old when his grandfather died in 1554. He was consequently born in 1536, and his father, it is surely reasonable to suppose, was married in 1535. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to examine the story of Surrey’s romantic travels any farther, if we had not some collateral authorities which may still show that whatever may be wrong in the present statement, it is certain that there is nothing right in the common accounts, which have been read and copied without any suspicion.

If it be said that Surrey’s age is not exactly known, and therefore allowing 1536, the date of his travels, to be erroneous, it is possible that he might have been enamoured of Geraldine long before this, and it is possible that his travels might have commenced in 1526, or any other period founded on this new conjecture. This, however, is as improbable as all the rest of the story, for it can be decidedly proved that there was no time for Surrey’s gallantries towards Geraldine, except the period which his biographers, however absurdly, have assigned, namely, when he was a married man. The father of lady Elizabeth, the supposed Geraldine, married in 1519, one of the daughters of Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and by her had five children, of whom Elizabeth was the fourth, and therefore probably not born before 1523 or 1524. If Surrey’s courtship, therefore, must be carried farther back, it must be carried to the nursery; for even in 1536, when we are told he was her knight-errant, she could not have been more than eleven or twelve years old. Let us add to this a few particulars respecting Geraldine’s husband. She married Edward lord C'linton. He was born in 1512, was educated in the court, and passed his youth in those magnificent and romantic amusements which distinguished the beginning of Henry VIII.'s reign, but did not appear as a public character until 1544, when he was thirty-two years of age, Geraldine about twenty-four, and Surrey within two years of his death, and most probably a widower. This earl of Lincoln had three wives; the date of his marriage with any of them is not known, nor how long they lived, but Geraldine was the third, the only one by whom he had no children, and who survived his death, which took place in 1584, thirty-eight years after the death of Surrey. Mr. Warton, in his earnest desire to connect her with Surrey, insinuates that she might have been either cruel, or that her “ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune, to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover.” On this it is only necessary to remark, that the lady’s ambition might have been as highly gratified by marrying the accomplished and gallant Surrey, the heir of the duke of Norfolk, as by allying herself to a nobleman of inferior talents and rank. But of his two conjectures, Mr. Warton seems most to adhere to that of cruelty^ for he adds, that “Surrey himgelf outlived his amorous vows, and married the daughter of the earl of Oxford.” This, however, is as little deserving of serious examination, as the ridiculous story of Cornelius Agrippa showing Geraldine in a glass, which Anthony Wood found in Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle,” or probably, as Mr. Park thinks, took it from Nash’s fanciful “Life of Jack Wilton,” published in 1594, where, under the character of his hero, he professes to have travelled to the emperor’s court as page to the earl of Surrey. But it is unfortunate for this story, wheresoever borrowed, that Agrippa was no more a conjurer than any other learned man of his time, and that he died at Grenoble the year before Surrey is said to have set out on his romantic expedition. Drayton has made a similar mistake in giving to Surrey, as one of the companions of his voyage, the great sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535, a year likewise before Surrey set out. Poetical authorities, although not wholly to be rejected, are of all others to be received with the greatest caution, yet it was probably Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle” which led Mr. Warton into so egregious a blunder as that of our poet being present at Flodden-field, in 1513. Dr. Sewell, indeed, in the short memoirs prefixed to his edition of Surrey’s Poems, asserts the same; tut little credit is due to the assertion -of a writer who at the same time fixes Surrey’s birth in 1520, seven years after that memorable battle was fought.

It is now time to inquire whether the accounts hitherto given can be confirmed by internal evidence. It has been so common to consider Geraldine as the mistress of Surrey, that all his love-poems are supposed to have a reference to his attachment to that lady. Mr. Warton begins his narrative by observing, that “Surrey’s life throws so much light on the character and subjects of his poetry, that it is almost impossible to consider the one without exhibiting a few anecdtes of the other.” We have already seen what those anecdotes are, how totally* irreconcileable with probability, and how amply refuted by the dates which hi biographers, unfortunately for their story, have uniformly furnished. When we look into the poems, we find the celebrated sonnet to Geraldine, the only specious foundation for his romantic attachment; but as that attachment and its consequences cannot be supported without a continual violation of probability, and in opposition to the very dates which are brought to confirm it, it seems more safe to conjecture that this sonnet was one of our author’s earliest productions, addressed to Geraldine, a mere child, by one who was only not a child, as an effort of youthful gallantry, in one of his interviews with her at Hunsdon. Whatever credit may be given to this conjecture, for which the present writer is by no means anxious, it is certain that if we reject it, or some conjecture of the same import, and adopt the accounts given by his biographers, we cannot proceed a single step without being opposed by invincible difficulties. There is no other poem in Surrey’s collection that can be proved to have any reference to Geraldine, but there are two with the same title, viz. “The Complaint of the absence of her lover being upon the sea,” which are evidently written in the character of a wife, lamenting the absence of her husband, and tenderly alluding to “his faire litle Sonne.” Mr. Wanon, indeed, finds Geraldine in the beautiful lines beginning “Give place, ye lovers, here before,” and from the lines “Spite drave me into Boreas reign,” infers that her anger “drave him into a colder climate,” with what truth may now be left to the reader. But another of his conjectures cannot be passed over. “In 1544,” he says, “lord Surrey was fieldmarshal of the English army in the expedition to Boulogne, which he took. In that age, love and arms constantly went together; and it was amid the fatigues of this protracted campaign, that he composed his last sonnet, called * The Fansie of a Wearied Lover.” But this is a mere supposition. The poems of Surrey are without dates, and were arranged by their first editor without any attention to a matter of so much importance. The few allusions made to his personal history in these poems are very dark, but in some of them there is a train of reflection which seems to indicate that misfortunes and disappointments had dissipated his Quixotism, and reduced him to the sober and serious tone of a man whose days had been “fevr and evil.” Although he names his productions songs and sonnets, they have less of the properties of either than of the elegiac strain. His scripture- translations appear to be characteristic of his mind and situation in his latter days. What unless a heart almost broken by the unnatural conduct of his friends and family, could have induced the gay and gallant Surrey, the accomplished courtier and soldier, to console himself by translating those passages from Ecclesiastes which treat of the shortness and uncertainty of all human enjoyments, or those Psalms which direct the penitent and the forsaken to the throne of almighty power and grace? Mr. Warton remarks that these translations of Scripture “show him to have been a friend to the reformation;” and this, which is highly probable, may have been one reason why his sufferings were embittered by the neglect, if not the direct hostility of his bigotted father and sister. The translation of the Scriptures into prose was but just tolerated in his time, and to familiarize them by the graces of poetry must have appeared yet more obnoxious to the enemies of the reformation.

