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

, a learned Italian writer, the son of a lawyer at Sienna, was born at that place in 1420, and after acquiring some knowledge of the Latin language, was put under the care of Francis Philelphus, an eminent teacher at Sienna, who at the end of two years declared he was his best scholar. Dati, however, at this time suffered not a little from the ridicule of his schoolfellows, owing to a hesitation in his speech, which he is said to have cured by the means which Demosthenes adopted, that of speaking with small pebbles in his mouth. After finishing his classical studies, he learned Hebrew of some Jews, and then entered on a course of philosophy, jurisprudence, and theology. During his application to these branches, Odo Anthony, duke of Urbino, from the very favourable account he had of him, invited him to Urbino to teach the belles lettres. Dati accordingly set out for that city in April 1442, where he was received with every mark of honour and friendship by the duke, but this prosperity was not of long duration. He had not enjoyed it above a year and a half, when the duke, whose excesses and tyranny had rendered him odious, was assassinated in a public tumult, with two of his favourites; and Dati, who was hated by the populace merely because he was respected by the duke, was obliged to take refuge for his life in a church, while the mob pillaged his house. The successor of Odo, prince Frederick, endeavoured to console Dati for this misfortune, and offered him a pension, besides recompense for all he had lost; but Dati could not be reconciled to a residence so liable to interruption, and in 1444 returned to Sienna. Here, after refusing the place of secretary of the briefs, offered to him by pope Nicholas V. he opened a school for rhetoric and the classics, and acquired so much reputation, that the cardinal of Sienna, Francis Piccolomini, formally granted him permission to lecture on the Holy Scriptures, although he was a married man; and at the same time gave him a similar licence to teach and lecture on any subject, not only in his college, but in all public places, and even in the church, where, his son informs us, he once preached during Lent. He was also much employed in pronouncing harangues on public occasions in Latin, many of which are among his works. Nor were his talents confined to literature, but were the means of advancing him to the first offices of the magistracy, and the republic of Sienna entrusted him with the negociation of various affairs of importance at Rome and elsewhere. In 1 J-57 he was appointed secretary to the republic, which he held for two years. Towards the close of his life he laid aside the study of profane authors for that of the Scriptures and ecclesiastical historians. He died of the plague at Sienna, April 6, 1478. His son Nicolas collected his works for publication, “Augustini Dathi, Senensis, opera,” of which there are two editions, that printed at Sienna, 1503, fol. and an inferior in correctness, printed at Venice, 1516. They consist of treatises on the immortality of the soul letters; three books on the history of Sienna; a history of Piombinoj on grammar, &c. &c.

, esq. of the Middle Temple, a barrister at law, afterwards master in chancery, and at the time of his death, Jan. 8, 1763, accomptaiit-general of that court, is noticeable as having translated the “Memoirs of cardinal de Retz,” which were printed in 1723, 12mo, xvith a dedication to Congreve, who encouraged the publication. He was F. R. S. and an able mathematician. In the dispute concerning elliptical arches, at. the time when Bluckfriars bridge was built, application was made by the committee for his opinion on the subject, and his answer may be seen in the London Magazine for March, 1760. He also published in 1761, “A Vindication of the New Calendar Tables, and Rules annexed to the Act for regulating the commencement of the year,” &c. 410.

, a Spanish ecclesiastic, and historiographer to the king of Spain, was a native of the town of Avila, from which he derived his name. He accompanied the cardinal Pierra Deza to Rome, and made great progress in the study of sacred and profane history. On his return to Spain, he was presented to a benefice in the church of Salamanca; and being invited to Madrid in 1612, he was appointed king’s historiographer for Castille. He composed in Spanish, “A History of the Antiquities of Salamanca;” the “Life of Alphonso Tostat;” “Theatre* de las Grandesas de Madrid;” “Theatro ecclesiastico de las iglesias de las Indias;”a life of Henry III. king of Castille, &c. and other works. He died in 1658, upwards of eighty years old.

, a learned doctor of the house and society of the Sorbonne, seigneur de Sevais in Maine, and prior of St. Martin de Brive-laGaillarde, was born in 1621, of an ancient and illustrious family of Picardy. He was distinguished for learning and integr'ty; accompanied cardinal de Retz, to whom he was related, in his prosperity and his misfortunes, and settled afterwards ut the Sorbonne, where he earnestly devoted himself to deciding cases of conscience with his friend M. de S-iinte Beuve. He was a zealous director to several religious houses; was appointed to attend condemned criminals, and maintained and educated a great number of poor scholars. He died July 10, 1691, at the Sorbonne, aged 70. The greatest part of his decisions, and those of M. Fmrnageau, were collected 1732, 2 vols. fol.

, a learned writer of the seventeenth century, whose works have but lately been brought to light, was born in the island of Chio; he took the surname of Domesticus, as appears from the title of his works. In 1637, became to Rome to prosecute his studies in the Greek college, and seven years after he returned to his native country. During his studies at Rome, he made so considerable a progress in learning and belles lettres, that he was appointed to teach his fellow-students the Greek language; but an illness, to which he became subject, and which was thought likely to terminate in an epilepsy, obliged him to leave the college, and disabled him from taking the intended order of priesthood. Yet before his return to the island of Chio, he made, with the celebrated Lucas Holstenius, a tour to Florence, in order to examine the Greek Mss. in the Laurentian library. After his return to Chio, though he was not obliged to preach the Roman catholic religion, he attempted to support and defend it by his writings. Controversial divinity appears to have been the main object of his pursuits; though he also cultivated poetry and physic. He composed a great number of iambic verses on sacred subjects; one, among others, entitled “The Triumph of the Catholic Faith.” He wrote also a physical treatise against Galen and his disciples. He married in 1649; but the latter part of his life and his death are not recorded, though by the account of his countrymen he seems to have died at Messina. His works were published for the first time in 1781, at Rome, in 2 vols. 4to, under thfc title “Demetrii Pi-pani Domestic! Chii Opera quie reperiuntur e Grseca in Latinum verr.it et adnotationes adjecit Bernardus Stephanopolus; accedit praefatio Joannis Christophori Amadutii, cujus cura et studio nunc primum eduntur EpistoUe tres Grgeco-Latinae Imperatorum Constantinopolitanorum Joannis et Emanuelis Comneni ad Romanos poutifices Houorium II. et Alexandrum III.” Demetrius’s manuscripts were discovered by signer Stellio Raffaetli, consul for the English East India company at Chio, who sent them in 1776 to cardinal York, and earnestly requested of his eminence to get them published. The cardinal’s zeal for erudition, and for the interests of the Roman catholic religion, prompted him to grant the request, and to charge Stephanopoli and Amaduzzi, two able Greek scholars, to translate the Mss. in question into Latin, and to publish both the text and their version together. They consist chiefly of polemical treatises in favour of some points in dispute between the Roman catholics and protestants, and between the Roman catholics and the Greek church; but the most valuable part of the work is the very learned preface by Amaduzzi, respecting the origin and progress of the vulgar and modern Greek language, in which several of Demetrius’s treatises are written; and another prefixed to the letters mentioned in the title of the work, which may be considered as one of the best essays extant on the ancient Greek hand-writing.

, an English divine and theological writer, became a student of Baliiol college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1590; and, when he had taken the degree of M. A. entered into holy orders, and was afterwards admitted to the degree of D. D. He was domestic chaplain to George duke of Buckingham, and to James I. and successively vicar of all the three churches in Reading; being instituted to St. Lawrence’s, Jan. 7, 1603; to St. Giles’s, July 9, 1612; and to St. Mary’s, March 31, 1614. He died at Reading, in Jan. 1628-9, and was buried in St. Mary’s church. Besides some sermons, enumerated by Wood, he published, 1. “A threefold resolution necessary to salvation, &c.” Loud. 1616, 8vo, 4th edit. 2. “Justification of kneeling at the Sacrament,” ibid. 16!9, 8vo. 3. “On the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” ibid. 1621, 4to, and some controversial pieces, the most distinguished of which is a work on auricular confession, in answer to cardinal Bellarmine on that subject. The title is, “De confessionis auricularis vanitate, adversus Card. Bellarmini sophismata,” Oxon. 1621, 4to. Dr. Denison gave several valuable books to the Bodleian library, as appears by a letter of sir Thomas Bodley to Dr. King, dean of Christ-church, and vice-chancellor, which on July 8, 1628, was read in convocation.

, a French nobleman, born at Paris in 1602, was, like the English lord Rochester, a great wit, a great libertine, and a great penitent. He made a vast progress in his studies under the Jesuits, who, perceiving his genius, endeavoured to get him into their society; but his family would not listen to their proposal, and he soon himself began to treat them with ridicule. While very young, his father procured him the place of a counsellor in the parliament of Paris, where his wit was aumired but he would never report a cause; for he used to say that it was a sordid occupation, and unworthy of a man of parts, to read wrangling papers with attention, and to endeavour to understand them. It is said, indeed, that on one occasion, when his clients were urgent for a decision, he sent for both parties, burnt the papers before them, and paid down the sum that was the cause of the dispute, to the amount of four or five hundred livres. One account says, that he left this place from the following cause. Cardinal Richelieu falling in love with the celebrated beauty Marion de Lorme, whose affections were entirely placed on our Des Barreaux, proposed to him by a third hand, that if he would resign his mistress, he should have whatever he should desire. Des Barreaux answered the proposal in a jesting way, feigning to believe the cardinal incapable of so much weakness. This enraged the minister so highly, that he persecuted Des Barreaux as long as he lived, and forced him not only to quit his place, but even to leave the kingdom. But another account says that his resignation of the bar was voluntary, and with a view to become a man of pleasure, which appears to be more probable. During his career, however, he made a great number of Latin and French verses, and. some pleasing songs; but never pursued any thing seriously, except good cheer and diversions, and being very entertaining in company, he was in high request with men of wit and taste. He had his particular friends in the several provinces of France, whom he frequently visited, and it was his practice to shift his quarters, according to the seasons of the year. In winter, he went to seek the sun on the coasts of Provence; and passed the three worst months in the year at Marseilles. The house which he called his favourite, was that of the count de Clermont de Lodeve, in Languedoc; where, he used to say, good cheer and liberty were on their throne. Sometimes he went to Balzac, on the banks of the Charante but his chief residence was at Chenailles on the Loire. His general view in these ramblings was to search out the best fruits and the best wines in the climates: but sometimes, to do him justice, his object was more intellectual, as, when he went into Holland, on purpose to see Des Cartes, and to improve hr the instructions of that great genius. His friends do not deny that he was a great libertine; but pretend, that fame, according to custom, had said more of him than is true, and that, in the latter part of his life, he was convinced of the reality of religion. They say, that he did not disapprove the truths of Christianity, and wished to be fully convinced of them; but he thought nothing was so dim'cult to a man of wit as to be a true believer. He was born a catholic, but paid little attention either to the worship or doctrines of the Romish religion; and he used to say, that if the Scriptures are to be the rule of our actions and of our belief, there was no better religion than the protestant. Four or five years before his death, we are told that he entirely forsook his vicious courses, paid his debts, and, having never been married, gave up the remainder of his estate to his sisters; reserving to himself for life an annuity of 4000 livres. He then retired to Chalon on the Soane, which he said was the best and purest air in France; hired a small house, and was visited by the better sort of people, particularly by the bishop, who afterwards spoke well of him. He died in that city, May 9. 1673, having made the famous devout sonnet two or three years before his death, which begins, “Grand Dieu, tes jugemens,” &c. But Voltaire has endeavoured to deprive him of the merit of this, by ascribing it to the abbe de Levau. It is, however, the only one of Des Barreaux’s poems, which in general were in the style of Sarazin and Chapelle, that has obtained approbation, Dreux du Radier, in his “Recreations historiques,” asserts that it is an imitation of a sonnet by Desportes, who published it in 1G03; and if so, the imitation must be allowed greatly to surpass the original.

, priest of the oratory, famous for his sermons, was born in 1599 at Vire in Normandy. He first studied at Caen, put himself under the direction of cardinal de Bemlle, and entered into his congregation. He afterwards devoted himself to the study of the Holy Scriptures and the fathers, and became a very celebrated, preacher. He was sent to Rome to defend the doctrine of Jansenius; where he pronounced a discourse on that subject before Innocent X. which may be seen in the “Journal de Saint-Amour.” His attachment to the opinions of Jangenius was the cause or the pretext of search being made after him in order to convey him to the Bastille, but he escaped the pursuit, and retired for the rest of his days to the seat of the duke de Liancourt, in the diocese of Beauvais. One day, when Louis XIV. happened to be there, the duke presented Desmares to him. The old man said to the monarch, with an air of respect and freedom: “Sir, I ask a boon of you.” “Ask,” returned Louis, “and I will grant it you.” “Sir,” replied the old man, “permit me to put on my spectacles, that I may contemplate the countenance of my king.” Louis XIV. declared that of all the variety of compliments that had been paid him, none ever pleased him more than this. Desmares died in 1687, at the age of 87, after having composed the “Necrologe de Port-royal,” printed in 1723, 4to, to which a supplement was added by Le Fevre de St. Marc, in 1725; “Description de Tabbaye de la Trappe,” Lyons, 1683, and various theological and controversial works, enumerated by Moreri.

, an eminent French dramatic writer, was born at Tours, in 1680, of a reputable family, which he left early in life, apparently from being thwarted in his youthful pursuits. This, however, has been contradicted; and it is said that after having passed through the rudiments of a literary education at Tours, he went, with the full concurrence of his father, to Paris, in order to complete his studies; that being lodged with a bookseller in the capital, he fell in love at sixteen with a young person, the relation of his landlord, the consequences of which amour were such, that young Destouches, afraid to face them, enlisted as a common soldier in a regiment under orders for Spain; that he was present at the siege of Barcelona, where he narrowly escaped the fate of almost the whole company to which he belonged, who were buried under a mine sprung by the besieged. What became of him afterwards, to the time of his being noticed by the marquis de Puysieulx, is not certainly known, but the common opinion was, that he had appeared as a player on the stage; and having for a long time dragged his wretchedness from town to town, was at length manager of a company of comedians at Soleure, when the marquis de Puysieulx, ambassador from France to Switzerland, obtained some knowledge of him by means of an harangue which the young actor made him at the head of his comrades. The marquis, habituated by his diplomatic function to discern and appreciate characters, judged that one who could speak so well, was destined by nature to something better than the representation of French comedies in the centre of Switzerland. He requested a conference with Destouches, sounded him on various topics, and attached him to his person. It was in Switzerland that his talent for theatrical productions first displayed itself; and his “Curieux Impertinent” was exhibited there with applause. His dramatic productions made him known to the regent, who sent him to London in 1717, to assist, in his political capacity, at the negotiations then on foot, and while resident here, he had a singular negociation to manage for cardinal Dubois, to whom, indeed, he was indebted for his post. That minister directed him to engage king George I. to ask for him the archbishopric of Cambray, from the regent duke of Orleans. The king, who was treating with the regent on affairs of great consequence, and whom it was the interest of the latter to oblige, could not help viewing this request in a ridiculous light. “How!” said he to Destouches, “would you have a protestant prince interfere in making a French archbishop? The regent will only laugh at it, and certainly will pay no regard to such an application.” “Pardon me, sire,” replied Destouches, “he will laugh, indeed, but he will do what you desire.” He then presented to the king a very pressing letter, ready for signature. “With all my heart, then,” said the king, and signed the letter; and Dubois became archbishop of Cambray. He spent seven years in London, married there, and returned to his country; where the dramatist and negociator were well received. The regent had a just sense of his services, and promised him great things; but dying soon after, left Destouches the meagre comfort of reflecting how well he should have been provided for if the regent had lived. Having lost his patron, he retired to Fortoiseau, near Melun, as the properest situation to make him forget the caprices of fortune. He purchased the place; and cultivating agriculture, philosophy, and the muses, abode there as long as he lived. Cardinal Fleury would fain have sent him ambassador to Petersburg; but Destouches chose rather to attend his lands and his woods, to correct with his pen the manners of his own countrymen; and to write, which he did with considerable effect, against the infidels of France. He died in 1754, leaving a daughter and a son; the latter, by order of Lewis XV. published at the Louvre an edition of his father’s works, in 4 vols. 4to. Destouch.es had not the gaiety of Regnard, nor the strong warm colouring of Moliere; but he is always polite, tender, and natural, and has been thought worthy of ranking next to these authors. He deserves more praise by surpassing them in the morality and decorum of his pieces, and he had also the art of attaining the pathetic without losing the vis comica, which is the essential character of this species of composition. In the various connections of domestic life, he maintained a truly respectable character, and in early life he gave evidence of his filial duty, by sending 40,000 livres out of his savings to his father, who was burthened with a large family.

, a learned Greek scholar of the sixteenth century, was born in the island of Corfou, of a catholic family. At the age of eight he was taken to Rome by John Lascaris, and placed with other eastern youths in the Greek college, which had been just established. Having made great progress in this language, cardinal Rodolphi gave him the care of his library, which office he held for fifteen years, and in that time he compiled an index to Eustathius’s commentary on Homer, for which pope Paul III. gave him a pension; and Paul IV. who continued this pension, made him corrector of the Greek Mss. in the Vatican. On the death of cardinal Rodolphi, Marc -Antony Colonna, who was afterwards cardinal, became scholar to Devarius for three years in the Greek language. He was afterwards patronized by the cardinal Farnese; and died in his service, about the end of the sixteenth century, in the seventieth year of his age. By order of pope Pius V. he translated the catechism of the council of Trent into Greek; but the work for which he is best known is entitled “De Particulis Graecae linguae liber particularis,” of which there have been many editions, the first published by his nephew, Peter Devarius, at Rome, in 1558, 4to, and reprinted at London, 1657, 12mo Amsterdam, 1700 and 1718, &c. &c.

After a long stay in France, where he was highly caressed, he came over to England; and in 1639 was, with sir Walter Montague, employed by the queen to engage the papists to a liberal contribution to the king, which they effected; on which account some styled the forces then raised for his majesty, the popish army. Jan. 1640, the house of commons sent for sir Kenelm in order to know how far, and upon what grounds, he had acted in. this matter; which he opened to them very clearly, without having the least recourse to subterfuges or evasions. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, being at London, he was by the parliament committed prisoner to Winchesterhouse; but at length, in 1643, set at liberty, her majesty the queen dowager of France having condescended to write a letter, with her own hand, in his favour. His liberty was granted upon certain terms; and a very respectful letter written in answer to that of the queen. Hearne has preserved a copy of the letter, directed to the queen regent of France, in the language of that country; of which the following is a translation: “Madam, the two houses of parliament having been informed by the sieur de Gressy, of the desire your majesty has that we should set at liberty sir Kenelm Digby; we are commanded to make known to your majesty, that although the religion, the past behaviour, and the abilities of this gentleman, might give some umbrage of his practising to the prejudice of the constitutions of this realm; nevertheless, having so great a regard to the recommendation of your majesty, they have ordered him to be discharged, and have authorized us farther to assure your majesty, of their being always ready to testify to you their respects upon every occasion, as well as to advance whatever may regard the good correspondence between the two states. We remain your majesty’s most humble servants, &c.” In regard to the terms upon which this gentleman was set at liberty, they will sufficiently appear from the following paper, entirely written, as well as subscribed by his own hand: “Whereas, upon the mediation of her majesty the queen of France, it hath pleased both houses of parliament to permit me to go into that kingdom; in humble acknowledgement of their favour therein, and to preserve and confirm a good opinion of my zeal and honest intentions to the honour and service of my country, I do here, upon the faith of a Christian, and the word of a gentleman, protest and promise, that I will neither directly nor indirectly negociate, promote, consent unto or conceal, any practice or design prejudicial to the honour or safety of the parliament. And, in witness of my reality herein, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 3d day of August, 1643, Kenelm Digby.” Hovfever, before he quitted the kingdom, he was summoned by a committee of the house of commons, in order to give an account of any transactions he might be privy to between archbishop Laud and the court of Rome; and particularly as to an offer supposed to be made to that prelate from thence of a cardinal’s hat. Sir Kenelm assured the committee that he knew nothing of any such transactions; and that, in his judgment, the archbishop was what he seemed to be, a very sincere and learned protestant. During his confinement at Winchester-house, he was the author of two pieces at the least, which were afterwards made public; namely, 1. “Observations upon Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici,” 1643. 2. “Observations on the 22d stanza in the 9th canto of the 2d book of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” 1644, containing, says his biographer, “a very deep philosophical commentary upon these most mysterious verses.” His appearance in France was highly agreeable to many of the learned in that kingdom, who had a great opinion of his abilities, and were charmed with the spirit and freedom, of his conversation. It was probably about this time that, having read the writings of Descartes, he resolved to go to Holland on purpose to see him, and found him in his retirement at Egmond. There, after conversing with him. upon philosophical subjects some time, without making himself known, Descartes, who had read some of his works, told him, that “he did not doubt but he was the famous sir Kenelm Digby!” “And if you, sir,” replied the knight, “were not the illustrious M. Descartes, I should not have come here on purpose to see you.” Desmaizeaux, who has preserved this anecdote in his Life of St. Evremond, tells us also of a conversation which then followed between these great men, about lengthening out life to the period of the patriarchs, which we have already noticed in our account of Descartes. He is also said to have had many conferences afterwards with Descartes at Paris, where he spent the best part of the ensuing winter, and employed himself in digesting those philosophical treatises which he had been long meditating; and which he published in his own language, but with a licence or privilege from the French king the year following. Their titles are, J. “A Treatise of the nature of Bodies.” 2. “A Treatise declaring the operations and nature of Man’s Soul, out of which the immortality of reasonable Souls is evinced/' Both printed at Paris in 1644, and often reprinted at London. He published also, 3.” Institutionum peripateticarum libri quinque, curn appendice theologica de origine mundi," Paris, 1651: which piece, joined to the two former, translated into Latin by J. L. together with a preface in the same language by Thomas Albius, \hat is, Thomas White, was printed at London in 4to, 1C69.

, an English nobleman of great parts, was son of the preceding, and born at Madrid, in October, 1612. In 1626 he was entered of Magdalencollege, in Oxford, where he lived in great familiarity with the well-known Peter Heylin, and gave manifest proofs of those great endowments for which he was afterwards so distinguished. In 1636 he was created M. A. there, just after Charles 1. had left Oxford; where he had been spendidly entertained by the university, and particularly at St. John’s college, by Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In the beginning of the long parliament he was disaffected to the court, and appointed one of the committee to prepare a charge against the earl of Strafford, in 1640 but afterwards would not consent to the bill, “not only,” as he said, “because he was unsatisfied in the matter of law, but for that he was more unsatisfied in the matter of fact.” From that time he became a declared enemy to the parliament, and shewed his dislike of their proceedings in a warm speech against them, which he made at the passing' of the bill of attainder against the said earl, in April 1641. This speech was condemned to be burnt, and himself in June following, expelled the house of commons. In Jan. 1642, he went on a message from his majesty to Kingston-upon-Thames, to certain gentlemen there, with a coach and six horses. This they improved into a warlike appearance; and accordingly he was accused of high treason in parliament, upon pretence of his levying war at Kingston-upon-Thames. Clarendon mentions “this severe prosecution of a young nobleman of admirable parts and eminent hopes, in so implacable a manner, as a most pertinent instance of the tyranny and injustice of those times.” Finding what umbrage he had given to the parliament, and how odious they had made him to the people, he obtained leave, and a licence from his majesty, to transport himself into Holland; whence he wrote several letters to his friends, and one to the queen, which was carried by a perfidious confidant to the parliament, and opened. In a secret expedition afterwards to the king, he was taken by one of the parliament’s ships, and carried to Hull; but being in such a disguise that not his nearest relation could have known him, he brought himself off very dextrously by his artful management of the governor, sir John Hotham. In 1643 he was made one of the secretaries of state to the king, and high steward of the university of Oxford, in the room of William lord Say. In the latter end of 1645 he went into Ireland, and exposed himself to great hazards of his life, for the service of the king; from thence he passed over to Jersey, where the prince of Wales was, and after that into France, in order to transact some important matters with the queen and cardinal Mazarin. Upon the death of the king, he was exempted from pardon by the parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II. when he was restored to all he had lost, and made knight of the garter. He became very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in parliament, and distinguished himself by his enmity to Clarendon while chancellor. He died at Chelsea, March 20, 1676, after succeeding his father as earl of Bristol. Many of his speeches and letters are still extant, to he found in our historical collections and he wrote “Elvira,” a comedy, &c. There are also letters of his cousin sir Kenelm Digby, against popery, mentioned in our account of sir Kenelm yet afterwards he became a papist himself; which inconsistencies in his character have been neatly depicted by lord Orford. “He was,” says he, “a singular person, whose life was one contradiction. He wrote against popery, and embraced it; he was a zealous opposer of the court, and a sacrifice for it; was conscientiously converted in the midst of his prosecution of lord Strafford, and was most unconscientiously a prosecutor of lord Clarendon. With great parts he always hurt himself and his friends; with romantic bravery, he was always an unsuccessful commander. He spoke for the test act, though a Roman catholic, and addicted himself to astrology on the birth-day of true philosophy.”

, a Greek poet and musician, was the author of the words and music of three hymns, of which the first is addressed to Calliope, the second to Apollo, and the third to Nemesis. Of these the music has been preserved and published by Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, in 1672. This precious manuscript, which was found in Ireland, among the papers of the famous archbishop Usher, was bought, after his decease, by Mr. Bernard, fellow of St. John’s college, who communicated it to the editor, together with remarks and illustrations by the rev. Mr. Edmund Chilmead, of Christ church, who likewise redueed the ancient musical characters to those in common, use. It appears by the notes, that the music of these hymns was composed in the Lydian mode, and diatonic genus. Vincenzo Galilei, father of the great Galileo, first published these hymns with their Greek notes, in his “Dialogues upon Ancient and Modern Music,” printed at Florence, 1581, folio. He assures us, that he had them from a Florentine gentleman, who copied them very accurately from an ancient Greek manuscript, preserved in th library of cardinal St. Angelo, at Rome, which ms. likewise contained the treatises of music by Aristides Quintilianus, and Bryennius, since published by Meibomius and Dr. Wallis. The Florentine edition of these hymns entirely agrees with that printed at Oxford. In 1602, Hercules Bottrigari mentioned the same hymns in his harmonical discourse, called “Melone,” printed at Ferrara, in 4to. But he derived his knowlege of these pieces only from the Dialogues of Galilei; however, he inserted, in the beginning of his book, some fragments of them in common notes; but they were disfigured by a number of typographical errors. At length, in 1720, M. Burette published these three hymns in the “Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” ton), v. from a copy found at the end of a Greek manuscript in the king of France’s library at Paris, No. 3221, which likewise contained the musical treatises of Aristides Quintilianus, and of Bacchius senior'. But though the words were confused, and confounded one with another, they appeared much more complete in this manuscript than elsewhere, particularly the hymn to Apollo, which had six verses more at the beginning; and that to Nemesis, which, though deficient at the end in all the other editions, was here entire, having fourteen verses, exclusive of the six first.

, a Polish historian, was born in Ml 5, at Brzeznich, a town in Poland, of which his father was governor. In his sixth year, his father being appointed governor of Korczyn, he was removed thither with the family, and began his education, which was continued in the different places of which his father was successively appointed governor, until he was sent to Cracow. Here and at other places he pursued his studies, with very little encouragement from his father, but found a friend in Zbigneus, bishop of Cracow, who was a patron of learned men. This prelate first placed him at the head of his chancery, after that of his house, and at last made him general manager of his affairs; and he acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of the bishop, that on his death-bed he appointed him one of his executors. He had also ordained him priest at the age of twenty-five, and gave him some church preferment, particularly the living of St. Martin of Klobuczk, and a canonry of Cracow. He was afterwards promoted to be chanter, and treasurer of the church of Vissicza, canon of Sendomir, and got some other preferments less considerable. The only use he made of the wealth arising from these benefices, was to share it with poorer clergymen of talents and character;. or to bestow it on the poor, on the repairs of churches, and other pious purposes. Eugene IV. having appointed Zbigneus to the dignity of cardinal, and several impediments being thrown in the way of this preferment, Dlugoss went to Rome in 1449, and had these difficulties removed. Pope Nicholas V. employed him to carry the cardinal’s cap to the bishop, which he had the honour to put on his head in the cathedral of Cracovr, in the same year. In 1450 he took a journey to the land of Palestine, where he contemplated with veneration the places dignified by being the site of Scripture history. On his return to Poland, king Casimir IV. appointed him tutor to his sons, which office he filled for many years with great reputation. On the death of his early patron, cardinal Zbigneus, in April 1455, Dlugoss was accused by the brother of the deceased for having abused his confidence, a charge which he had little difficulty in repelling, but was less successful with the king, whose displeasure he incurred by espousing the cause of an ecclesiastic whom the pope had nominated bishop of Cracow, while the king had nominated another; and for this slight reason Dlugoss was exiled for the space of three years; at the end of which, however, he was recalled, and his majesty restored him to his favour, and not only consulted him on many public affairs of importance, but employed him to negociate in various parts of Europe, on matters respecting the interests of Poland. At length he was appointed archbishop of Leopold, but died before his consecration, May 29, 1480. His principal historical work is entitled “Historia Polonica,” the first volume of which was printed in 1615, fol. This edition, which is of rare occurrence, is one of the few scarce books which proceed from the private press of Herburt of Dobromil, It contains, however, only the first six books, bringing the history down to 1240; the rest remained in manuscript until 1711, when they were printed at Francfort, along with the preceding, under the title “J. Dlugossi historiie Polonicoe Hbri duodecim, &c.” This hrings the history down to 1444, but a continuation was published by J. G. Krause, which he called the thirteenth book, at Leipsic, 1712, folio, and which extends to 1480, the year of the author’s death. He is esteemed a very correct historian, although not free from the barbarism of his age. His other works are, 1. “Vita St. Stanislai episcopi et martyns,” Cracow, 1611 and 1666. 2. “Plocensium episcoporuin vita 1” which is inserted in “Stanislai Lubienski opera posthum^,” Antwerp, 1643, fol. 3.“Vitae episcoporum Postnajiiensium,” 1G'24, 4to and some other lives of bishops.

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

When Bedell returned to England, Dominis came over with him, and was at first received by the English clergy with all possible marks of respect. Here he preached and wrote against the Romish religion, and the king gave him the deanery of Windsor, the mastership of the Savoy, and the rich living of West Ildesley in Berkshire. De Dominis’s view seems to have been to reunite the Romish and English churches, which he thought might easily be effected, by reforming some abuses and superstitions in the former; “and then,” Grotius says, “he imagined, the religion of protestants and catholics would be the same.” After he had staid in England some years, he was made to believe, upon the promotion of pope Gregory XIV. who had been his school-fellow and an old acquaintance, that the pope intended to give him a cardinal’s hat, and to make use of him in all affairs; so that he fancied he should be the instrument of a great reformation in the church. This snare wa* laid for him chiefly by the artifice of Gondemar, the Spanish ambassador; and his own ambition and vanity (of both which he had a share) made him easily fall into it. Accordingly he returned to Rome in 1622, where he abjured his errors in a very solemn manner. He was at first, it is said, well received by the pope himself; but happening to say of cardinal Bellarmine, who had written against him, that he had not answered his arguments, he was complained of to the pope, as if he had been still of the same mind as when he published his books. He excused himself, and said, that though Bellarmine had not answered his arguments, yet he did not say they were unanswerable; and he offered to answer them himself, if they would allow him time for it. This imprudent way of talking, together with the discovery of a correspondence which he held with some protestants, furnished a sufficient plea for seizing him; and he was thrown into prison, where he died in 1625. It was discovered after his death, that his opinions were not agreeable to the doctrine of the church of Rome; upon which his corpse was dug up, and burnt with his writings in Flora’s Field, by a decree of the inquisition.