Although the present writer has taken some liberties with the Historian of English poetry, in his account of Surrey’s life, he has not the presumption to omit Mr. Warton’s elegant and just criticism on his poems. “Surrey for justness of thought, correctness of style, and purity of expression, may justly be pronounced the first English classical poet. He unquestionably is the first polite writer of love-verses in our language, although it must be allowed that there is a striking native beauty in some of our love-verse, written much earlier than Surrey’s.” It is also worthy of notice, that while all his biographers send him to Italy to study its poetry, Mr. Warton finds nothing in his works of that metaphysical cast which marks the Italian poets his supposed masters, especially Petrarch. “Surrey’s sentiments are for the most part natural and unaffected; arising from his own feelings, and dictated by the present circumstances. His poetry is alike unembarrassed by learned allusions, or elaborate conceits. If our author copies Petrarch, it is Petrarch’s better manner; when he descends from his Platonic abstractions, his refinements of passion, his exaggerated compliments, and his play upon opposite sentiments, into a track of tenderness, simplicity, and nature. Petrarch would have been a better poet had he been. a worse scholar. Our author’s mind was not too much over-laid by learning.”

Surrey’s poems were in high reputation among his contemporaries and immediate successors, who vied with each other in compliments to his genius, gallantry, and personal worth. They were first printed in 1557, by Tottel, in 4to, with die title of “Songes and sonnettes by the right honorable Henry Howard, late earl of Surrey, and other.” Several editions of the same followed in 1565, 1567, 1569, 1574, 1585, and 1587. So many editions prove a degree of popularity which fell to the lot of very few poems of that age. But after the time of Elizabeth they became gradually obscure, and we find no modern edition until Pope’s incidental notice of him (in Windsor-Forest), as the “Granville of a former age,” induced the booksellers to employ Dr. Sewell to be the editor of Surrey’s, Wyat’s, and the poems of uncertain authors. But the doctor performed his task, with so little knowledge of the language, that this is perhaps the most incorrect edition extant of any ancient poet. It would have been surprizing had it contributed to revive his memory, or justify Pope’s comparison and eulogium.

The translation of the second and fourth book of the Eneid was published in 1557, but it seems doubtful whether together or separately. The translations of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the few additional original poems, were printed, but not published, many years ago, by Dr. Percy, from a ms.f now in the possession of Thomas Hill, esq. A more correct and perfect edition of Surrey may soon be expected from Dr. Nott.

, earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral of England, was son of William lord Howard of Effingliam, and grandson of Thomas second duke of Norfolk/ He was born in 1536, and initiated early into the affairs of state, being sent in 1559, on the death of Henry II. king of France, with a compliment or condolence to his successor Francis II. and to congratulate him on "his accession to the throne, &c. On his return he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Surrey in 1562, and in 1569 was general of the horse under the earl of Warwick, in the army sent against the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, then in rebellion. The year following he went with a fleet of men of war to convoy the princess Anne of Austria, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, going into Spain, over the British seas; and in 1573, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in honours and estate. The same year he was installed knight of the garter, and likewise made lord chamberlain of the household; and in 1585 constituted lord high admiral of England.

, the indefatigable friend of the poor and unfortunate, was born at Hackney, in 1726. His father, who kept a carpet-warehouse in Long-lane, Smithfield, ciymg wiule he was very young, left him to the care or' guardians, by whom he was apprenticed to Mr. Newnham, grandfather to the late alderman Newhham, a wholesale grocer in the city of London. His constitution appearing too weak for attention to trade, and his father having left him, and an only sister, in circumstances which placed them above the necessity of pursuing it, he bought out the remainder of his indentures before the time, and took a tour in France and Italy. On his return, he lodgei at the house of a Mrs Lardeau^ a widow, in Stoke- Newing. ton, where he was so carefully attended by the lady, thai though she was many years older than himself, he form an attachment to her, and in 1752 made her his wife. She Wag possessed of a small fortune, which he generously presented to her sister. She lived, however, only three yeai after their union, and he was a sincere mourner for hei loss. About this time he became a fellow of the royal society, and, in 1756, being desirous to view the state ol Lisbon after the dreadful earthquakej he embarked for thai city. In this voyage, the Hanover frigate, in which hi sailed, was taken by a French privateer, and the inconveniences which he suffered during his subsequent confine ment in France, are supposed to have awakened his sympathies with peculiar strength in favour of prisoners, and to have given rise to his plans for rendering prisons less pernicious to health. It is supposed, that after his release, he made the tour of Italy. On his return, he fixed himself at Brokenhurst, a retired and pleasant villa near Lymington, in the New Forest. Mr. Howard married a second time in 1758; but this lady, a daughter of a Mr. Leeds, of Croxton in Cambridgeshire, died in child-bed of her only child, a son, in 1765. Either before, or soon after the death of his second wife, he left Lymington, and purchased an estate at Cardington, near Bedford, adjoining to that of his relation Mr. Whitbread. Here he much conciliated the poor by giving them employment, building them cottages, and other acts of benevolence; and regularly attended the congregations of dissenters at Bedford, being of that persuasion. His time was also a good deal occupied by the education of his only son, a task for which he is said to have been little qualified. With all his benevolence of heart, he is asserted to have been disposed to a rigid severity of discipline, arising probably from a very strict sense of rectitude, but not well calculated to form a tender mind to advantage. In 1773, he served the office of sheriflj which, as he has said himself, “brought the distress of prisoners more immediately under his notice,” and led to his benevolent design of visiting the gaols and other places of confinement throughout England, for the sake of procuring alleviation to the miseries of the sufferers. In 1774, trusting to his interest among the sectaries at Bedford, he offered himself as a candidate for that borough, but was not returned; and endeavouring to gain his seat by petition, was unsuccessful. He was, however, in the same year, examined before the House of Commons, on the subject of the prisons, and received the thanks of the house for his attention to them. Thus encouraged, he completed his inspection of the British prisons, and extended his views even to foreign countries. He travelled with this design, three times tnrough France, four through Germany, five through Holland, twice through Italy, once in Spain and Portugal, and once also through the northern states, and Turkey. These excursions were taken between 1775 and 1787. In the mean time, his sister died, and left him a considerable property, which he regarded as the gift of Providence to promote his humane designs, and applied accordingly. He published also in 1777, “The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with preliminary Observations, and an Account of some Foreign Prisons,” dedicated, to the House of Commons, in 4to. In 1780 he published an Appendix to this book, with the narrative of his travels in Italy; and in 1784, republished it, extending his account to many other countries. About this time, his benevolence had so much attracted the public attention, that a large subscription was made for the purpose of erecting a statue to his honour; but he was too modest and sincere to accept of such a. tribute, and wrote himself to the subscribers to put a stop to it. “Have I not one friend in England,” he said, when he first heard of the design, “that would put a stop to such a proceeding?” In 1789, he published “An Account of the principal Lazarettos in Europe, with various Papers relative to the Plague, together with further Observations on some foreign Prisoas and Hospitals; and additional remarks on the present state of those in Great Britain and Ireland.” He had published also, in 1780, a translation of a French account of the Bastille; and, in 1789, the duke of Tusany' new code ef civil law, with an English translation. In his book on Lazarettos, he had announced his. intention of revisiting Russia, Turkey, and some other conntries, and extending his tour in the East. “I am not insensible,” says he, “<>f the dangers that must attend such a journey. Trusting, however, in the protection of that kind Providence which has hitherto preserved me, I calmly and cheerfully commit myself to the disposal of unerring wisdom. Should it please God to cut off my life in the prosecution of this design, let not my conduct be uncandidly imputed to rashness or enthusiasm, but to a serious, deliberate conviction, tnat I am pursuing the path of duty; and to a sincere desire of being made an instrument of more extensive usefulness to my fellow-creatures, than couid be expected in the narrower circle of a retired life.” He did actually fall a sacrifice to this design; for in visiting a sick patient at Cherson, who had a malignant epidemic fever, he caught the distemper, and died, Jan, 20, 1790. An honour was now paid to him, which we believe is without a precedent: his death was announced in the London Gazette.