, was born in 1596, of a noble family, originally of Florence, and entered himself of the Minims. Cardinal Richelieu, who became acquainted with him during his retirement at Avignon, was so struck with his modesty and learning, that he gave him the bishopric of Itiez, in which diocese he did much good. From the see of Uiez he was translated to that of Autun, and died in 1664, at the age of sixty-eight. He published, 1. “A History of the Minims,” 4to.' 2. “The Life of queen Joan, foundress of the Annonciades,” 8vo. 3. “The Life of cardinal de Berulle,” in Latin, 8vo. 4. “The History of the Cardinals,” in Latin, 1660, 2 vols. folio, &c. His Latin works are more tolerable in regard to style than those in French, the diction of which is become obsolete.

, a French Jesuit, a native of Vernon, who died at Orleans Sept. 21, 1716, filled several high offices belonging to his order, and was said to have been the author of the famous problem levelled at the cardinal de Noailles, “Whom are we to believe? M. de Noailles, archbishop of Paris, condemning the exposition of faith, or M. de Noailles, bishop of Chalons, approving the moral reflections?” alluding to an apparent change in Noailles* opinions of the disputes between the Jansenists and Jesuits. Doucin was a member of the club or cabal which the Jansenists called the Norman cabal, and which was composed of the Jesuits Tellier, Lallemand, and Daniel; and his zeal and activity were of great service to them. During the dispute on the famous bull Unigenitus, he was sent to Rome, and was a powerful advocate for that measure. He wrote a very curious piece of ecclesiastical history, entitled “Histoire de Nestorianisme,” Paris, 1698, 4to another, entitled “Histoire de I'Origenisme,” 4to, and “Memorial abrege touchant l'etat et les progres de Jansenistne en Hollande,” written in 1697, when he accompanied the count de Creci to the congress at Ryswick. He was also the author of many pamphlets of the controversial kind, strongly imbued with the spirit of party.

, better known by the name of Bernard of Bibiena, an eminent cardinal, was born of a reputable family at Bibiena in 1470, and was sent at nine years of age to pursue his studies at Florence. His family connexions introduced him into the house of the Medici, and such was the assiduity with which he availed himself of the opportunities of instruction there afforded him, that at the age of seventeen, he had attained a great facility of Latin composition, and was soon afterwards selected by Lorenzo de Medici, as one of his private secretaries. He was also the principal director of the studies of John de Medici, afterwards Leo X. and when the honours of the church were bestowed on his pupil, the principal care of his pecuniary concerns was intrusted to Dovizi; in the execution of which he rendered his patron such important services, and conducted himself with so much vigilance and integrity, that some have not hesitated to ascribe to him, in a considerable degree, the future eminence of his pupil, who, when made pope, gave his tutor a cardinal’s cap. He also employed himself in several negociations. He sent him as legate to the army raised against the duke of Urbino; and also to the emperor Maximilian. In 1518 he was sent as legate to France to persuade the king to join in the crusade against the Turks, in which he would have succeeded, had not the pope discouraged the enterprize by his unreasonable distrust and caballing against France. Bibiena remonstrated against this conduct with great freedom in his letters to Rome, which is supposed to have hastened his death in Nov. 1520. Some have asserted that he was poisoned by the order or contrivance of Leo X. which is positively denied by the historian of that pontiff, as utterly destitute of proof.

, an eminent French writer and critic, secretary, and one of the forty members of the French academy, censor-royal, &c. was born at Beauvais, in December, 1670. After some elementary education at home, he came to Paris in 1686, and pursuing his studies, took his bachelor’s degree in divinity in 1691. One of his uncles, a canon of the cathedral of Beauvais, being attacked by a dangerous illness, resigned his canonry to him in 1695, but on his recovery chose to revoke his resignation. The nephew appears to have felt this and other disappointments in his view of promotion so keenly, as to determine to change his profession. He accordingly left Beauvais in the last-mentioned year, returned to Paris, and soon was distinguished as a man of abilities. The same year he acquired a situation in the office for foreign affairs, and became patronized by M. de Torcy, by whose means he accompanied the French plenipotentiaries to Ryswick, in 1696, where peace was concluded. After his return to France, he was sent to Italy in 1699, although without an ostensible character, to negociate some affairs of importance in the Italian courts, which occupied him until 1702. Some time after, he went to England, as charge d'affaires, and while the war occasioned by the contest about the crown of Spain was at its height, and had involved all Europe, he was the only minister France had at the court of St. James’s, where he resided without rank or character. He then went to the Hague, and to Brussels, and at this latter place wrote the manifesto of the elector of Bavaria, which did him so much credit. In 1707 we find him at Neufchatel, and in 1710 at Gertruydenburgh, and he appears to have had a considerable hand in the treaties of peace concluded at Utrecht, Baden, and Rastadt. All these services were recompensed in 1705, by the priory of Veneroles, and in 1714 by a canonry of the church of Beauvais. Having been employed in other state affairs by the regent and by cardinal Dubois, he was rewarded in 1716 by a pension of 2000 livres, and in 1723 was promoted to the abbey of Notre-Dame de Ressons, near Beauvais. As it was now his intention to execute the duties of these preferments, he received in 1724 the orders of subdeacon and deacon, and was about to have taken possession of his canonry, when he was seized with a disorder at Paris, which proved fatal March 23, 1742. In 1720 he was elected into the French academy, and in 1723 was appointed their secretary.

, a French ecclesiastic of the eighteenth century, was a priest of the diocese of Rouen, and vicar of St. Lawrence in that city, where his talents and religious conduct being conspicuous, notwithstanding his modesty, he was appointed to the curacy of Trouville in Caux, which he would have declined, had not the lord of that parish, and the curate of St. Lawrence, represented to him the great need there was of a diligent and well-informed ecclesiastic in that situation, not only to recover the inhabitants from their extreme ignorance of religion, but to inspire the neighbouring curates with a disposition for employing their time to the advantage of their flocks. M. le Due succeeded in these respects beyond expectation; but, after having done all the good he could in his cure, which he called his mission, left it to the great regret of his parishioners, and went to Paris, where he was obliged to accept the vicarship of St. Paul, out of respect to M. Gueret, who succeeded M. Bourret, and had drawn him to that parish. In this situation he laboured with good success during fifteen years, but being interdicted by M. de Vintimelle, 1731, on account of his opposition to some of the decrees of the church, he retired to the parish of St. Severin, and there died, May 3, 1744. An abridgment of his life appeared in 1745, at Paris, 12mo, in which the following works are attributed to him: “L‘Anne’e Ecclesiastique,” 15 vols. 12mo; an “Imitation, with Reflexions, Exercises, and Prayers,” 12mo; a translation of cardinal Bona’s “Way to Heaven, and shortest Way to go to God,” 12mo; the translation of several hymns in the Paris Breviary and part of the translation of M. de Thou, 16 vols. 4to.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

, a French historian, was born at Condom in 1569, of a noble family originally from Languedoc. His father had served with distinction under marshal de Montluc. Scipio having attracted notice at the court of queen Margaret, then at Nerac, came to Paris in 1605 with that princess, who afterwards made him her master of requests. His next appointment was to the post of historiographer of France, and he employed himself for a long time on the history of that kingdom. In his old age he compiled a work on the liberties of the Gallican. church; but the chancellor Seguier having caused the manuscript, for which he came to apply for a privilege, to be burnt before his face, he died of vexation not long after, at Condom, in 1661, at the age of ninety-two, the greater part of which time he had passed without sicknesses or infirmities. The principal of his works are, 1. “Memoirs of the Gauls,” 1650, folio, forming the first part of his History of France, a work much valued for its information, but ill written. 2. “History of France,” in 5, afterwards in 6 vols. fol. The narration of Dupleix is unpleasant, as well from the language having become obsolete, as from his frequent antitheses and puerile attempts at wit. Cardinal Richelieu is much flattered by the author, because he was living at the time; and queen Margaret, though his benefactress, is described like a Messalina, because she was dead, and the author had nothing farther to expect from her. Matthew de Morgues, and marshal Bassompierre both convicted him of ignorance and insincerity. Dupleix endeavoured to answer them, and after the death of the cardinal he wished to recompose a part of his history, but was presented by declining age. 3. “Roman History,” 3 vols. fol. an enormous mass, without spirit or life. 4. “A course of Philosophy,” 3 vols. 12mo. 5. “Natural Curiosity reduced to questions,” Lyons, 1620, 8vo, publications of which very little can be said in their praise. His “Liberte de la Langue Francaise,” against Vaugelas, does him still less credit; and upon the whole he appears to be one of those authors whose fame it would be impossible to revive, or perhaps to account for.

, a celebrated French cardinal, sprung of a noble family of Issoire, in Auvergne, appeared first at the bar of Paris. he was afterwards made lieutenant-general of the bailiwic of JMontferrant, then attoiv ney-general at the parliament of Toulouse. Rising from one post to another, he came to be first president of the parliament of Paris in 1507, and chancellor of France in 1515. He set out, it is said, by being solicitor at Cognac for the countess of Angouleme, mother of Francis I. This princess entrusted to him the education of her son, whose confidence he happily gained. Some historians pretend that Duprat owed his fortune and his fame to a bold and singular stroke. Perceiving that the count d'Angouleme, his pupil, was smitten with the charms of Mary, sister of Henry VIII. king of England, the young and beautiful wife of Louis XII. an infirm husband, who was childless; and finding that the queen had made an appointment with the young prince, who stole to her apartment during the night, by a back staircase; just as he was entering the chamber of Mary, he was seized all at once by a stout man, who carried him off confounded and dumb. The man immediately made himself known it was Duprat. “What!” said he sharply to the count, “you want to give yourself a master! and you are going to sacrifice a throne to the pleasure of a moment!” The count d'Angouleme, far from taking this lesson amiss, presently recollected himself; and, on coming to the crown, gave him marks of his gratitude. To settle himself in the good graces of this prince, who was continually in quest of money, and did not always find it, he suggested to him many illegal and tyrannical expedients, such as selling the offices of the judicature, and of creating a new chamber to the parliament of Paris, which, composed of twenty counsellors, formed what was called la Tournelle. By his influence also the taxes were augmented, and new imposts established, contrary to the ancient constitution of the kingdom, all which measures he pursued without fear or restraint Having attended Francis I. into Italy, he persuaded that prince to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction, and to make the Concordat, by which the pope bestowed on the king the right of nominating to the benefices of France, and the king granted to the pope the annates of the grand benefices on the footing of current revenue. While this concordat, which was signed Dec. 16, 1515, rendered him odious to the magistrates and ecclesiastics, he soon reaped the fruits of his devotion to the court of Rome; for, having embraced the ecclesiastical profession, he was successively raised to the bishoprics of Meaux, of Albi, of Valence, of Die, of Gap, to the archbishopric of Sens, and at last to the purple, in 1527. Being appointed legate a latere in France, he performed the coronation of queen Eleonora of Austria. He is said to have aspired to the papacy in 1534, upon the death of Clement VII.; but his biographers are inclined to doubt this fact, as he was now in years and very infirm. He retired, as the end of his days approached, to the chateau de Nantouillet, where he died July 9, 1535, corroded by remorse, and consumed by diseases. His own interests were almost always his only law. He sacrificed every thing to them; he separated the interests of the king from the good of the public, and sowed discord between the council and the parliament; while he did nothing for the dioceses committed to his charge. He was a long time archbishop of Sens, without ever appearing there once. Accordingly his death excited no regret, not even among his servile dependents. However, he built, at the HotelDieu of Paris, the hall still called the legate’s-hall. “It would have been much larger,” said the king, “if it could contain all the poor he has made.”

The lord chancellor, having repelled, with credit and success, this extraordinary attack, and being recovered from his indisposition, was, on the 12th of May 1616, constituted lord high steward for the trial of Robert earl of Somerset and Frances his wife, for poisoning sir Thomas Overbury, who were both convicted. After their conviction the chancellor resolutely and consistently refused to affix the great seal to the very extraordinary pardon granted, and already signed by the too indulgent lenity of the king, which was copied from one granted by the pope to cardinal Wolsey, and which ran in these words: “That the king, of his mere motion and special favour, did pardon all and all manner of treasons, misprisions of treasons, murders, felonies, and outrages whatsoever, by the said Robert Carre, earl of Somerset, committed, or hereafter to be committed.”

Erasmus, however, had no disposition for this way of life. “Convents,” he says, “were places of impiety rather than of religion, where every thing was done to which a depraved inclination could lead, under the sanction and mask of piety; and where it was hardly possible for any one to keep himself pure and unspotted.” This account he gives of them in a piece “De contemptu inundi,” which he drew up at Stein, when he was about twenty years of age; and which was the first thing he ever wrote. At length, the happy moment arrived when he was to quit the monastery of Stein. Henry a Bergis, bishop of Cambray, who was preparing at that time for Rome, with a view of obtaining a cardinal’s hat, wanted some person to accompany him who could speak and write Latin with accuracy and ease. Erasmus’s fame not being confined to the cloister, he applied to the bishop of Utrecht, as well as the prior of the convent, and they having given their consent, Erasmus went to Cambray, but soon found to his mortification that for certain reasons the bishop dropped his design. Still, as he was now loose from the convent, he went, with the leave and under the protection of the bishop, to study at the university of Paris. He was in orders when He went to Cambray; but was not made a priest till 1492, when he was ordained upon the 25th of February, by the bishop of Utrecht.

He had now given many public proofs of his uncommon abilities and learning, and his fame was spread in all probability over a great part of Europe; yet we find by many of his letters, that he still continued extremely poor. His time was divided between pursuing his studies, and looking after his patrons; the principal of whom was Autonius & Bergis, the abbot of St. Berlin, to whom he had been lately recommended, and who had received him very graciously. This abbot was very fond of him, and gave him a letter of recommendation to cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards pope Leo X.; for Erasmus had professed his intention to go into Italy, with a view of studying divinity some months at Bononia, and of taking there a doctor’s degree; also to visit Rome in the following year of the jubilee; and then to return home, and lead a retired life. But, although disappointed for want of the necessary means, he spent a good part of 1501 with the abbot of St. Berlin; and, the year after, we find him at Louvain, where he studied divinity under Dr. Adrian Florent, afterwards pope Adrian VI. This we learn from his dedication of Arnobius to this pope in 1522; and also from a letter of that pope to him, where he speaks of the agreeable conversations they were wont to have in those hours of studious leisure. In 1503 he published several little pieces, and amongst the rest his “Enchiridion militis Christian i:” which he wrote, he tells us, “not for the sake of shewing his eloquence, but to correct a vulgar error of those, who madereligion to consist in rites and ceremonies, to the neglect of virtue and true piety.” Long, indeed, before Luther appeared, Erasmus had discovered the corruptions and superstitions of the church of Rome, and had made some attempts to reform them. The “Enchiridion,” however, though it is very elegantly written, did not sell upon its first publication; but in 1518 Erasmus having prefixed a preface which highly offended the Dominicans, their clamours against it made its merit more known.

As Erasmus had no where more friends and patrons than in England, be made frequent visits to this island. Of these the principal were, Warham, archbishop of Canterbury; Tonstall, bishop of Durham; Fox, bishop of Winchester; Colet, dean of St. Paul’s; lord Montjoy, sir Thomas More, Grocyn, andLinacer; and he often speaks of the favours he had received from them with 'pleasure and gratitude. They were very pressing with him to settle in England; and “it was with the greatest uneasiness that he left it, since,” as he tells Culet, in a letter dated Paris, June 19th, 1506, “there was no country which had furnished him with so many learned and generous benefactors as even the single city of London.” He had left it just before, and was then at Paris in his road to Italy, where he made but a short stay, lest he should be disappointed, as had been the case more than once already. He took a doctor of divinity’s degree at Turin; from whence he pro-, ceeded to Bologna, where he arrived at the very time it was besieged by Julius II. He passed on for the present to Florence, but returned to Bologna upon the surrender of the town, and was time enough to be witness to the triumphant entry of that pope. This entry was made Nov. 10, 1506, and was so very pompous and magnificent, that Erasmus, viewing Julius under his assumed title of Christ’s vicegerent, and comparing his entry into Bologna with Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, could not behold it without the utmost indignation. An adventure, however, befel him in this city which had nearly proved fatal. The town not being quite clear of the plague, the surgeons, who had the care of it, wore something like the scapulars of friars, that people fearful of the infection might know and avoid them. Erasmus, wearing the habit of his order, went out one morning; and, being met by some wild young fellows with his white scapular on, was mistaken for one of the surgeons. They made signs to him to get out of the way; but he, knowing nothing of the custom, and making no haste to obey their signal, would have been stoned, if some citizens, perceiving his ignorance, had not immediately run up to him, and pulled off his scapular. To prevent such an accident for the future, he got a dispensation from. Julius II. which vvas afterwards confirmed by Leo X. to change his regular habit of friar into that of a secular priest. Erasmus now prosecuted his studies at Bologna, and contracted an acquaintance with the learned of the place;, with Paul Bombasius particularly, a celebrated Greek.pro-> fessor, with whom he long held a correspondence by letters. He was strongly invited at Bologna to read lectures; but, considering that the Italian pronunciation of Latin was different from the German, he declined it lest his mode of speaking might appear ridiculous. He drew up, however, some new works here, and revised some old ones. He augmented his “Adagia” considerably; and, desirous of having it printed by the celebrated Aldus Manutius at Venice, proposed it to him. Aldus accepted the offer with pleasure; and Erasmus went immediately to Venice, after having staid at Bologna little more than a year. Besides his “Adagia,” Aldus printed a new edition of his translation of the Hecuba and Iphigenia of Euripides; and also of Terence and Plautus, after Erasmus had revised and corrected them. At Venice he became acquainted with several learned men; among the rest, with Jerome Aleander, who for his skill in the tongues was afterwards promoted to the dignity of a cardinal. He was furnished with all necessary accommodations by Aldus, and also with several Greek manuscripts, which he read over and corrected at his better leisure at Padua, whither he was obliged to hasten, to superintend and direct the studies of Alexander, natural son of James IV. king of Scotland, although Alexander was at that time nominated to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. Erasmus studied Pausanias, Eustathius, Theocritus, and other Greek authors, undor the inspection and with the assistance of Musurus, who was one of those Greeks that had brought learning into the West, and was professor of that science at Padua.

Not enjoying a very good state of health at Padua, he went to Sienna, where he drew up some pieces of eloquence for the use of his royal pupil; and soon after to Rome, leaving Alexander at Sienna. He was received at Rome, as Rhenanus tells us, with the greatest joy and welcome by all the learned, and presently sought by persons of the first rank and quality. Thus we find that the cardinal John de Medicis, afterwards Leo X. the cardinal Raphael of St. George, the cardinal Gritnani, and Giles of Viterbo, general of the Augustines, and afterwards a cardinal, had a generous contention among themselves who should be foremost in civility to Erasmus, and have the most of his company. There is something interesting in the manner he was introduced to cardinal Gritnani, as related by himself in one of his letters, dated March 17, 1531: “When I was at Rome,” says he, “Peter Bembus often brought me invitations from Grimani, that I would come and see him. I never was fond of such company; but at last, that I might not seem to slight what is usually deemed a very great honour, 1 went. On arriving at his palace, not a soul could I perceive, either in or about it. It was after dinner; so, leaving the horse with my servant, I boldly ventured by myself into the house. I found all the doors open; but nobody was to be seen, though I had passed through three or four rooms. At last I happened upon a Greek, as I supposed, and asked him whether the cardinal was engaged He replied, that he bad company but asking what was my business Nothing, said I, but to pay iny compliments, which I can do as well at any other time. I was going; but halting a moment at one of the windows to observe the situation and prospect, the Greek ran up to me, and asked my name; and without my knowledge carried it to the cardinal, who ordered me to be introduced immediately. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as if I had been a cardinal conversed with me for two hours upon literary subjects and would not suffer me all the time to uncover my head ^ and upon my offering to rise, when his nephew, an archbishop, came in to us, he ordered me to keep my seat, saying, it was but decent that the scholar should stand before the master. In the course of our conversation, he earnestly entreated me not to think of leaving Rome, and offered to make me partaker of his house and fortunes. At length he shewed me his library, which was full of books in all languages, and was esteemed the best iti Italy, except the Vatican. If I had known Grimani sooner, I certainly should never have left Rome; but I was then under such engagements to return to England, as it was not in my power to break. The cardinal said no more upon this point, when I told him that I had been invited by the king of England himself; but begged me to believe him very sincere, and not like the common tribe of courtiers, who have no meaning in what they say. It was not without some difficulty that I got away from him; nor before I promised him, that I would certainly wait on him again before I left Rome. I did not perform my promise; for I was afraid the cardinal by his eloquence would tempt me to break my engagements with my English friends. I never was more wrong in my life but what can a man do, when fate drives him on”

Erasmus was at Rome when Julius II. made his entry into that city from the conquest of Bologna; and this entry offended him as much as that at Bologna had done. For he could not conceive that the triumphs of the church, as they were called, were to consist in vain pomp and worldly magnificence, but rather in subduing all mankind to the faitti and practice of the Christian religion. While he was at Rome he was taken under the protection of the cardinal Raphael of St. George; and at his persuasion, employed on the ungrateful task of declaiming backwards and forwards upon the same argument. He was first to dissuade from undertaking a war against the Venetians; and then to exhort and incite to the war, upon every‘ variation of the pontiffV mind. When he was preparing to leave Rome, many temptations and arguments were ’used to detain him; and the pope offered him a place among his penitentiaries, which is reckoned very honourable, and a step to the highest preferments in that court. But his engagements in England prevented his staying at Rome; though, as we have already seen, he afterwards repented that he did not. He set out from Rome to Sienna, where he had left the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, his pupil; who, not willing to quit Italy without seeing Jlome, brought him back thither again. After a short stay they went to Cumae, to see the Sibyl’s cave; and there his pupil parted from him, being recalled to Scotland, where he was, killed in a battle fought against the English at Flodden-field in 1513. Erasmus has left a grand eulogium on this young nobleman in his “Adagia.”

In 1515 he was at Basil; and this year Martin Dorpius, a divine of Louvain, instigated by the enemies of Erasmus, wrote against his “Praise of Folly;” to whom Erasmus replied with much mildness, as knowing that Dorpius, who was young and ductile, had been put upon it by others. He was the first adversary who attacked him openly, but Erasmus forgave him, and took him into his friendship (see Dorpius), which he would not easily have done, if he had not been good-natured, and, as he says of himself, “irasci facilis, tamen ut placabilis esset.” He wrote this year a very handsome letter to pope Leo X. in which he speaks of his edition of St. Jerome, which he had a mind to dedicate to him. Leo returned him a very obliging answer, and seems not to refuse the offer of Erasmus, which, however, did not take effect; for the work was dedicated to the archbishop of Canterbury. Not content with writing to him, Leo wrote also to Henry VIII. of England, and recommended Erasmus to him. The cardinal of St. George also pressed him much to come to Rome, and approved his design of dedicating St. Jerome to the pope: but he always declined going to Rome, as he himself declared many years after, or even to the imperial court, lest the pope or the emperor should command him to write against Luther and the new heresies. And therefore, when the pope’s nuncio to the English court had instructions to persuade Erasmus to throw himself at the pope’s feet, he did not think it safe to trust him; having reason to fear that the court of Rome would never forgive the freedoms he had already taken.

Erasmus received this year, 1518, a considerable present from Henry VIII. as also an offer of a handsome maintenance in England for the rest of his life; he thanked the king, but without either accepting or refusing the favour. A little time after, he wrote to cardinal Wolsey, for whom, however, he had no great affection; and after some compliments, heavily complained of the malice of certain calumniators and enemies of literature, who thwarted his designs of employing human learning to sacred purposes. “These wretches,” says he, “ascribe to Erasmus every thing that is odious; and confound the cause of literature with that of Luther and religion, though thejt have no connection with each other. As to Luther, he is perfectly a stranger to me, and I have read nothing of his, except two or three pages not that I despise him, but because my own pursuits will not give me leisure and yet, as I am informed, there are some who scruple not to affirm, that I have actually been his helper. If he has written well, the praise belongs npt to me nor the blame, if he has written, ill since in all his works there is not a line that came from me. His life and conversation are universally commended and it is no small prejudice in his favour, that his morals are unblameable, and that calumny itself can fasten no reproach on his life. If I had really had time to peruse his writings, I am not so conceited of my own abilities, as to pass a judgment upon the performances of so eminent a divine. I was once against Luther, purely for fear he should bring an odium upon literature, which is too much suspected of evil already,” &c. Thus he goes on to defend himself here, as he does in many other places of his writings; where we may always observe his reserve and caution not to condemn Luther, while he condemned openly enough the conduct and sentiments of Luther’s enemies. Though Erasmus addressed himself upon this occasion to Wolsey, yet it was impossible for the cardinal to be a sincere friend to him, because he was patronized by Warham, between whom and Wolsey there was no good understanding; and because the great praises which Erasmus frequently bestowed upon the archbishop would naturally be interpreted by the cardinal as so many slights upon himself. In his preface to Jerome, after observing of Warham, that he used to wear plain apparel, he relates, that once, when Henry VIII. and Charles V. had an interview, Wolsey took upon him to set forth an order that the clergy should appear splendidly dressed in silk and damask; and that Warham alone, despising the cardinal’s authority, appeared in his usual habit.

Erasmus now began to complain to his friends, and to represent himself as quite worn down with age, pain, and sickness; and in 1535 he returned to Basil, to try if he could recover his health, where he continued ever after. This year Bembus congratulates him upon the high regard which the pope had for him; and hopes that it would end in great preferment, by which he probably meant a cardinal’s hat. The enemies of Erasmus have affirmed, that the court of Rome never designed him such a favour; but Erasmus has affirmed the contrary, and says, “that having written to Paul III. that pope, before he had unsealed his letter, spoke of him in the most honourable manner: that he had resolved to add to the college of cardinals some learned men, of whom he might make use in the general council, which was to be called and I,” says Erasmus, “was named to be one. But to my promotion it was objected, that my bad state of health would make me unfit for that function, and that my income was not sufficient so at present they think of loading me with preferments, that I may be qualified for the red hat.” He declares, however, that his health would not permit him to accept such favours, since he could scarce stir out of his chamber with safety; and he refused every thing that was offered him.

, a learned French divine, was born at Chalons-sur-Marne in 1511, of noble parents, became a doctor of the Sorbonne, and was rector of the university of Paris. He preached with considerable applause; but having in one of his sermons called the “Légende Doreée” the “Légende Ferrée,” it was concluded that he did not believe in the worship of the saints; especially from his doubting of certain facts related by the legendary writers in the “Golden Legend,” of which he ventured to speak thus disrespectfully. The faculty of Paris was about to pass a censure on him; but he explained himself in another discourse, and the transient storm was succeeded by a calm. The cardinal de Lorraine, who was well aware of his merit, employed him in several affairs of importance. D‘Espence attended him to Flanders in 1544, for the purpose of ratifying the peace between Charles V. and Francis I. His eminence took him afterwards to Rome in 1555, where he made so conspicuous a figure, that Paul IV. would have honoured him with the purple, in order to retain him. But his intention was set aside (says fatrjer, Berthier) as being apparently contrary to the interests of France. The imperialists requested the hat for three monks; and therefore the cardinal de Lorraine, who IV voured the design of getting D’Espence into the sacred college, relinquished the idea. “I rather chose,” says he in a letter to the king, “that he should not be there, than that three monks should get in; accordingly I entreated his holiness to think no more of it, and, by that means, I kept out the whole crew.” D'Espence, liking far less to live at Rome than at Paris, returned to France, and appeared with consequence at the assembly of the states of Orleans in 1560, and at the conference of Poissy in 1561, where he attached himself to the Calvinists, which gave much offence to his popish brethren. He died of the stone at Paris, Oct. 5, 1571, in the sixtieth year of his age. He was one of the most moderate and judicious doctors of the age in which he lived, and with all his attachment to popery, was the declared enemy of all violent measures, and disapproved of persecutions. He was well versed in the sciences, both ecclesiastical and profane. His works are almost all written in Latin, with an elegance scarcely known to the theologians of that period. The principal of them are, 1. “A treatise on Clandestine Marriages;” in which he proves that the sons of distinguished families cannot validiy contract marriage, without the consent of their relations. 2. “Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus,” full of long digressions on the hierarchy and the ecclesiastical discipline. 3. Several controversial tracts, some in Latin and others in French. Ah his Latin works were collected at Paris in 1619, folio.

, son of the foregoing, is not so noted as his father, though he was one of the five authors employed by cardinal Richelieu in making his bad plays. He was received into the French academy in 1632, and died in 1652, at about the age of fifty-four. Moderately provided with the goods of fortune, but a man of strict honour, he rather chose to quit the capital with a woman of worth but of no fortune, whom he had married, than to beg at the table of a financier, or to be troublesome to his friends. Pelisson says of him, “that he had more genius than learning and knowledge.” Yet he had no small knowledge of the laws of the drama, and was a fastidious critic, both in regard to himself and to others. It is said that he caused a young man of Languedoc to die of grief, who came to Paris with a comedy which he fancied to be a chef-d'oeuvre, and in which the severe critic pointed out numerous defects. The same thing is related of Claude de Estoile which is told of Malherbe and of Moliere, that he read his works to his maid-servant. He wrote several pieces for the stage, not above mediocrity some odes that are rather below it and a few other pieces of poetry that have great merit. His odes are in the “Re­^ueil des Poetes Francois,” 1692, 5 vols. 12mo.

, cardinal, archbishop of Rouen, was son of John d'Estouteville, of an ancient and illustrious family of Normandy, and born in 1403. He was charged with important commissions during the reigns of Charles VII. and of Louis XI. reformed the university of Paris, and patronized the learned. He was a man of great firmness of character, and a very stern executor of justice. It is said that the Barigel of Rome having caught a thief in the fact, and resolved to put him to death upon the spot, as there was no hangman to be found, he obliged a French priest who happened to be travelling through that place, to execute an office so unworthy of his character. The cardinal being informed of the transaction, and unable to account for it, sent for the Barigel, and caused him immediately to be hanged at a window of his house. Being a zealous partisan for the pragmatic sanction, he called an assembly of bishops at Bourges, to discuss the means for a strict observance of that regulation, and measures were adopted for that end, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the deputies of the church of Bourdeaux and Peter their archbishop, in favour of the pope, to whom they were desirous of leaving a plenary power. D‘Estouteville died at Rome, being dean of the cardinals, the 22d of December, 1483, at the age of eighty. Besides the archbishopric of Rouen, he possessed six bishoprics in France, and in, Italy four abbeys and three grand priories; but he employed the greater part of the revenues in the decoration of the churches of which he had the care, and in relieving the poor. It was he who completed the castle of Gaillori, one of the finest pieces of architecture of the sixteenth century, which had been begun by the cardinal George D’Amboise.

, cardinal, abbot of St. Germaindes-Prés, son of the preceding, was born in 1C28, and raised to the see of Laon in 1653, after having received the doctor’s hood of Sorbonne. The king made choice of him, not long after, as mediator between the pope’s nuncio and the four bishops of Aleth, of Beauvois, of Pamiers, and of Angers, and he had so far the art of conciliating the most opposite tempers, as to effect a short-lived peace to the church of France. He went afterwards to Bavaria, by the appointment of Louis XIV. to negociate the marriage of the dauphin with the electoral princess, and to transact other affairs of importance; and afterwards he went to Rome, where he asserted the rights of France during the disputes about the regale, and was charged with all the business of the court, after the death of the duke his brother, in 1G89. He reconciled the disputes of the clergy with Rome, and had a great share in the elections of popes Alexander VIII. Innocent XII. and of Clement XI. When Philip V. set out to take possession of the throne of Spain, the cardinal d‘Estrées received orders to attend him, to be one of the ministry of that prince. He returned to France in 1703, and died in his abbey the 18th of December 1714, at the age of eighty-seven. The cardinal d’Estrées was well-versed in the affairs both of church and state. With 31 comprehensive genius, he possessed agreeable and polite manners, an amiable talent in conversation, a great equality of temper, a love for literature, and was charitable to the poor. If he was not always successful in his negociations, it was neither the fault of his understanding nor of his prudence. He wrote, 1. “L'Europe vivante et mourante,” Brussels (for Paris), 1759, 24mo. 2. “Replique, au nom de M. Desgrouais, a la lettre de l'abbé Desfontaines, inserée dans le 6 e vol. des Jugemens de M. Burlon de La Busbaquerie,” Avignon, 1745, 12mo.