Mr. Howard was, in his own habits of life, rigidly temperate, and even abstemious; subsisting entirely, at one time, on. potatoes; at another, chiefly on tea and bread and butter; of course not mixing in convivial society, nor accepting invitations to public repasts. His labours have certainly had the admirable effect of drawing the attention of this country to the regulation of public prisons. In many places his improvements have been adopted, and perhaps in all our gaols some advantage has been derived from them. We may hope that these plans will terminate in such general regulations as will make judicial confinement, instead of the means of confirming and increasing depravity (as it has been too generally), the successful instrument of amendment in morality, and acquiring habits of industry. While the few criminals, and probably very few, who may be too depraved for amendment, will be compelled to be beneficial to the community by their labour; and, being advantageously situated in point of health, may suffer nothing more than that restraint which is necessary for the sake of society, and that exertion which they ought never to have abandoned. Considered as the first mover of these important plans, Howard will always be honoured with the gratitude of his country; and his monument, lately erected in St. Paul’s cathedral, is a proof that this gratitude is not inert. The monument is at the same time a noble proof of the skill and genius of the artist, Mr. Bacon, and represents Mr. Howard in a Roman dress,- with a look and attitude expressive of benevolence and activity, holding in one hand a scroll of plans for the improvement of prisons, hospitals, &c. and in the other a key while he is trampling on chains and fetters. The epitaph contains a sketch of his life, and concludes in words which we also heartily adopt: “He trod an open but unfrequented path to immortality, in the ardent and unremitted exercise of Christian charity. May this tribute to his fame excite an emulation of his truly glorious achievements!” To this may be added the eloquent eulogium pronounced upon Mr. Howard by Mr. Burke, in his “Speech at Bristol, previous to the election in 1780.” Having occasion to mention him, he adds, “I cannot name this gentleman without remarking, that his labours and writings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He has visited all Europe, not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces, or the stateliness of temples; not to make accurate measurements of the remains of ancient grandeur, nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art not to collect medals, or collate manuscripts; but to dive into the depths of dungeons to plunge into the infection of hospitals to survey the mansions of sorrow and pain; to take the gage and dimensions of misery, depression, and contempt to remember the forgotten, to attend to the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate the distresses of all men in all countries. His plan is original, and it is as full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery; a circumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labour is felt more or less in every country; I hope he will anticipate his final reward, by seeing all its effects fully realised in his own. He will receive, not by retail, but in gross, the reward of those who visit the prisoner; and he has so forestalled and monopolized this branch of charity, that there will be, I trust, little room to merit by such acts of benevolence hereafter”

, Mus. D. was brought up in the king’s chapel, and took his degree of doctor of music at Cambridge at the time of the Installation of theduke of Grafton as chancellor of that university. Dr. Howard had studied much under Dr. Pepusch at the Charter-house, and was well acquainted with the mechanical rules of counterpoint. His overture in the “Amorous Goddess,” a happy imitation of Handel’s overture in “Alcina,” particularly the musette and minuet, was very popular in the theatres and public gardens. But his ballads, which were long the delight of natural and inexperienced lovers of music, had the merit of facility; for this honest Englishman preferred the style of his own country to that of any other so mnch, that he never staggered in his belief of its being the best in the world, by listening to foreign artists or their productions, for whom and for which he had an invincible aversion.

, the author of a very popular book of “Devout Meditations,” was the third son of John, Grubham Howe, of Langar in Nottinghamshire, by his wife Annabelia, third natural daughter and coheiress of Emanuel earl of Sunderland, lord Scrope of Bolton. He was born in Gloucestershire in 1661, and during the latter end of the reign of Charles II. was much at court. About 1686 he went abroad with a near relation, who was sent by James II. as ambassador to a foreign court. The ambassador died; and our author, by powers given to hint to that effect, concluded the business of the embassy. He had an offer of being appointed successor to his friend in his public character; but disliking the measures that were then carried on at court, he declined it, and returned to England, where he soon after married a lady of rank and fortune, who, dying in a few years, left behind her an only daughter, married afterwards to Peter Bathurst, esq. brother to the first earl Bathurst. After his lady’s death, Mr. Howe lived for the most part in the country, where he spent many of his latter years in a close retirement, consecrated to religious meditations and exercises. He was a man of good understanding, of an exemplary life, and cheerful conversation. He died in 1745. The work by which he is still remembered, was entitled “Devout Meditations; or a collection of thoughts upon religious and philosophical subjects,” 8vo, and was first published anonymously; but the second edition, at the instance of Dr. Young and others, came out in 1752 with the author’s name. It has often been reprinted since. Dr. Young said of this book, that he " should never lay it far out of his reach; for a greater demonstration of a sound head and sincere heart he never saw.