, a learned Jesuit, was a native of Crete, and supposed to be descended from the imperial family of the Palseologi. He went to Rome in pursuit of knowledge, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesus. He was afterwards professor of philosophy, and then of theology in the university of Padua, rector of the Greek college in Rome, and censor of the inquisition. He was honoured with the esteem and friendship of pope Urban VIII. who appointed him chaplain to his nephew cardinal Francis Barberini, when he was sent papal legate into France. He died at Rome Dec. 24, 1625. He was suspected to be the author of a work entitled “Admonitio ad Regem Ludovicum XIII.” which attacked the authority of the kings of France, in matters of an ecclesiastical nature. This treatise brought the Jesuits into general disrepute; it was likewise censured by the faculty of the Sorbonne, and the assembly of the clergy at Paris in 1626, and condemned by the parliament. He merits notice here, however, chiefly for having frequently entered the lists of controversy with many eminent English divines, who wrote against popery about the beginning of the seventeenth century, particularly Burhill, Prideaux, Abbot, and Collins, but the titles of his works may now be spared.

, brother of the celebrated historian Mezerai, was born at Rye in the diocese of Ses in 1601, and was educated, and studied for eighteen years in the congregation of the oratory, under the eyes of the cardinal de Berulle. This he quitted in 1643, to institute the congregation of the Eudists, or as it was called, “The congregation of Jesus and Mary.” His former brethren opposing the establishment of this society, Eudes concealed a part of his project, and confined his views to a house at Caen, for the purpose of bringing up priests, “but without any design,” said he, “to form anew institution,” and his scheme succeeded by means of this pious fraud. Eudes was reckoned a good preacher in his time, when the eloquence of the pulpit was in its ruder state; and, being followed on account of this talent, his congregation increased, principally in Normandy and Bretany. Eudes died at Caen, Aug. 19th, 1680, in the 79th year of his age; leaving behind him several works of the popish mystical kind, the principal of which are, 1. “Traite de la devotion et de l'office du coeur de la Vierge,” 1650, 12mo. 2. “LeContrat de Phomme avec Dieu,” 12mo. The congregation of the Eudists had had eight superior-generals at the time of the revolution.

, prince of Savoy, an illustrious general, was born in 1663, and descended from Carignan, one of the three branches of the house of Savoy. His father was Eugene Maurice, general of the Swiss and Grisons, governor of Champaigne in France, and earl of Soissons; his mother donna Olympia Mancini, neice to cardinal Mazarin. In 1670 he was committed to the tuition of a doctor of the Sorbonne; but his father dying before he was ten years of age, after the French king had given him the grant of an abbey as a step to a cardinal’s hat, and the government of Champaigne being given out of his family, occasioned an alteration in his intended profession; which was indeed by no means suitable to his genius, although he gave great and early hopes of proficiency in the belles lettres, and is said to have been particularly fond of Curtius and Cæsar. He was a youth of great spirit, and so jealous of the honour of his family, that when his mother was banished by the king’s order from the French court to the Low Countries, soon after her husband’s decease, he protested against the injustice of her banishment, and vowed eternal enmity to the authors and contrivers of it. After being for a time trained to the service of the church, for which he had no relish, he desired the king, who maintained him according to his quality, to give him some military employment. This, however, was denied him, sometimes on account of the weakness of his constitution, sometimes for want of a vacancy, or a war to employ the troops in. Apprehending from hence that he was not likely to be considered so much as he thought he deserved in France, and perceiving that he was involved in the disgrace of his mother, he resolved to retire to Vienna with one of his brothers, prince Philip, to whom the emperor’s ambassador had, in his master’s name, promised a regiment of horse. They were kindly received by the emperor; and Eugene presently became a very great favourite with his imperial majesty. He had in the mean time many flattering promises and invitations to return to France; but his fidelity to the emperor was unshaken, and he resolved to think no more of France, but to look on himself as a German, and to spend his life in the service of the house of Austria.

As to a general character of prince Eugene, it may easily be collected from what has already been said of him. He was always remarkable for his liberality; one instance of which he shewed, while he was here in England, to Mrs. Centlivre, the poetess; who, having addressed to him a trifling poem on his visiting England, received from him a gold snuff-box, valued at about 35 pistoles. He was also a man of great and unaffected modesty, so that he could scarcely bear, with any tolerable grace, the just acknowledgments that were paid him by all the world. Burnet, who was admitted several times to much discourse with him, says, that “he descended to an easy equality with those who conversed with him, and seemed to assume nothing to himself, while he reasoned with others.” He said jokingly one day, when the duke of Marlborough talking of his attachment to his queen, Regina pecunia, “Money is his queen.” This great general was a man of letters; he was intended for the church, and was known at the court of France by the name of the abbé de Savrie. Having made too free in a letter with some of old Louis the Fourteenth’s gallantries, he fled out of France, and served as a volunteer in the emperor’s service in Hungary against the Turks, where he soon distinguished himself by his talents for the military art. He was presented by the emperor with a regiment, and a few years afterwards made commander in chief of his armies. Louvois, the insolent war-minister of the insolent Louis XIV. had written to him to tell him, that he must never think of returning to his country: his reply was, “Eugene entrera un jour en France en dépit de Louvois & de Louis.” In all his military expeditions, he carried with him Thomas a Kempis “de Imitatione.” He seemed to be of the opinion of the great Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, “that a good Christian always made a good soldier.” Being constantly busy, he held the passion of love very cheap, as a mere amusement, that served only to enlarge the power of women, and to abridge that of men. He used to say, “Les amoureux sont dans la société ce que les fanatiques sont en religion.” His amusement was war, and in the Memoirs written by himself, and lately published, he speaks of some of its horrors with too little feeling. It is said that he was observed to be one day very pensive, and was asked by his favourite aid-de-camp on what he was meditating so deeply? “My good friend,” replied he, “I am thinking, that if Alexander the Great had been obliged to wait for the approbation of the deputies of Holland before he attacked the enemy, how impossible it would have been for him to have made half the conquests that he did!” This illustrious conqueror lived to a great age, and being tam Mercurio quam Marte, “as much a scholar as a captain,” amused himself with making a fine collection of books, pictures, and prints, which are now in the emperor’s collection at Vienna. The celebrated cardinal Passionei, then nuncio at Vienna, preached his funeral sermon, from the following text of apocryphal Scripture: “Alexander, son, of Philip the Macedonian, made many wars, took many strong holds, went through the ends of the earth, took spoils of many nations: the earth was quiet before him. After these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.”—Maccabees.

, a bookseller of London, and deserving notice not only for spirit and integrity in business, but for considerable literary taste and talents, was born in. 1742, and served his apprenticeship with Mr. Charles Marsh, a bookseller of reputation in Round-court, Strand, and at Charing-cross. Mr. Evans soon after his apprenticeship had terminated, set up in business, and by his acquaintance with English literature, which he had assiduously cultivated, was enabled to strike out many of those schemes of publication which do credit to the discernment of the trade, and as far as his own fortune permitted to embark alone in many republications which shewed the correctness of his judgment and his regard for the literary character of his country. Among these we may enumerate new editions of, 1. “Shakspeare’s Poems,” 1774. 2. “Buckingham’s Works,” 1775. 3. “Nicolson’s Historical Library,” 1776. 4. “Four volumes of Old Ballads, with notes,” l?7l 1784. Of this his son has lately published an improved edition. 5. “Cardinal de Retz’s Memoirs.” 6. “Savage’s Works,” 1777. 7. “Goldsmith’s Works,” 1777. 8. “Prior’s Works,” 1779. 9. “Rabelais’s Works.” 10. “History of Wales.” 11. “Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa,” 1779, in an advertisement to which he announced an intention of re-printing the “Notitia Monastica” of bishop Tanner, which has since been accomplished by Dr. Nasmith. To all these works Mr. Evans prefixed Dedications written with neatness and elegance, addressed to his literary patrons, Garrick, sir Joshua Reynolds, Mr. Sheridan, &c. He died in the prime of life, April 30, 1784, leaving a widow and son, the latter now a bookseller in Pall-mall, and the well-known and successful vendor of the most curious and valuable library ever sold in this, or perhaps, in some respects, in any other country, that of the late duke of Roxburgh.

Mr. Evelyn’s tour is thus chronicled by himself: “July 26, 1643, he went to France, and having passed the remainder of the year, with the winter and next spring, at Paris, ia which time he made an excursion into Normandy, and saw Rouen, April 25, 1644, he set out for Orleans, and after visiting Blois, Tours, Anjou, and all the fine places on the Loire, together with the town and palace built by the great cardinal Richelieu, and called by his name, he arrived Sept. 2 at Lyons, and went from thence by Avignon to Marseilles, and so along the coast to a little town called Canes, where (in Oct.) he embarked and arrived at Genoa, the curiosities of which having viewed, he proceeded to Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, Sienna, and so came (Nov. 4) to Rome, where he spent the winter in seeing all the antiquities and curiosities of that famous city, making an excursion (Jan. 27, 1644-5) to Naples, and returning Feb. 7. May 18 he left Rome, and passing through Bologna and Ferrara, came (in June) to Venice, where he spent the remaining part of the year, and sometimes going to Padua, where the earl of Arundel was, the great collector of pictures, statues, &c. whom he was acquainted with, and who, at his taking leave of him, gave him directions written with his own hand, what curiosities to inquire after in his travels. March 20, 1646, he left Venice in company with Mr. Waller the poet, and went to Milan, taking Vincenza and Verona in his way; from hence he passed the Alps, and came to Geneva. In July he departed from Geneva, and in October got to Paris again by the way of Orleans.”

Secundus having nearly attained the age of twenty-one, and being determined, as it would seem; to comply as far as possible with the wishes of his father, quitted Mechlin, and went to France, where at Bourges, a city in the Orleanois, he studied the civil law under the celebrated Andreas Alciatus, who was particularly endeared to our author by his general acquaintance with polite literature, and especially by his taste in poetry. Having studied a year tinder this eminent civilian, and taken his degrees, he returned to Mechlin, where he remained only a very few months. In 1533 he went into Spain with warm recommendations to the count of Nassau and other persons of high rank; and soon afterwards became secretary to the cardinal archbishop of Toledo, in a department of business which required no other qualifications than what he possessed in a very eminent degree, a facility in writing with elegance the Latin language. It was during his residence with this cardinal that he wrote his “Basia,” a series of amatory poems, of which the fitih, seventh, and ninth carmina of Catullus seem to have given the hint. Secundus was not, however, a servile imitator of Catullus. His expressions seem to be borrowed rather from Tibullus and Propertius; and in the warmth of his descriptions he has the disgrace to exceed all former writers.

In 1535 he accompanied the emperor Charles V. to the siege of Tunis, but gained no laurels as a soldier. The hardships which were endured at that memorable siege were but little suited to the soft disposition of a votary of Venus and the Muses; and upon an enterprise which might have furnished ample matter for an epic poem, it is remarkable that Secundus wrote nothing which has been deemed worthy of preservation. Having returned from his martial expedition, he was sent by the cardinal to Rome to congratulate the pope upon the success of the emperor’s arms; but was taken so ill on the road, that he was not able to complete his journey. But being advised to seek without a moment’s delay, the benefit of his native air, he soon recovered. Having now quitted the service of the archbishop of Toledo, he was employed in the same office of secretary to the bishop of Utrecht; and so much had he jhitherto distinguished himself by the classical elegance of his compositions, that he was soon called upon to fill the important post of private Latin secretary to the emperor, who was then in Italy. This was the most honourable office to which our author was ever appointed; but before he could enter upon it, death put a stop to his labours. Having arrived at St. Arnaud, in the district of Tournay, in order to meet, upon business, with the bishop of Utrecht, he was on Oct. 8, 1536, cut off by a violent fever, in the very flower of his age, not having quite completed his twenty-fifth year. He was interred in the church of the Benedictines, and his relations erected to his memory a marble monument, with a plain Latin inscription.

In 1644 he made the campaign of Fribourg; and the following year he received a dangerous wound at the battle of Notlingen. Being ordered to head a squadron, and to post himself below an eminence which was possessed by the enemy, he was there exposed, for three hours together, to all the fire of their small shot, and a battery of four field-pieces; so that he lost there most of his men, and was himself wounded in the left knee. His wound was so dangerous, that for six weeks he was supposed to be past recovery; but, by the skill of his surgeons, and the excellency of his constitution, his cure was at length effected. Thirty years after, however, his wound opened afresh in, London; but, being properly treated, he felt no inconvenience from it, excepting that his left leg was somewhat weaker than the other. After the taking of Fumes, in 1646, the duke of Enguien appointed M. de St. Evremond to carry the news of it to court; and having, at the same time, opened to him his design of besieging Dunkirk, charged him to propose it to cardinal Mazarin, and to settle with him every thing which was necessary for the execution of that undertaking. M. de St. Evremond managed this business with so much dexterity, that he prevailed on the prime minister to agree to every thing which was required by the duke of Enguien. But, in 1648, he lost the post which he had near that nobleman, now, by the death of his father, become prince of Conde. This prince took great delight in discovering what was ridiculous in the characters of his acquaintance; and often indulged himself in laughing at their foibles in private, in company with the count de Moissens and M. de St. Evremond. But the prince of Conde, who took great pleasure in ridiculing others, was not fond of being ridiculed himself. He was informed, that St. Evremond and the count had found out, that there was somewhat ridiculous even in him; that his extreme solicitude to discover the foibles of others was in itself a species of the ridiculous; and that they sometimes amused themselves with laughing at his highness. This excited in him so much resentment, that he took from M. de St. Evremond the lieutenancy of his guards, and would have no farther correspondence with the count de Moissens. It is, however, supposed, that a reconciliation would have been effected, if they had not been separated by the civil war, which about this time took place in France. When the prince of Conde" returned into France, after the Pyre nean treaty, M. de St. Evremond went to wait upon him, and was very favourably received. The prince offered him his protection; and afterwards, on several occasions, gave him assurances of his affection and esteem.

In 1649 M. de St. Evremond went into Normandy, to visit his relations. About this time the parliament of Paris had declared against cardinal Mazarin; and the duke of Beaufort, the prince of Conti, and the duke of Longueville, following their example, the latter retired to his government of Normandy, where he assembled the nobility, and very earnestly endeavoured to prevail on St. Evremond to engage in his party. With this view he was offered the command of the artillery; but this office he declined; and has given a facetious account of his refusal in a satirical piece written by him about this time, entitled, “The duke of Longueville’s Retreat to his Government of Normandy.” He says, “They had a mind to bestow the command of the ordnance on St. Evremond; and, to speak the truth, considering his affection for St Germain’s (where the king then was), he would have been glad to have served the court, by accepting a considerable employment, of the business of which he knew nothing. But, having promised count de Harcourt to take no employment, he kept his word, not only from a principle of honour, but that he might not be like the Normans, most of whom had broken their promise. From these considerations, he was induced generously to refuse the money that was offered to him, but which would never have been paid him.”

When the civil war broke out, the French king, being acquainted with St. Evremond’s merit and bravery, and knowing that he had constantly refused to join with those who were in opposition to the court, made him a mareschal de. camp, or major-general. His commission was dated Sept. 6, 1652; and the next day he received a warrant for a pension of three thousand livres a year. He served afterwards in the war of Guienne, under the duke of Candale; but, after the reduction of Guienne, he was committed to the Bastile, where he ivas confined as a prisoner two or three months. Some jests that had been thrown out relative to cardinal Mazarin, in a company wherein St. Evremond was present, but in which he had no greater share than the rest, were the pretence for his confinement. But the true reason of it was supposed to be, a suspicion that he had given some advice to the duke of Candale, which was inconsistent with the cardinal’s views. However, when St. Evremond obtained his liberty, he went to return thanks to the cardinal for his enlai?gement. Mazarin told him on this occasion, that “he was persuaded of his innocence, but that a man in his station was obliged to hearken to so many reports, that it was very difficult for him to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and not sbmetimes to do injustice to an honest man.”

In 1654, M. de St. Evremond served in Flanders; and about three years after fought a duel with the marquis de Fore. He continued in the service in Flanders till the suspension of arms, which was agreed upon between France and Spain in 1659. The following year, he came over into England with count de Soissons, who was sent on an embassy to congratulate Charles II. on the restoration; and, when cardinal Mazarin set out from Paris with a great retinue, in order to negociate a treaty with the first minister of the king of Spain, St. Evremond was one of those who accompanied him. He afterwards sent a letter concerning the conferences to the marquis de Crequi, in which he informed him, that the cardinal had sacrificed the honour and interests of France to his own private views. In one part of this letter he said, “It is the cardinal’s maxim, that a minister does not so much belong to the state as the state to the minister; and, for this reason, if God grant bim but a few years, he will get all the estates in the kingdom into his own hands.” This letter of St. Evremond, concerning the Pyreneau treaty, became the occasion of his banishment from France. After the death of the cardinal, a copy of the letter fell into the hands of some of the courtiers who had been connected with him. They represented to his majesty the danger of allowing private men to judge of state affairs, and to censure the conduct of ministers. Their representations made such an impression on the mind of Lewis, that he immediately ordered M. de St. Evremond to be committed to the Bastile. But St. Evremoud had no inclination to pay a second visit to that fortress; and, therefore, having received private information of the design, found means to make his escape out of France, and arrived in Holland about the end of the year 1661.

, an eminent French officer, was the son of a bookseller at Mentz (author of “Notes sur la Couturhe de Lorraine,” 1657, fol.) He was educated with the duke d'Epernon, and saved the royal army at the famous retreat of Mentz; which has been compared by some authors to that of Xenophon’s 10,000. Being wounded in the thigh by a musket at the siege of Turin, M. de Turenne, and cardinal de la Valette, to whom he was aid de camp, intreated him to submit to an amputation, which was the advice of all the surgeons but he replied, “I must not die by piece-meal death shall have me intire, or not at all.” Having, however, recovered from this wound, he was afterwards made governor of Sedan; where he erected strong fortifications, and with so much ceconomy, that his majesty never had any places better secured at so little expence. In 1654 he took Stenay, and was appointed marechal of France in 1658. His merit, integrity, and modesty, gained him the esteem both of his sovereign and the grandees. He refused the collar of the king’s orders, saying it should never be worn but by the ancient nobility; and it happened, that though his family had been ennobled by Henry IV. he could not produce the qualifications necessary for that dignity, and “would not,” asi he said, “have his cloke decorated with a cross, and his soul disgraced by an imposture.” Louis XIV. himself answered his letter of thanks in the following terms: “No person to whom I shall give this collar, will ever receive more honour from it in the world, than you have gained in my opinion, by your noble refusal, proceeding from so generous a principle.” Marechal Fabert died at Sedan, May 17, 1662, aged sixty-three. His Life, by father Barre, regular canon of St. Genevieve, was published at Paris, 1752, 2 vols. 12mo. There is one older, in one thin vol. 12ino.

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

, a famous painter, in the early stage of the art after its restoration, was born at Verona in 1332, and was a disciple of Giovanni da Fiesole. His most conspicuous work was a picture in the great council chamber of the state of Venice, executed by order of the doge and senate, who regarded the work in so extraordinary a degree of esteem, that they granted him a pension for life, and conferred upon him the privilege of wearing the habit of a noble Venetian; the highest honour in the power of the state to bestow. Many of his pictures adorn the pope’s palace of St. Giovanni Laterano, and the churches in Florence, Urbino, Perugia, Sienna, and Rome. One of them in the church of Santa Maria Nuova, placed over the tomb of cardinal Adimari, representing the Virgin and child, with St. Joseph and St. Benedict, was highly commended by Michael Angelo; whom Vasari represents as being accustomed to say that in painting the hand of Gentile was correspondent with his name. He died in 1412, 80 years old.

, a learned popish divine in the sixteenth century, was born at a village in the country of Liege, and studied philosophy and divinity under his brother Geoffry; such was his progress that he was soon preferred to teach those sciences at Louvain. While here Otho, cardinal of Augsburgh, engaged him in his service, and sent him to Rome where he. remained his agent for about six years under the pontificate of Pius V. On his return he was promoted to be counsellor to the dukes of Bavaria, and by their interest was farther advanced to the provostship of Ottingen, where probably he died, in 1581. His principal work was “Harmonia confessionis Augustinianae,” Cologn, 1573 and 1587, folio. He wrote also a “Catechism,” with notes and illustrations, Antwerp, 1600, 8vo and three “Latin tragedies,” which are said to be written in elegant language: 1. “Jeroboam rebellens,” Tngoldstadt, 1585. 2. “Religio patiens,” Cologn, 1566; and “Samson,” ibid. 1569. The two former, it must be observed, are ingeniously contrived to assimilate the heretics, that is those of the reformed religion, with the rebellious Israelites.

From his earliest youth he cultivated a pure and ready Latin style, and as a specimen, he now, encouraged by Foggini, published the life of Clement XII. in that language. This however, he allows, was a severe task, and although he re-wrote it twice or thrice, and had the advice of his friend, he did not think it worthy of the illustrious subject. Cardinal Corsini, however, had a higher opinion of its merit, and not only defrayed the expence of printing, but made the author a handsome present.‘ Such liberality produced a suitable impression on Fabroni’ s mind, who became in gratitude attached to this patron, and when a female of the Corsini family married about this time, he, with learned gallantry, invited the most celebrated Italian poets to celebrate the joyous occasion. About this time having presented an oration, which he had delivered in. the pope’s chapel, on the ascension, to Benedict XIV. his holiness received him very graciously, and exhorted him to continue the studies he had begun so well. Among these we find that he had for some time made considerable progress in canon law, and had even defended some causes, but afterwards resigned all this for the more agreeable study of the belles lettres and classics. At the funeral of James III. of England, as he was styled, Fabroni was ordered by his college to compose an oration in praise of that prince, which he accordingly delivered in the presence of the cardinal duke of York, who expressed his sense of its merit not only by tears and kind words, but by a liberal present.

There have been five editions of Fabyan; the first printed by Pynson, in 1516, the great rarity of which is attributed by Bale to cardinal Wolsey, who ordered some copies “exemplaria nonnulla” to be burnt, because the author had made too clear a discovery of the revenues of the clergy. This obnoxious part, Mr. Ellis thinks, was the abstract of the bill projected by the house of commons in the eleventh year of Henry IV. for depriving ecclesiastics of their temporal possessions. Bale’s assertion, however, is unsupported by any other writer. The second edition was printed by Rastell in 1533; the third by John Reynes in 1542; the fourth by Kingston in 1559, all in folio; and the fifth makes part of the series of Chronicles lately reprinted by a society of the most eminent booksellers of London, and was edited by Henry Ellis, esq. F. R. S. and F. S. A. with such collations and improvements as give it a very superior value. It is reprinted from Pynson’s edition of 1516, the first part collated with the editions of 1533, 1542, and 1559, and the second with a manuscript of the author’s own time, as well as the subsequent editions including the different continuations.

, an elegant Latin poet and philologist, was born at Cremona in the early part of the sixteenth century, and by his accomplishments in polite literature, gained the esteem and friendship of the cardinal de Medicis, afterwards pope Pius IV. and of his nephew the cardinal Borromeo. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin language, he was enabled to display much judgment in the correction of the Roman classics, and in the collation of ancient manuscripts on which he was frequently employed, and indeed had an office of that kind in the Vatican library. Ghilini says that he was equally learned in the Greek language, but Muret asserts that he was quite unacquainted with the Greek. That he was a very elegant Latin poet, however, is amply proved by his “Fables,” and perhaps his being accused of stealing from Phgedrus may be regarded as a compliment to his style. Thuanus appears to have first suggested this accusation. He says that the learned world was greatly obliged to him, yet had been more so, if, instead of suppressing, he had been content with imitating the Fables of Phaedrus, and asserts that Faeruo dealt unfairly with the public concerning Phoedrus, who was then unknown; having a manuscript of that author, which he concealed from the world for fear of lessening the value of the Latin fables he had made in imitation of Æsop. Perrault, however, who published a translation of Faerno’s Fables into French verse at Paris in 1699, has defended his author from Thuanus’s imputation. His words in the preface are as follow “Faerno has been called a second Phsedrus, by reason of the excellent style of his Fables, though he never saw Phaedrus, who did not come to our knowledge till above thirty years after his death; for Pithoeus, having found that manuscript in the dust of an old library, published it in the beginning of this century, Thuanus, who makes very honourable mention of our author in his history, pretends, that Phcedrus was not unknown to him; and even blames him for having suppressed that author, to conceal what he had stolen from him. But there is no ground for what he says; and it is only the effect of the strong persuasion of all those who are so great admirers of antiquity as to think that a modern author can do nothing that is excellent, unless he has an ancient author for his model. Out of the hundred fables which Faerno published in Latin verse, there are but five that had been treated by Phsedrus $ and out of those five there are but one or two that have been managed nearly in the same manner: which happened only because it is impossible that two men, who treat on the same subject, should not agree sometimes in the same thoughts, or in the same expressions.”

, a learned minister of the church, and most intrepid reformer, was the son of a gentleman of Dauphine in France, and born at Gap in 1489. He studied philosophy, and Greek and Hebrew, at Paris with great success, and was for some time a teacher in the college of cardinal le Moine. Briyonnet, bishop of Meaux, hem.; inclined to the reformed religion, invited him to preach in his diocese in 1521; but the persecution raised there against the early protestants who were styled heretics, in 1523, obliged him to provide for his security out of France. He then retired to Strasburgh, where Bucer and Capito admitted him as a. brother; and he was afterwards received as such by Zwinglius at Zurich, by Haller at Berne, and by Oecolampadius at Basil. As he was thought well qualified by zeal and knowledge for such a task, he was advised to undertake the reformation of religion at Montbeliard, in which design he was supported by the duke of Wittenberg, who was lord of that place; and he succeeded in it most happily. He was a man on some occasions of too much warmth and enthusiasm against popery, which, however, he tempered a little, by the advice of Oecolampadius. Once on a procession-day, he pulled out of the priest’s hand the image of St. Antony, and threw it from a bridge into the river, a boldness and imprudence which was unnecessary, and might have cost him his life. Erasmus by no means liked Farel’s temper, as appears from what he wrote of him to the official of Besancon. “You, have,” says he, “in your neighbourhood the new evangelist, Farel; than whom I never saw a man more false, more virulent, more seditious.” Erasmus has also given a very unfavourable character of him elsewhere: but he thought Farel had censured him in some of his writings, and therefore is not to be altogether believed in every thing he says of him; nor indeed was a man of decision and intrepidity likely to be a favourite with the timid and time-serving Erasmus.