, a relation of the preceding, was the younger brother of sir Scroop Howe, of Nottinghamshire. In the convention-parliament, which met at Westminster Jan. 22, 1688-9, he served for Cirencester, and was constantly chosen for that borough, or as a knight of the shire for the county of Gloucester, in the three last parliaments of king William, and in the three first of queen Anne. In 1696 he was a strenuous advocate for sir John Fenwick; and his pleading in behalf of that unfortunate gentleman, shews his extensive knowledge of the laws, and aversion to unconstitutional measures. In 1699, when the army was reduced, it was principally in consideration of Mr. Howe’s remonstrances, that the House of Commons agreed to allow half-pay to the disbanded officers; and when the partition-treaty was afterwards under the consideration of that house, he expressed his sentiments of it in guch terms, that king William declared, that if it were not foi the disparity of their rank, he would demand satisfaction with the sword. At the accession of queen Anne, he was sworn of her privy-council April 21, 1702; and, on June 7 following, constituted vice-admiral of the county of Gloucester. Before the end of that year, Jan. 4, 1702-3, he was constituted paymaster-general of her majesty’s guards and garrisons. Macky says of him, “he seemed to be pleased with and joined in the Revolution, and was made vice-chamberlain to queen Mary; but having asked a grant, which was refused him, and given to lord Portland, he fell from the court, and was all that reign the most violent and open antagonist king William had in the house. A great enemy to foreigners settling in England; most clauses in acts against them being brought in by him. He is indefatigable in whatever he undertakes; witness the old East India company, whose cause he maintained till he> fixed it upon as sure a foot as the new, even when they thought themselves past recovery. He lives up” to what his visible estate can afford; yet purchases, instead of running in debt. He is endued with good natural parts, attended with an unaccountable boldness; daring to say what he pleases, and will be heard out; so that he passeth with some for the shrew of the house. On the queen’s accession to the throne he was made a privy-counsellor, and paymaster of the guards and garrisons. He is a tall, thin, pale-faced man, with a very wild look; brave in his person, bold in expressing himself, a violent enemy, a sure friend, and seems to be always in a hurry. Near fifty years old." Such is the character given of this gentleman in 1703. A new privy council being settled May 10, 1708, according to act of parliament, relating to the union of the two kingdoms, he was, among the other great officers, sworn into it. He continued paymaster of the guards and garrisons till after the accession of George I. who appointed Mr. Walpole to succeed him on Sept. 23, 1714: the privy council being also dissolved, and a new one appointed to meet on Oct. 1 following, he was left out of the list. Retiring to his seat at Stowell in Gloucestershire, he died there in 1721, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Stowell.

, a learned non-conformist divine in the seventeenth century, was a minister’s son, and nephew to Mr. Obadiah Howe, vicar of Boston in Lincolnshire. He was born May 17, 1630, at Loughborough in Leicestershire, of which town his father was minister, being settled there by archbishop Laud, though afterwards ejected by that prelate on account of his adherence to the Puritans; upon which he went with his son to Ireland, where they continued till the Irish Rebellion broke out, when they returned to England, and settled in Lancashire, where our author was educated in the first rudiments of learning and the knowledge of the tongues. He was sent pretty early to Christ college in Cambridge, where he continued till he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, and then removed to Oxford, and became bible-clerk of Brazen-nose college in Michaelmas term 1648, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Jan. 18, 1649. He was made a demy of Magdalen college by the parliament visitors, and afterwards fellow; and July 9, 1652, took the degree of master of arts. Soon after this he became a preacher, and was ordained by Mr. Charles Herle at his church of Winwick in Lancashire, and not long after became minister of Great Torrington in Devonshire. His labours here were characteristic of the times. He informed Dr. Calamy, that on the public fasts it was his common way to begin about nine in the morning with a prayer for about a quarter of an hour, in which he begged a blessing on the work of the day; and afterwards read and expounded a chapter or psalm, in which he spent about three quarters; then prayed for about an hour, preached for another hour, and prayed for about half an hour. After this he retired, and took some little refreshment for about a quarter of an hour or more (the people singing all the while), and then came again into the pulpit, and prayed for another hour, and gave them another sermon of about an hour’s length, and so concluded the service of the day, about four o'clock in the evening, with half an hour or more in prayer.

In March 1654 he married the daughter of Mr. George Hughes, minister of Plymouth. Having occasion to take a journey to London, he went as a hearer to the chapel at Whitehall. Cromwell was present, and, struck with his demeanor and person, sent a messenger to inform him that he wished to speak with him when the service was over. In the course of the interview he desired him to preach before him the following Sunday: he requested to be excused, but Cromwell would not be denied, and even undertook to write to his congregation a sufficient apology for his absence from them longer than he intended. This led to the appointment of Mr. Howe to the office of his domestic chaplain, and he accordingly removed with his family to Whitehall. Dr. Calamy tells us, that while he was in this station, he behaved in such a manner that he was never charged, even by those who have been most forward to inveigh against a number of his contemporaries, with improving his interest in those who then had the management of affairs in their hands, either to the enriching himself, or the doing ill offices to others, though of known differing sentiments. He readily embraced every occasion that offered, of serving the interest of religion and learning, and opposing the errors and designs which at that time threatened both. The notion of a particular faith prevailed much at Cromwell’s court; and it was a common opinion among them, that such as were in a special manner favoured of God, when they offered up prayers and supplications to him for his mercies, either for themselves or others, often had such impressions made upon their minds and spirits by a divine hand, as signified to them, not only in the general that their prayers would be heard and answered, but that the particular mercies which were sought for would be certainly bestowed; nay, and sometimes also intimated to them in what way and manner they would be afforded, and pointed out to them future events beforehand, which in reality is the same with inspiration. Mr. Howe told Dr. Calamy, that not a little pains was taken to cultivate and support this notion at Whitehall and that he once heard a sermon there from a person of note, the avowed design of which was to defend it. He said, that he was so fully convinced of the ill tendency of such a principle, that after hearing this sermon, he thought himself bound in conscience, when it came next to his turn to preach before Cromwell, to set himself industriously to oppose it, and to beat down that spiritual pride and confidence, which such fancied impulses and impressions were apt to produce and cherish. He observed, while he was in the pulpit, that Cromwell heard him with great attention, but would sometimes knit his brows, and discover great uneasiness. When the sermon was over, a person of distinction came to him, and asked him, if he knevy. what he had done? and signified it to him as his apprehension, that Cromwell would be so incensed at that dis’A course, that he would find it very difficult ever to make his peace with him, or secure his favour for the future. Mr. Howe replied, that he had but discharged his conscience, and could leave the event with God. He afterwards observed, that Cromwell was cooler in his carriage to him than before; and sometimes he thought he would have spoken to him of the matter, but never did.