, knight, and knight-banneret, a valiant and renowned general, governor, and nobleman in France, during our conquests in that kingdom, under king Henry IV. V. and VI. of England, and knight-companion of the most noble order of the garter, has been supposed, from the title of his French barony, and from his name being so often corruptly mentioned in the French histories^ owing to his long residence, and many engagements in the wars there, to have been born in France, at least of French extraction. Others, allowing him to have been a native of England, have no less erroneously fixed hist birth-place in Bedfordshire; but it is well known that he was descended of an ancient and famous English family in the county of Norfolk, which had flourished there and in other parts of the kingdom, in very honourable distinction, before the conquest: and from a train of illustrious ancestors, many of them dignified with the honour of knighthood, invested with very eminent employments, and possessed of extensive patrimonies. But one of the principal branches being seated at Castre in Fleg near Great Yarmouth in that county, which estate descending to these ancestors, he afterwards adorned with a noble family seat, it is presumed he was born therej or in Yarmouth. His father was John Fastolff, esq. of that town, a man of considerable account, especially for his public benefactions, pious foundations, &c. His mother was Mary, daughter of Nicholas Park, esq. and married to sir Richard Mortimer, of Attleburgh; and this their son was born in the latter end of king Edward the Illd’s reign. As he died at the age of eighty, in 1459, his birth could not happen later than 1378. It may fairly be presumed he was grounded as well in that learning and other accomplishments which afterwards, improved by his experience and sagacity, rendered him so famous in war and peace, as in those virtuous and religious principles which governed his actions to the last. His father dying before he was of age, the care of his person and estate were committed to John duke of Bedford, who was afterwards the most wise and able regent of France we ever had there; and he was the last ward which that duke had: others, indeed, say that he was trained up in the Norfolk family, which will not appear improbable when we consider that it was not unusual in those times for young noblemen whilst under wardship to be trained under others, especially ministers of state, in their houses and families, as in academies of behaviour, and to qualify them for the service of their country at home pr abroad. But if he was under Thomas Mowbray duke pf Norfolk, while he enjoyed that title, it could be but one year, that duke being banished the kingdom by king Richard II. in 1398, though his younger son, who was restored to that title many years after, might be one of sir John FastoltFs feoffees. And it is pretty evident that he was, but a few years after the banishment of that duke, in some considerable post under Thomas of Lancaster, after^ wards duke of Clarence, and second son of the succeeding king Henry IV. This Thomas was sent by his father so early, according to some writers, as the second year of his reign, which was in 1401, lord lieutenant of Ireland. And it is not improbable that Fastolff was then with him; for we are informed by William of Wyrcestre, that in the sixth, and seventh years of the said king Henry, that is, in 1405 and 1406, this John Fastolff, esq. was continually with, him. And the same lord lieutenant of Ireland was again there in 1408, 10 Henry IV. and almost to the beginning of the next year, when it is no less probable that Fastolff was still with him; for, in the year last mentioned, we find that he was married in that kingdom to a rich young widow of quality, named Milicent, lady Castlecomb, daughter of Robert lord Tibetot, and relict of sir Stephen Scrope, knight; the same, perhaps, who is mentioned, though not with the title of knighthood, by sir P. Leycester, to have been the said lord lieutenant’s deputy of Ireland, during most of the intervals of his return to England; which deputy-lieutenant died in his office the same year. This marriage was solemnized in Ireland on the feast of St. Hilary, 1408, and Fastolff bound himself in the sum of 1000l. to pay her 100l. a year, for pin-money during life; and she received the same to the 24th year of king Henry VI. The lands in Wiltshire and Yorkshire which came to Fastolff by this marriage with the said lady, descended to Stephen Le Scrope, her son and heir. We may reasonably believe that this marriage in Ireland engaged his settlement in that kingdom, or upon his estate in Norfolk, till his appointment to the command of some forces, or to some post of trust under the English regency in France, soon after required his residence in that kingdom. For, according to the strictest calculation we can make from the accounts of his early engagements in France, the many years he was there, and the time of his final return, it must be not long after his marriage that he left either England or Ireland for that foreign service; being employed abroad by Henry IV. V. and VI. in the wars in France, Normandy, Anjou, Mayne, and Guyenne, upwards of forty years; which agrees very well with what Caxton has published, in his concise, yet comprehensive character of him, little more than twenty years after his death, where he speaks of his “exercisyng the warrys in the royame of Fraunce and other countrees, &c. by fourty yeres enduryng.” So that, we cannot see any room, either in the time or the temper, in the fortunes or employments of this knight, for him to have been a companion with, or follower and corrupter of prince Henry, in his juvenile and dissolute courses; nor, that Shakspeare had any view of drawing his sir John Falstaff from any part of this sir John Fastolff’s character; or so much as pointing at any indifferent circumstance in it that can reflect upon his memory, with readers conversant in the true history of him. The one is an old, humourous, vapouring, and cowardly, lewd, lying, and drunken debauchee, about the prince’s court when the other was a young and grave, discreet and valiant, chaste and sober, commander abroad continually advanced to honours and places of profit, for his brave and politic atchievements, military and civil; continually preferred to the trust of one government or other of countries, cities, towns, &c. or as a genera^ and commander of armies in martial expeditions while abroad; made knight-banneret in the field of battle; baron, in France, and knight of the garter in England and, particularly, when finally settled at home, constantly exercised in acts of hospitality, munificence, and chanty; a founder of religious buildings, and other stately edifices ornamental to his country, as their remains still testify; a generous patron of worthy and learned men, and a public benefactor to the pious and the poor. In short, the more we compare the circumstances in this historical character, with those in that poetical one, we can find nothing discreditable in the latter, that has any relation to the former, or that would mislead an ignorant reader to mistake or confound them, but a little quibble, which makes some conformity in their names, and a short degree in the time wherein the one did really, and the other is feigned to live. And, in regard to the prince of Wales, or our knight’s being engaged in any wild or riotous practices of his youth, the improbabilities may also appear from the comparison of their age, and a view of this prince’s commendable engagements till that space of time in which he indulged his interval of irregularities, when the distance of our knight will clear him from being a promoter of, or partaker in them. For it is apparent, that he had been intrusted with a command in France some time before the death of king Henry IV. because, in 1413, the rery first year of his son, who was now grown the reformed, and soon after proved the renowned, Henry V. it appears that Fastolff had the castle and dominion of Veires in Gascoigne committed to his custody and defence: whence it is very reasonably inferred, that he then resided in the said duchy, which at that time was possessed by the English. In June 1415, Fastolff, then only an esquire, was returned, by indenture, with ten men of arms, and thirty archers, to serve the king at his arrival in France. Soon after king Henry was arrived in Normandy, in August following, with above 30,000 men, the English army having made themselves masters of Harfleur, the most considerable port in that duchy, Fastolff was constituted lieutenant thereof, with 1500 men, by the earl of Derby, as Basset in his ms history informs us; but, as we find it in others, the king, upon this conquest, constituted his said uncle Thomas Beaufort, earl of Dorset and duke of Exeter, governor of Harfleur, in conjunction sir John Fastolff; and, having repaired the fortificaplaced therein a garrison of two thousand select men, as Titus Livius numbers them; or of fifteen hundred ien at arms, and thirty-five knights, according to Hall’s account; to which number Monstrelet also adds a thousand archers. Towards the latter end of October, in the year last mentioned, he was dangerously engaged in the evermemorable battle of Agincourt, where it is said that Fastolff, among others, signalized himself most gallantly by taking the duke of Alengon prisoner; though other historians say that duke was slain after a desperate encounter with king Henry himself, in which he cut off the crowned crest of the king’s helmet. The fact is, that, in a succeeding battle, Fastolff did take this duke’s son and successor prisoner. In the same year, 1415, he, with the duke and 3000 English, invaded Normandy, and penetrated almost to Rouen; but on their return, loaded with booty, they were surprised, and forced to retreat towards Harfleur, whither the enemy pursuing them, were totally defeated. The constable of France, to recover his credit, laid siege to Harfleur, which made a vigorous defence under sir John Fastolff and others till relieved by the fleet under the duke of Bedford. He was at the taking of the castle of Tonque, the city of Caen, the castle of Courcy, the city of Sees, and town of Falaise, and at the great siege at Rouen, 1417. For his services at the latter he was made governor of Conde Noreau; and for his eminent services in those victories, he received, before the 29th of January following, the honour of knighthood, and had the manor and demesne of Fritense near Harfleur bestowed upon him during life. In 1418 he was ordered to seize upon the castle and dominion of Bee Crispin, and other manors, which were held by James D'Auricher, and several other knights; and had the said castle, with those lands, granted him in special tail, to the yearly value of 2000 scutes. In 1420 he was at the siege of Monsterau, as Peter Basset has recorded; and, in the next year, at that of Meaulx-en-Brie. About five months after the decease of king Henry V. the town of Meulent having been surprized in January 1422, John duke of Bedford, regent of France, and sir John Fastolff, then grand master of his household, and seneschal of Normandy, laid siege to the same, and re-took it. In 1423, after the castle of Craven t was relieved, our knight was constituted lieutenant for the king and regent in Normandy, in the jurisdictions of Rouen, Evreux, Alengon, and the countries beyond the river Seine: also governor of the countries of Anjou and Maine, and before the battle of Verneuil was created banneret, About three months after, being then captain of Alengon, and governor of the marches thereof, he laid siege to the castle of Tenuye in Maine, as a French historian informs us, which was surrendered to him; and, in 1424, he was sent to oppose the delivery of Alenon to the French, upon a discovery made that a Gascoigner had secretly contracted to betray the same. In September 1425, he laid siege to Beaumont le Vicompt, which surrendered to him. Then also he took the castle of Sillie-Je-Guillem, from which he was dignified with the title of baron: but this, revolting afterwards again to the French, was assaulted by the earl of Arundel, and retaken about seven years after. In the year last mentioned, our active warrior took also St. Ouen D'Estrais, near Laval, as likewise the castle of Gravelle, with other places of strength, from the enemy; for which dangerous and indefatigable service in France he was about the same time elected in England, with extraordinary deference to his merits, knight companion of the order of the garter. In 1426 John lord Talbot was appointed governor of Anjou and Maine, and sir John Fastolff was removed to another place of command, which, in all probability, might be the foundation of that jealousy, emulation, or competition, between them, which never was cordially reconciled. In October 1428, he had a protection granted him, being then going into France; and there he performed an enterprise of such bravery and conduct as is scarcely thought to have been paralleled in ancient or modern history. The English army, at the siege of Orleans, being in great want of provisions, artillery, and other necessaries, sir John Fastolff, with some other approved commanders, was dispatched for supplies by William de la Pole duke of Suffolk, to the regent at Paris; who not only provided him plentifully therewith, but allowed him a strong guard at his return, that he might convey the same safely to the siege. The French, knowing the importance of this succour, united two armies of very superior numbers and force to meet him; but, either in different encounters, or in a pitched battle, as the French thetnselv es allow, he totally overthrew them; slew greater numbers than he had under his command, not to mention the wounded and the prisoners; and conducted his convoy safe to the English camp. And because it was in the time of Lent, and he had, among his other provision, several of his carriages laden with many barrels of herrings, which he applied to form a fortification, the French have ever since called this victory “The battle of herrings.” But as the fortune of war is precarious, the English army was soon after obliged to raise the siege of Orleans, and though they received recruits from the duke of Bedford, they were in no degree strong enough to encounter the French army at Patay. At the battle which happened there in June 1429, many of the English, who were of most experienced and approved valour, seeing themselves so unequal, and the onset of the French so unexpected, made the best retreat they could and, among them who saved themselves, as it is said, was sir John Fastolff vfho, with such as could escape, retired to Corbeil thus avoiding being killed, or, with the great lord Talbot, lord Hungerford, and sir Thomas Ramps ton, taken prisoner of war. Here the French tales, which some English historians have inconsiderately credited, contradict or invalidate themselves; for, after having made the regent most improbably, and without any examination, or defence, divest Fastolff of his honours, they no less suddenly restore him to them, for, as they phrase it, “apparent causes of good excuse; though against the mind of the lord Talbot;” between whom there had been, it seems, some emulous contests, and therefore it is no wonder that Fastolff found him upon this occasion an adversary. It is not likely that the regent ever conceived any displeasure at this conduct, because Fastolff was not only continued in military and civil employments of the greatest concern, but appears more in favour with the regent after the battle of Patay than before. So that, rather than any dishonour here can be allowed, the retreat itself, as it is told, must be doubted. It was but in 1430 that he preferred him to the lieutenancy of Caen in Normandy. In 1432 he accompanied him into France, and was soon after sent ambassador to the council of Basil, and chosen, in the like capacity, to negociate a final or temporary peace with France. And that year, Fastolff, with the lord Willoughby, commanded the army which assisted the duke of Bretagne against the duke of Alen^on. Soon after this he was for a short space in England; for, in 1433, going abroad again, he constituted John Fastolff, of Olton, probably a near relation, his general attorney. In 1434, or the beginning of the year after, sir John was again with the regent of France;'and, in 1435, he was again one of the ambassadors to conclude a peace with France. Towards the latter end of this year the regent died at Rouen, and, as the greatest proof he could give of his confidence in the honour and integrity of sir John Fastolff, he made him one of the executors of his. last will. Richard, duke of York, who succeeded in the regency of France, made Fastolff a grant of an annuity of twenty pounds a year of his own estate, “pro notabili et landdbili servicio, ac bono consilio;” which is sufficient to shew this duke’s sentiments also of his merits. In 1436, and for about four years longer, he seems to have been well settled at his government in Normandy; after which, in 1440, he made his final return home, and, loaclen with the laurels he had gathered in France, became as illustrious in his domestic as he had been in his foreign character. The late Mr. Gough, by whom this article was much enlarged, had an inventory of all the rich jewels, plate, furniture, &c. that he either had, or left in France, at his return to England. In 1450 he conveyed to John Kemp, cardinal archbishop of York, and others, his manor of Castre in Fleg, and several other lands specified in the deed of conveyance. The same year, Nov. 8, the king by writ directed Richard Waller, esq. David John William Needham, and John Ingoldsby, to cause Thomas Danyell, esq. to pay to sir John FastolfF, knight, the lOOl. that he was indebted to him for provisions, and for his ship called the George of Prussia, alias Danyell’s Hulk, which ship the said Danyell took on the sea as a prize, and never had it condemned; so that the king seized it, ordered it to be sold, and sir John to be paid out of it. At length being arrived, in 1459, beyond the age of fourscore years, he says of himself, that he was “in good remembrance, albeit I am gretly vexed with sickenesse, and thurgh age infebelyd.” He lingered under an hectic fever and asthma for an hundred and forty-eight days; but before he departed he made his will on the fifth of November in that year, and died at his seat at Castre the next day after, being the festival of St. Leonard, or the eve before, as appears in the escheats, in the 39th or last year of king Henry the Vlth’s reign, and no less than thirty-six years beyond the extravagant period assigned by Fuller. He was buried with great solemnity under an arch, in a chapel of our lady of his own building, on the south side of the choir at the abbey-church of St. Bennet in the Holm, in Norfolk, which was ruined at the dissolution; and so much was he respected after his decease, that John Beauchamp, lord of Powyke, in his last will dated the 15th of Edward IV. appointed a chantry, more especially for the soul of sir John Fastolff.

, a French antiquary of great fame, whose laborious researches into the earliest and most obscure parts of the history of his country, obtained him more celebrity than profit, was born at Paris in 1529. Having gone to Italy with cardinal de Tournon, his eminence often sent him with dispatches to the French court, which served to introduce him there with advantage, and procured him the place of first president of the Cour des Monnoies; and he is said by some to have obtained a pension from Henry IV. with the title of historiographer. He died in 1601, overwhelmed with debts. His works were collected in 4to at Paris, in 1610. The principal of them are, 1. His “Gaulish and French antiquities,” the first part of which treats chiefly of matters anterior to the arrival of the Franks, the second is extended to Hugh Capet. 2. “A treatise on the Liberties of the Gallican church.” 3. “On the origin of knights, armorial bearings, and heralds.” 4. “Origin of dignities and magistracies in France.” All these contain much curious matter, not to be found elsewhere, but are written in a harsh, incorrect, and tedious style. Saxius mentions an edition of his works printed at Paris in 1710, 2 vols. 4to, which we conceive to be a mistake for 1610. It is said, that the pei'usal of his French Antiquities gave Louis XIII. an invincible distaste to reading.

, a French protestant preacher of the highest estimation in his time. He preached originally at Montpellier, then at Charenton, and afterwards at Paris; where his eloquence was not less admired than in the provinces. He preached one day against duels in so persuasive and forcible a style, and with so much energy, that the marechal de la Force, who was present, declared to some brave officers who were near him, that should a challenge be sent him, he would not accept it. Le Faucheur was not less esteemed for his integrity than for his extraordinary talents as a preacher. He died at Paris in a very advanced age, April 1, 1657, leaving several volumes of sermons, 8vo; “Traité de l‘Action de l’Orateur,” Leyden, 1686, 12mo, an excellent work, which appeared first under the name of Conrart; “Recueil de Prieres et de Meditations Chrétiennes,” and a “Traite” sur l'Eucharistie," Geneva, 1635, folio, against cardinal du Perron. This work was so much admired by the protestant churches, that it was printed at their expence, by order of a national synod.

But a storm now arose against him, which obliged him to leave the court for ever; and was occasioned by his book, entitled “An Explication of the Maxims of the Saints concerning the interior life.” This book was published in 1697, and was occasioned by the writings of madam Guyon, who pretended to a very high and exalted devotion. She explained this devotion in some books which she published, and wrote particularly a mystical exposition of Solomon’s Song. Fenelon, whose gentle disposition is said to have been strongly actuated by the lov of God, became a friend of madam Guyon, in whom he fancied he saw only a pure soul animated with feelings similar to his own. This occasioned several conferences between the bishop of Meaux, the bishop of Chalons, afterwards cardinal de Noailles, and Mr. Tronon, superior-general to the congregation of St. Sulpicius. Into these conferences, in which madam Guyon’s books were examined, Fenelon was admitted; but in the mean time began to write very secretly upon the subject under examination, and his writings tended to maintain or excuse madam Guyon’s books without naming her. This examination lasted seven or eight months, during which he wrote several letters to the examiners, which abounded with so many testimonies of submission, that they said they could not think God would deliver him over to a spirit of error. While the conferences lasted, the secret was inviolably kept with regard to Fenelon; the two bishops being as tender of his reputation, as they were zealous to reclaim him. He was soon after named archbishop of Cam bray, and yet continued with the same humility to press the two prelates to give a final sentence. They drew up thirty-four articles at Issi, and presented them to the new archbishop, who offered to sign them immediately; but they thought it more proper to leave them with him for a time, that he might examine them leisurely. He did so, and added to every one of the articles such limitations as enervated them entirely: however, he yielded at last, and signed the articles March 10, 1695. Bossuet wrote soon after an instruction designed to explain the articles of Issi, and desired Fenelon to approve it; but he refused, and let Bossuet know by a friend, that he could not approve a book which condemned madam Guyon, because he himself did not condemn her. It was in order to explain the system of the mystics that he wrote his book already mentioned. There was a sudden and general outcry against it, and the clamours coming to the king’s ear, his majesty expostulated with the prelates for having kept secret from him what they alone knew. The controversy was for some time carried on between the archbishop of Cambray and the bishop of Meaux. But as the latter insisted upon a positive recantation, Fenelon applied to the king, and represented to his majesty, that there were no other means to remove the offence which this controversy occasioned, than by appealing to the pope, Innocent XII. and therefore he begged leave to go himself to Rome. But the king sent him word, that it was sufficient to carry his cause thither, without going himself, and sent him to his diocese in August, 1697. When the question was brought before the consultators of the inquisition to be examined, they were divided in their opinions: but at last the pope condemned the book, with twenty-three propositions extracted from it, by a brief dated March 12, 1699. Yet, notwithstanding this censure, Innocent seems to have disapproved the violent proceedings against the author. He wrote thus to the prelates who distinguished themselves as adversaries to Fenelon: “Peccavit excessu amoris divini, sed vos peceastis defectu amoris proximi.” Some of Fenelon’s friends have pretended, that there was in this affair more courtpolicy than zeal for religion. They have observed, that this storm was raised against him at a time when the king thought of choosing an almoner for the duchess of Burgundy; and that there was no way of preventing him, who had been tutor to the duke her husband, and who had acquitted himself perfectly well in the functions of that post, from being made her almoner, but by raising suspicions of heresy against him. They think themselves sufficiently justified in this opinion, by Bossuet’s being made almoner after Fenelon was disgraced and removed. Be this as it will, he submitted patiently to the pope’s determination, and read his sentence, with his own recantation, publicly in his diocese of Cambray, where he led a most exemplary life, acquitting himself punctually in all the duties of his station. Yet he was not so much taken up with them, nor so deeply engaged in his contemplative devotion, but he found time to enter into the controversy with the Jansenists. He laboured not only to confute them by his writings, but also to oppress them, by procuring a bull from Rome against a book which the cardinal de Noailles, their chief support, had approved: namely, father Quesnel’s “Reflections upon the New Testament.” The Jesuits, who were resolved to humble that prelate, had formed a great party against him, and prevailed with the archbishop of Cambray to assist them in the affair. He accordingly engaged himself: wrote many pieces against the Jansenists, the chief of which is the “Four Pastoral Letters,” printed in 1704, at Valenciennes; and spared no pains to get the cardinal disgraced, and the book condemned, both which were at length effected.