, fourth viscount Howe, and earl Howe, and first baron Howe of Langar, a gallant English admiral, was the third son of sir Emanuel Scrope, second lord viscount Howe, and Mary Sophia Charlotte, eldest daughter to the baron Kilmansegge. He was born in 1725, was educated at Eton, entered the sea-service at the age of fourteen, on board the Severn, hon. captain Legge, part of the squadron destined for the South Seas under Anson. He next served on board the Burford, 1743, under admiral Knowles, in which he was afterwards appointed acting lieutenant; but his commission not being confirmed, he returned to admiral Knowles in the West- Indies, where he was made lieutenant of a sloop of war; and being employed to cut an English merchantman, which had been taken by a French privateer under the guns of the Dutch settlement of St. Eustatia, and with the connivance of the governor, out of that harbour, he executed the difficult and dangerous enterprise in such a manner, as to produce the most sanguine expectations of his future services. In 1745, lieutenant Howe was with admiral Vernon in the Downs, but was in a short time raised to the rank of commander, in the Baltimore sloop of war, which joined the squadron then cruizing on the coast of Scotland, under the command of admiral Smith. During this cruize an action took place, in which captain Howe gave a fine example of persevering intrepidity. The Baltimore, in company with another armed vessel, fell in with two French frigates of thirty guns, with troops and ammunition for the service of the pretender, which she instantly attacked, by running between them. In the action which followed, capt. Howe received a wound hi his head, which at first appeared to be fatal. He, however, soon discovered signs of life, and when the necessary operation was performed, resumed all his former activity, continued the action, if possible, with redoubled spirit, and obliged the French ships, with their prodigious superiority in men and metal, to sheer off, leaving the Baltimore, at the same time, in such a shattered condition, as to be wholly disqualified to pursue them. He was, in consequence of this gallant service, immediately made post-captain, and in April 1746, was appointed to the Triton frigate, and ordered to Lisbon, where, in consequence of captain Holbourne’s bad state of health, he was transferred to the Rippon, destined for the Coast of Guinea. But he soon quitted that station to join his early patron admiral Knowles in Jamaica, who appointed him first captain of his ship of 80 guns; and at the conclusion of the war in 1748, he returned in her to England. In March 1750-51, captain Howe was appointed to the command of the Guinea station, in La Gloire, of 44 guns; when, with his usual spirit and activity, he checked the injurious proceedings of the Dutch governor-general on the coast, and adjusted the difference between the English and Dutch settlements. At the close of 1751, he was appointed to the Mary yacht, which was soon exchanged for the Dolphin frigate, in which he sailed to the Streights, where he executed many difficult and important services. Here he remained about three years; and soon after, on his return to England, he obtained the command of the Dunkirk of 60 guns, which was among the ships that were commissioned from an apprehension of a rupture with France. This ship was one of the fleet with which admiral Boscawen sailed to obstruct the passage of the French fleet into the Gulph of St. Lawrence, when captain Howe took the Alcide, a French ship of 64 guns, off the coast of Newfoundland. A powerful fleet being prepared, in 1757, under the command of sir Edward Hawke, to make an attack upon the French coast, captain Howe was appointed to the Magnanime, in which ship he battered the fort on the island of Aix till it surrendered. In 1758 he was appointed commodore of a small squadron, which sailed to annoy tke enemy on their coasts. This he effected with his usual success at St. Malo, where an hundred sail of ships and several magazines were destroyed; and the heavy gale blowing into shore, which rendered it impracticable for the troops to land, alone prevented the executing a similar mischief in the town and harbour of Cherbourg. On the 1st of July he returned to St. Helen’s. This expedition was soon followed by another, when prince Edward, afterwards duke of York, was entrusted to the care of commodore Howe, on board his ship the Essex. The fleet sailed on the 1st of August 1758, and on the 6th came to an anchor in the Bay of Cherbourg; the town was taken, and the bason destroyed. The commodore, with his royal midshipman on board, next sailed to St. Malo; and as his instructions were to keep the coast of France in continual alarm, he very effectually obeyed them. The unsuccessful affair of St. Cas followed. But never was courage, skill, or humanity, more powerfully or successfully displayed than on this occasion. He went in person in his barge, which was rowed through the thickest fire, to save the retreating soldiers; the rest of the fleet, inspired hy his conduct, followed his example, and at least seven hundred men were preserved, by his exertions, from the fire of the enemy or the fury of the waves. In July in the same year (1758), his elder brother, who was serving his country with equal ardour and heroism in America, found an early grave. That brave and admirable officer was killed in a skirmish between the advanced guard of the French, and the troops commanded by general Abercrombie, in the expedition against Ticonderago. Commodore Howe then succeeded to the titles and property of his family. In the following year (1759), lord Howe was employed in the Channel, on board his old ship the Magnanime but no opportunity offered- to distinguish himself till the month of November, when the French fleet, under Conflans, was defeated. When he was presented to the king by sir Edward Hawke on this occasion, his majesty said, “Your life, my lord, has been one continued series of services to your country.” In March 1760, he was appointed colonel of the Chatham division of marines; and in September following, he was ordered by sir Edward Hawke to reduce the French fort on the isle of Dumet, in order to save the expence of the transports employed to carry water for the use of the fleet. Lord Howe continued to serve, as occasion required, in the Channel; and in the summer of 1762, he removed to the Princess Amelia, of 80 guns, having accepted the command as captain to his royal highness the duke of York, now rear-admiral of the blue, serving as second in command under sir Edward Hawke, in the Channel. On the 23d of August, 1763, his lordship was appointed to the board of admiralty, where he remained till August 1765: he was then made treasurer of the navy; and in October 1770, was promoted to be rear-admiral of the blue, and commander in chief in the Mediterranean. In March 1775, he was appointed rear-admiral of the white; and was soon after chosen to represent the borough of Dartmouth in parliament. In the month of December, in the same year, he was made vice-admiral of the blue. It was on one of these promotions that lord Hawke, then first lord of the admiralty, rose in the house of peers, and said, “I advised his majesty to make the promotion. 1 have tried my lord Howe on fmportant occasions; he never asked me how he was to execute any service, but always went and performed it.” In 1778, France having become a party in the war, the French admiral D‘Estaing appeared, on the llth of July, in sight of the British fleet, at Sandy Hook, with a considerable force of line of battle ships, in complete equipment and condition. Most of the ships under lord Howe had been long in service, were not well manned, and were not line of battle ships of the present day. The French admiral, however, remained seven days without making an attack, and by that lime lord Howe had disposed his inferior force in such a manner as to set him at defiance. On D’Estaing’s leaving the Hook, lord Howe heard of the critical situation of Rhode Island, and made every possible exertion to preserve it. He afterwards acted chiefly on the defensive. Such a conduct appears to have been required, from the state of his fleet, and the particular situation of the British cause in America. He, however, contrived to baffle all the designs of the French admiral; and may be said, considering the disadvantages with which he was surrounded, to have conducted and closed the campaign with honour. Lord Howe now resigned the command to admiral Byron; and on his return to England in October, immediately struck his flag. In the course of this year, he had been advanced to be vice-admiral of the white, and shortly after, to the same rank in the red squadron. On the change of administration in 1782, lord Howe was raised to the dignity of a viscount of Great Britain, having been previously advanced to the rank of admiral of the blue. He was then appointed to command the fleet fitted out for the relief of Gibraltar; and he fulfilled the important objects of this expedition. That fortress was effectually relieved, the hostile fleet baffled, and dared in vain to battle; and different squadrons detached to their important destinations; while the ardent hopes of his country’s foes were disappointed. Peace was concluded shortly after lord Howe’s return from performing this important service: and in January 1783, he was nominated first lord of the admiralty. That office, in the succeeding April, he resigned to lord Keppel; but was re-appointed on the 30th of December in the same year. On the 24th of September 1787, he was advanced to the rank of admiral of the white; and in July 1788, he finally quitted his station at the admiralty. In the following August he was created an earl of Great Britain.

, a voluminous English writer, the son of Thomas Howell, minister of Abernant in Caermarthenshire, was born about 1594, and, to use his own words, “his ascendant was that hot constellation of cancer about the midst of the dog-days.” He was sent to the freeschool at Hereford -, and entered of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1610. His elder brother Thomas Howell was already a fellow of that society, afterwards king’s chaplain, and was nominated in 1644 to the see of Bristol. James Howell, having taken the degree of B. A. in 1613, left college, and removed to London; for being, says Wood, “a pure cadet, a true cosmopolite, not born to land, lease, house, or office, he had his fortune to make; and being withal not so much inclined to a sedentary as an active life, this situation pleased him best, as most likely to answer his views.” The first employment he obtained was that of steward to a glass-house in Broad-street, which was procured for him by sir Robert Mansel, who was principally concerned in it. The proprietors of this work, intent upon improving the manufactory, came to a resolution to send an agent abroad, who should procure the best materials and workmen; and they made choice of Howell for this purpose, who, setting off in 1619, visited several of the principal places in Holland, Flanders, France, Spain, and Italy. In Dec. 1621, he returned to London; having executed the purpose of his mission very well, and particularly having acquired a masterly knowledge in the modern languages, which afforded him a singular cause for gratitude. “Thank God,” he says, “I have this fruit of my foreign travels, that I can pray unto him every day of the week in a separate language, and upon Sunday in seven.”

His works were numerous. 1. “Dodona’s Grove, or, The Vocal Forest, 1640.” 2. “The Vote:” a poem, presented to the king on New-year’s day, 1641. 3. “Instructions for Forraine Travell shewing by what course, and in what compass of time, one may take an exact survey of the kingdomes and states of Christendome, and arrive to the practical knowledge of the languages to good purpose, 1642.” Dedicated to prince Charles. Reprinted in 1650, with additions. These works were published before he was thrown into prison. 4. “Casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, touching the distractions of the times.” Written soon after the battle of Edgehill, and the first book published in vindication of the king. 5. “Mercurius Hibernicus: or, a discourse of the Irish Massacre, 1644.” 6. “Parables reflecting on the Times, 1644.” 7. “England’s Tears for the present Wars, &c. 1644.” 8. “Preheminence and Pedigree of Parliaments, 1644.” 9. “Vindication of some passages reflecting upon him in Mr. Prynne’s book called The Popish Royal Favourite, 1644.” 10. “Epistolae Ho-Elianae: or, Familiar Letters, domestic and foreign, divided into sundry sections, partly historical, partly political, partly philosophical,” 1645. Another collection was published in 1647; and both these, with the addition of a third, came out in 1650. A few additional letters appeared in some subsequent editions of which the eleventh was printed in 1754, 8vo. It is not, indeed, to be wondered at, that these letters have run through so many editions since they not only contain much of the history of his own times, but are also- interspersed with many pleasant stories properly introduced and applied. It cannot be denied, that he has given way frequently to very low witticisms, the most unpardonable instance of which is, his remark upon Charles the First’s death, where he says, “I will attend with patience how England will thrive, now that she is let blood in the Bapilical vein, and cured as they say of the king’s evil:” and it is no great excuse, that he was led into this manner by the humour of the times. Wood relates, it does not appear on what authority, that “many of these letters were never written before the author of them was in. the Fleet, as he pretends they were, but only feigned and purposely published to gain money to relieve his necessities:” be this as it will, he allows that they “give a tolerable history of those times,” which, if true, is sufficient to recommend them*. There are also some of his letters among the Strafford papers.

These letters are almost the only work of Howell that is now regarded: the rest are very obscure. 11. “A Nocturnal Progress: or, a Perambulation of most Countries in Christendom, performed in one night by strength of imagination,” 1645. 12. “Lustra Ludovici: or the Life of Lewis XIII. King of France, &c.” 13. “An Account of the deplorable state of England in 1647, &c.” 1647. 14. “Letter to Lord Pembroke concerning the Times, and the sad condition both of Prince and People,” 1647. 15. “Bella Scot-Anglica: A Brief of all the Battles betwixt England and Scotland, from all times to this present,”

1648. 16. “Corollary declaring the Causes, whereby the Scot is come of late years to be so heightened in his Spirits.” 17. “The Instruments of a King: or, a short Discourse of the Sword, Crown, and Sceptre, &c. 1648.” 18. “Winter-Dream,” 1649. 19. “A Trance, or News from Hell, brought first to town by Mercurius Acheronticus,”

1649. 20. “Inquisition after Blood, &c.” 1649. 21. “Vision, or Dialogue between Soul and Body,” 1651. 22. “Survey of the Signory of Venice, &c.” 1651. 23. “Some sober Inspections made into the carriage and consults of the late Long Parliament, whereby occasion is taken to speak of Parliaments in former times, and of Magna Charta: with some Reflections upon Government in general,” 1653. Dedicated to Oliver lord protector, whom he compares to Charles Martel, and compliments in language much beyond the truth and the sentiments of his own heart. The fourth edition of this book came out

Hoelianae,“or the letters of James History of Poetry, vol. IV. p. 54. Howell, a great traveller, an intimate Hi 1660, with several additions. 24.” History of the Wars of Jerusalem epitomised.“25.” Ah, Ha; Tumulus, Thalamus two Counter- Poems the first an Elegy on Edward late earl of Dorset: the second an Epithalamium to the Marquis of Dorchester,“1653. 26.” The German Diet: or Balance of Europe, &c.“1653, folio, with the author’s portrait, at whole length. 27.” Parthenopeia: or, the History of Naples, &c.“1654. 28.” Londinopolis,“1657: a short discourse, says Wood, mostly taken from Stowe’s” Survey of London,“but a work which in onr time bears a high price, and is worth consulting, as containing particulars of the manners of Loodon in his days. 29.” Discourse of the Empire, and of the Election of the King of the Romans,“1658. 3O.” Lexicon Tetraglotton an English-French-Italian-Spanish Dictionary, &c.“1660, 31.” A Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. Answered immediately by sir Roger L'Estrange, in a book entitled” A Caveat for the Cavaliers:“replied to by Mr. Howell, in the next article, 32.” Some sober Inspections made into those ingredients that went to the composition of a late Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. 33.” A French Grammar, &c.“34.” The Parley of Beasts, &c.“1660. 35.” The second Part of casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, &c.“1661. 36.” Twelve Treatises of the hite Revolutions,“1661. 37.” New English Grammar ifor Foreigners to learn English: with a Grammar for the Spanish and Castilian Tongue, with special Remarks on the Portuguese Dialect, for the service of her Majesty,“1662. 38.” Discourse concerning the Precedency of Kings,"

1663. 39. “Poems:” collected and published by serjeant-major P. F. that is, Payne Fisher, who had been poet-laureat to Cromwell. The editor tells us, that his author Howell “may be called the prodigy of the age for the variety of his volumes: for there hath passed the press above forty of his works on various subjects, useful not only to the present times, but to all posterity. And it is to be observed,” says he, “that in all his writings there is something still new, either in the matter, method, or fancy, and in an untrodden tract.” It is quite impossible, however, to say any thing in favour of his poetry. He published next, 40. “A Treatise concerning Ambassadors,”

1664. 41. “Concerning the surrender of Dunkirk, thiit it was done upon good Grounds,” 1664. Besides these original works, he translated several from foreign languages; as, 1. “St. Paul’s late Progress upon Earth about a Divorce betwixt Christ and the Church of Rome, by reason of her dissoluteness and excesses, &c.” 1644. The author of this book published it about 1642, and was forced to fly from Rome on that account. He withdrew in the company, and under the conduct of one, who pretended friendship for him; but who betrayed him at Avignon, where he was first hanged and then burnt. 2. “A Venetian Looking-glass: or, a Letter written very lately from London to Cardinal Barberini at Rome, by a Venetian Clarissimo, touching the present Distempers in England,” 1648. 3. “An exact History of the late Revolutions in Naples, &c.” 1650. 4. “A Letter of Advice from the prime Statesmen- of Florence, how England may come to herself again,” 1659. All these were translated from the Italian. He translated also from the French, “The Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, &c.” 1654; and fro tn the Spanish, “The Process and Pleadings in the Court of Spain, upon the death of Anthony Ascham, resident for the Parliament of England, &c.” 1651.

Lastly, he published, in 1649, “The late King’s Declaration in Latin, French, and English:” and in 1651, “Cottoni Posthuma, or divers choice Pieces of that renowned antiquary sir Robert Cotton, knight and baronet,” in 8vo. The print of him prefixed to some of his works was taken from a painting which is now at Landeilo house, in Monmouthshire, the seat of Richard Lewis, esq.

, a learned, but somewhat unfortunate divine, was born soon after the restoration, and educated at Jesus college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1684, and that of M. A. in 1688, after which it is not improbable that he left the university, as he not only scrupled the oaths to the new government, but adhered to the nonjuring party with a degree of firmness, zeal, and rashness, which no considerations of personal loss or suffering could repress. In 1712 he was ordained and instituted into priest’s orders by Dr. Hickes, the celebrated nonjuror, who was titled Suffragan Bishop of Thetford. Before this, in 1708, he published “Synopsis Canonum S. S. Apostolorum, et conciliorum cecumenicorum et provincialium, ab ecclesia Graeca receptorum,” 1710, in folio; “Synopsis canonum ecclesiae Latinae,” folio and in 1715, the third and last volume was announced “as once more finished” by Mr. Howel, the manuscript having been burnt at the fire whicb consumed Mr. Bowyer’s printing-house. Soon after this he printed a pamphlet entitled “The case of Schism in the Church of England truly stated,” which was intended to be dispersed or sold privately, there being no name of any author or printer. Both, however, were soon discovered, andRedmayne, the printer, was sentenced to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for five years, and to find security for his good behaviour for life. The principles laid down in Howel’s pamphlet are these: 1. “That the subjects of England could not transfer their allegiance from king James II.; and thence it is concluded, that all who resisted king James, or have since complied with such as did, are excommunicated by the second canon: 2. That the catholic bishops cannot be deprived by a lay-power only; and thence it is inferred, that all who have joined with them that were put into the places of the deprived bishops, are schismatics.” As such assertions seemed to aim at the vitals of government, both civil and ecclesiastical, it was thought necessary to visit Mr. Howel’s crime with a more severe punishment than had been inflicted on. the printer. Accordingly he was indicted at the Old Bailey Feb. 18, 1717, fora misdemeanour, in publishing “a seditious libel, wherein are contained expressions denying his majesty’s title to the crown of this realm, and asserting the pretender’s right to the same &c. &c.” and being found guilty, he was ordered to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for three years, to find four securities of 500l. each, himself bound in 1000l. for his good behaviour during life, and to be twice whipped. On hearing this last part of the sentence, he asked, if they would whip a clergyman? and was answered by the court, that they paid no deference to his cloth, because he was a disgrace to it, and had no right to wear it that they did not look upon him as a clergyman in that he had produced no proof of his ordination, but from Dr. Hickes, under the denomination of the bishop of Thetford, which was illegal, and not according to the constitution of this kingdom, which knows no such bishop. And as he behaved in other respects haughtily, on receiving his sentence, he was ordered to be degraded, and stripped of the gown he had no right to wear, which was accordingly done in court by the executioner, A few days after, however, upon his humble petition to his majesty, the corporal punishment was remitted. He died in Newgate, July 19, 1720. The history of this man may now excite unmixed compassion. He was a man of irreproachable character, and of great learning and acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. One of the ablest attacks on popery was of his writing, entitled “The View of the Pontificate, from its supposed beginning, to the end of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1563, in which the corruptions of the Scripture and sacred antiquity, forgeries in the councils, and encroachments of the court of Rome on the church and state, to support their infallibility, supremacy, and other modern doctrines, are set in a true light.” The first edition of this appeared in 1712, and a second was published while the author was in prison, along with a second edition of his well-known “History of the Bible,” 3 vols. 8vo, with above 150 cuts by Sturt; and a second edition of his “Orthodox Communicant.” From the list of nonjurors at the end of Kettlevvell’s Life, we learn that he was at one time master of the school at Epping, and at another time curate of Estwich in Suffolk.

There is another work, often reprinted, and once a very popular book, which has been attributed to this Mr. Howel, but in 1712 the publisher ascribed it to Dr. William Howell. It is an abridged history of England, under the title “Medulla Historiae Anglicanae,” with many wood-cuts, and we are inclined to think was really the production of Dr. William Howell, an Oxford graduate, but originally of Magdalen college, Cambridge, afterwards chancellor of Lincoln, and admitted a civilian in 1678. He acquired higher reputation by writing a History of the World, from the earliest times to the ruin of the Roman empire in the west, a work praised by Gibbon. It was published in 3 or 4 vols. in 1680, folio. He also published “Elementa Historiae Civilis,” Ox. 1660, of which an enlarged edition was published in English in 1704 by another hand. Dr. Howell died in 1683.

, a native of French Navarre, though he is usually supposed to be a Spaniard, lived in the seventeenth century. He gained great fame by a work which he published in Spanish, upon a very curious and interesting subject. The title of it runs thus: “Examen de ingenios para las Sciencias, &c. or, an examination of such geniuses as are fit for acquiring the sciences, and were born such: wherein, by marvellous and useful secrets, drawn from true philosophy both natural and divine, are shewn the gifts and different abilities found in men, and ibr what kind of study the genius of every man is adapted, in such a manner, that whoever shall read this book attentively, will discover the properties of his own genius, and be able to make choice of that science in which he will make the greatest improvement.” This book has been translated into several languages, and gone through several impressions. It was translated into Italian, and published at Venice in 1582; at least the dedication of that translation bears this date. It was translated into French by Gabriel Chappuis in 1580; but there is a better French version than this, by Savinien d'Alquie, printed at Amsterdam in 1672. He has taken in the additions inserted by Huarte in the last edition of his book, which are considerable both in quality and quantity. It has been translated also into Latin, and lastly, into English, by Carew and Bellamy. This very admired author has been highly extolled for acuteness and subtlety, and undoubtedly had a great share of these qualities: Bayle, however, thinks, that “it would not be prudent for any person to rely either on his maxims or authorities for,” says he, “he is not to be trusted on either of these heads, and his hypotheses are frequently chimerical, especially when he pretends to teach the formalities to be observed by those who would beget children of a virtuous turn of mind. There are, in this part of his book, a great many particulars repugnant to modesty (a discovery which we are surprized Bayle should have made): and he deserves censure for publishing, as a genuine and authentic piece, a pretended letter of Lentulus the proconsul from Jerusalem to the Roman senate, wherein a portrait is given of Jesus Christ, a description of his shape and stature, the colour of his hair, the qualities of his beard, &c.” The work, however, has now altogether lost its popularity, and deservedly.

, Hucbald, or Hugbald, a monk of St. Amand, in Flanders, who preceded Guido more than one hundred years, was contemporary with Remi, and author of a treatise on music, which is still subsisting in the king of France’s library, under the title of “Enchiridion Musicae,” No. 7202, transcribed in the eleventh century. In this work there 4s a kind of gammut, or expedient for delineating the several sourrds of the scale, in a way wholly different from his predecessors; but the method of Guido not only superseded this, but by degrees effaced the knowledge and remembrance of every other that had been adopted in the different countries and convents of Europe. However, the awkward attempts at singing in consonance, which appear in this tract, are curious, and clearly prove that Guido neither invented, nor, rude as it was before his time, much contributed to the improvement of this art.

, a native of Lusatia, or, according to some authorities, of Torgau, in Saxony, highly celebrated for his skill in history, geography, and genealogy, was born in 1668. His works were chiefly written in the form of question and answer, and so popular in Germany, that his introduction to geography went through a vast number of editions in that country, and has been translated into English, French, and other languages. His works, therefore, are calculated rather for the instruction, of the ignorant, than the satisfaction of the learned; but are well executed in their way. Hubner was professor of geography at Leipsic, and rector of the school at Hamburgh, in which city he died in 1731. His questions on modern and ancient geography were published at Leipsic in 1693, in 8vo, under the title of “Kurtze Fragen aus der newen und alten Geographic.” He published, 2. in 1697, and several subsequent years, in 10 volumes, similar questions on political history, entitled “Kurtze Fragen aus der Politischen Historic, bis zum Ausgang des Siebenzenden saeculi.” 3. His next work was Genealogical Tables, with genealogical questions subjoined, 1708, &c. 4. “Supplements to the preceding works. 5. Lexicons, resembling our Gazetteers, for the aid of common life, entitled fs Staats, Zeitungs, und Conversations-Lexico.” 6. A Genealogical Lexicon. 7. “Bibliotheca Historica Hamburgensis,” Leipsic, 1715. And, 8. “Museum Geographicum.” The two last were more esteemed by the learned than any of his other works.