, of the same family with the famer, was born at Milan in 1607. He went through Is studies in the Ambrosian college, and after he had conpleted a course of philosophy and divinity, applied himself entirely to polite literature, in which he made so grat progress, that cardinal Frederic Borromeo procured hn a professorship of rhetoric in that college, when he vis but one and twenty years old. Six years after, the ipublic of Venice invited him to Padua, to teach eloquene, politics, and the Greek ianguage, in that university, whih was then extremely in its decline; but Ferrari restoredit to its former flourishing state. The republic rewarded hn by enlarging his pension every six years, which from fre hundred ducats was at last raised to two thousand. Afer the death of Ripamonte, historiographer of the city of Milan, Ferrari was appointed to write the history of tat city; and a pension of two hundred crowns was settledm htm for that purpose. He began, and composed eilit books; but finding he could not have access to the necssary materials in the archives of Milan, he desisted, id left what he had done to his heir, on condition thathe should not publish it. His reputation procured him f esents and pensions from foreign princes. Christimof Sweden, in whose honour he had made a public disccrse upon her mounting the throne, presented him withagden chain, and honoured him with her letters; and Louis IV. of France gave him a pension of five hundred crown for seven years. He died in 1682, aged seventy-five. He was remarkable for the sweetness, sincerity, and affability of his temper; and had so happy a way of mitigating persons exasperated against each other, that he acquire the title of “the Reconciler, or Pacificator.”

His works are, 1. “De re vestiaria libri tres,” Hua, 1642. In 1654 he added four books more to a s:ond edition. 2. “Analecta de re vestiaria, sive exercitcQiies ad Alberti Rubenii Commentarium de re vestiaria dato clavo. Accessit Dissertatio de veterum lucernis sepvhralibus,” Padua, 1670. This was afterwards, in 168 subjoined to his book “De re vestiaria,” and both are insated in the sixth and twelfth books of Graevius’s “Roman Aniquities.” 3. “Pallas Suecica; Panegyricus Sueconm Reginas imperium auspicanti dictus.” 4. “De laudibus Francisci Putei.” 5. “Prolusiones xxvi. Epistolae. —Formulae ad capienda Doctoris insignia. Inscriptiones. —Panegyricus Ludovico Magno Francorum Regi dictus.” Al these little pieces, and several others which had been printed separately, were collected and disposed into proper order by John Fabricius, who published them at Helmstad, 1710, in 2 vols. 8vo. 6. “Veneta Sapientia, seu de optimo civitatis statu prolusio.” 7. “Electorum libri duo.” In this work our author treats of several points of antiquity. 8. Origines Linguae Italicse,“Padua, 1676, folio. The authhor of the” Journal des Scavans, for April 1677,“gives the following judgment of this work” Scaliger had before treated of this subject, in twenty-four books, which are unfortunately lost. Though Ferrari has not taken so great an extent, yet we find a great deal of learning in him. But he appears so jealous of the language of his country, that he thinks every other origin, but what he gives it, as well as the French and Spanish from the Latin tongue, would be injurious to it. This hinders him from assenting to the opinion of cardinal Bembo, who supposes tha the Italian owes many of its words to the jargon of Langueedoc and Provence.“Menage has written a book upon the same subject, to correct the errors of Ferrari. 9.” De Pantomimis et Mimis Dissertatio.“10. ' Dissertiones dure altera de balneis, de gladiatoribus altera.” These two last are posthumous, and were published by John Fabricius, the former at Wolfenbuttel, 1714, in 8vo; the latter at Helmstad, 1720, in 8vo.

, in Latin Ferrettus, one of the learned civilians in the sixteenth century, was born at Castello Franco in Tuscany, Nov. 14th, 1489. At twelve years old he was sent to Pisa, where he studied the civil and canon law for three years; he spent two other years in the university of Sienna, after which he went to Rome, and was made secretary to cardinal Salviati. He was admitted an advocate at the age of nineteen years, after a public disputation before a numerous audience of cardinals and bishops. He then left his Christian name of Dominicus, and took that of Æmilius, according to a custom very prevalent among the literati of Italy. Having accepted of the chair of law-professor, he explained so learnedly the law de Rebus creditis (of things with which persons are trusted) that it gained him the title of secretary to Leo the Xth. He exercised that office for some years, after which he regigned it voluntarily, and retired into his native country. He left it again at the end of two years, his father having been killed there, and went to Tridino in the dukedom of Montferrat, where he married; and having continued there four years, he attended the marquis of Montferrat to Rome and to Naples, that marquis commanding part of the French army. This expedition of, the French proving unsuccessful, Ferreti endeavoured to return into his native country, but he was taken by the Spaniards, and could not obtain his liberty but by paying a ransom. He went into France, and taught the law at Valencewith so much reputation, that Francis I. made him counsellor in the parliament of Paris, and sent him as envoy to the Venetians, and to the Florentines. He acquitted himself so well of that employment, that it determined the marquis of Montferrat to send him to the court of Charles V. after he had obtained Francis I.'s consent for that journey. Ferreti attended the emperor in the expedition of Africa; and as soon as he was returned into France, the king sent him to the Florentines during the war in which they were engaged against the emperor. He went back to France when they were subdued, and followed the court to Nice, where the pope, Charles V. and the king of France had an interview: having afterwards resigned the post of counsellor in the parliament, he went to Lyons, and thence to Florence, where he was admitted a citizen. He was sent for to Avignon to teach the law there. His yearly stipend was at first 550 crowns, then 800, and then 1000; a sum that had never been given to any professor in that university. He gained the love both of the inhabitants and of the students, who shewed it in a very remarkable manner after his death; for when his successor Craveta began his lectures by strictures upon Ferreti, the scholars shewed their attachment to their old master by hissing and driving him from the place. He died at Avignon July 14, 1552. Ferreti was a man of general learning, and well acquainted with classical literature. He gave an edition of the principal orations of Cicero, printed at Lyons by Gryphius, 8vo, “M. T. Ciceronis Orationes Verrinae ac Philippics,” dedicated to cardinal Salviati. His “Opera Juridica” were published in 1553, and 1598, 4to. An epitaph written for him by Antonius Goveanus, speaks of him in the most extravagant terms of encomium.

, in Latin Ferrius, a most learned divine of Germany, was born of a considerable family at Metz, in 1591. He was sent to study divinity at Montaban, and made so uncommon a progress, that he was admitted a minister at Metz in 1610. Though he was but nineteen, he had then published a book of poems; the advertisement to which he finished in these words, “sat ludo nugisque datum.” He had eminent talents for preaching: his graceful presence, his venerable countenance, and fine delivery, adding great force to his eloquence, which was very powerful and moving. His enemies reported, falsely, that he was one of the ministers whom cardinal Richelieu had bribed to procure a coalition of the two religions; however, it is certain that he was grieved at the division of the p'otestants, and hoped that he could contribute somewhat to forward a re-union; and it is supposed that with this view he kept a correspondence with Dury (See Dury). His death happened in 1669, when above fourscore stones were found in his bladder, which had occasioned it. He had a very fine library, which he increased by several works of his own. In 1616 he published “Scholastic} Orthodox! Specimen,” in which he shews, that the protestant doctrine of grace has been taught by the schoolmen. This treatise gained him the esteem of Du Plessis Mornay, who wrote him a letter upon it, in which he advised him about another work he was upon, entitled “Le dernier desespoir de la Tradition,” &c. In 1630 he published at Leyden, “Vindiciae pro Scholastico Orthodoxo,” against Perinus, an eminent Jesuit, who had published in 1619 a book entitled “Thrasonica Pauli Ferrii Calvinistae.” In 1654 he published “General Catechisme de la Reformation,” which was answered by Bossuet; and left behind him collections for a history of Metz, which are referred to by Calmet, as abounding in curious researches; and a vast number of sermons, of which about eleven hundred are on the epistle to the Hebrews.

, a protestant minister and professor of divinity at Nismes, of the seventeenth century, is, contrary to his namesake in the preceding article, memorable for becoming a papist, even after having maintained in public disputation, in 1602, that “Pope Clement the VHIth was properly the Antichrist,” yet he was the first who began to yield in the political assemblies of the reformed in France. Many circumstances in his behaviour had made him suspected as a pensioner of the court, as a false brother, and a traitor to the churches. He did not, however, openly change his religion till a popular tumult arose against him > in which his house was plundered, and himself so near being murdered, that, for the sake of escaping he was obliged to lie three days concealed in a tomb. After this he settled at Paris, where he endeavoured to make his fortune. He published in 1614, the year after his conversion, a book of controversy upon the subject of antichrist. The king employed him in several important affairs; and in 1626 he was commanded to attend his majesty to Britanny, where he was honoured with the title of state and privy counsellor. Cardinal de Richelieu had a particular esteem for him. He died of a hectic fever in 1626. His family was numerous; and he made all his children promise that they would live and die in the catholic faith. His only daughter married M. Tardieu, lieutennnt-criminel of Paris, concerning which couple some curious anecdotes are recorded in Boileau’s tenth satire, and in the notes of St. Marc. Ferrier was the reputed author of a famous political work, entitled “Catholique d'Etat,” published in 1625, in answer to some libels which the king of Spain’s partizans had written against France, upon allying herself with the protestant powers to the injury of the catholic religion.

, was a celebrated grammarian of antiquity, who abridged a work of “Verrius Flaccus de signih'catione verborum,” as is supposed, in the fourth century. Flaccus’s work had been greatly commended by Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Priscian, and other ancient writers, but Festus in his abridgment took unwarrantable liberties; for he was not content with striking out a vast number of words, but pretended to criticize the rest, in a manner, as Vossius has observed, not favourable to the reputation of Flaccus. Another writer, however, in the eighth century, afterwards revenged this treatment of Flaccus, by abridging Festus in the same way. This was Paul the deacon, who so maimed and disfigured Festus, that it was scarce possible to know his work, which lay in this miserable state till, a considerable fragment being found in the library of cardinal Farnese, some pains were taken to put it again into a little order. The first, or princeps editio, is without a date, but supposed to have been printed in 1470, which, was followed by one with the date of 1471. Since that time there have been various editions by Scaliger, Fulvius Ursinus, Aldus Minucius, and others; but the most complete is the Delphin edition of Paris, 1681, in 4to, published by Dacier, or perhaps the reprint of it by Le Clero, Amst. 1699. It is also among the “Auctores Latinae Linguae,” collected by Gothofredus in 1585, and afterwards reprinted with emendations and additions at Geneva, in 1622. Scaliger says that Festus is an author of great use to those who would attain the knowledge of the Latin tongue with accuracy.

, an eminent painter, was born at Rome in 1589, and educated under Lodovico Civoli, a famous Florentine painter. As soon as he quitted the school of Civoli, he went to Mantua; where the paintings of Julio Romano afforded him the means of becoming a great painter, and from them he derived his colouring, and the boldness of his characters. Cardinal Ferdinand Gonzaga, afterwards duke of Mantua, discovering the merit of Fetti, retained him at his court, furnished him with means of continuing his studies, and at last employed him in adorning his palace. Few painters, according to a modern connoisseur, have possessed a greater freedom of pencil, a more harmonious style of colouring, or a greater knowledge of expression than Fetti. If he painted a head of character, he entered into the detail of it with such spirit, that it produced an astonishing relief; and that too without the least hardness, so judiciously are the tints varied. It is the same* with his large composition* the light and shade are ingeniously balanced the figures are grouped with so much art, and the general disposition is so well observed, that they produce the most striking and harmonious effects. His pictures are scarce, and mucb Bought alter. He painted very little for churches. Goingto Venice, he abandoned himself to disorderly courses, which put an end to his life in its very prime, in 1624, when he was only in his thirty-fifth year. The duke of Mantua regretted him exceedingly, and sent for his lather and sister, whom he took care of afterwards. The sister, who painted well, became a nun, and exercised her talent in the convent, which she adorned with several of her works. Other religious houses in Mantua, were also decorated with her paintings.

The praises bestowed on Nicolas le Fevre, by Baillet, and almost all the critics of the time, are of the most exalted kind; an advantage which his very great merits would not perhaps have gained, had they not been enhanced by his modesty. He was admired and loved, but not feared. Lipsius pronounced him a perfect critic, almost the only one capable of correcting and polishing the works of others; and whose learning, judgment, and diligence, knew no other bounds than what his modesty prescribed. Of the same cast are the eulogies upon him, by Baronius, Scaevola Samarthanus, Sirmond, Pithceus, Lipsius, cardinal Perron, Isaac Casaubon, Sealiger, Scioppius, and others.

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

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

His first publication appears to have been, 1. “A prefatory Epistle concerning some Remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad: occasioned by the proposals of Mr. Pope towards a new English version of that poem, 17 14,” 12mo. It is addressed to Dr. Swift. It would seem to have been his intention to write a kind of moral commentary upon Homer; but, probably for want of encouragement, this never appeared. The first work by which he distinguished himself in any considerable degree, was, 2. “Theologia Speculativa: or the first part of a body of divinity under that title, wherein are explained, the principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1718,” folio. This met with a favourable reception from the public: yet when Stackhouse, a man certainly not of much higher talents, afterwards executed a work of a similar nature, he endeavoured to depreciate the labours of his predecessor. Dr. Fiddes’s second part is entitled “Theologia Practica, wherein are explained the duties of Natural and Revealed Religion;” and was published in 1720, folio. The same year also he published in folio, 3. “Fifty-two practical Discourses on several subjects, six of which were never before printed.” These, as well as his Body of Divinity, were published by a subscription, which was liberally encouraged at Oxford. But the work which gained him the most friends, and most enemies, was, 4. “The Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1724,” in folio, dedicated to the chancellors, vice-chancellors, doctors, and other members of the two universities; and encouraged by a large subscription. This work was attacked with great severity in “The London Journal,” and the author charged him with being a papist; who repelled this accusation in, 5. “An Answer to Britannicus, compiler of the London Journal, 1725,” in two letters; in the first of which he endeavours to obviate the charge of popery; in the second, to show his impartiality in the life of this cardinal. Dr. Knight, in the “Life of Erasmus,” published a little after our author’s death, attacked him in the severest terms, accusing him of speaking irreverently of Erasmus, “probably,” says he, “because he had by his writings favoured the reformation.” Dr. Fiddes, he says, vilifies the reformation, depreciates the instruments of it, and palliates the absurdities of the Romish church. He declares also that the life was written at the solicitation of bishop Atterbury, on the occasion of the dispute in which he was then engaged with archbishop Wake: and that Atterbury supplied him with materials, suggested matter and method, entertained him at his deanery, procured him subscribers, and “laid the whole plan for forming such a life as might blacken the reformation, cast lighter colours upon popery, and even make way for a popish pretender.” Fiddes, indeed, had given occasion for part of this surmise, by saying that “a very learned prelate generously offered to let me compile the life of cardinal Wolsey in his house.” Suspicion was likewise heightened by the eulogium he made on Atterbury, a little before his deprivation. Though it may be difficult to determine how far this author was at the bottom an enemy to the reformation, yet in his Life of Wolsey, his prejudices in favour of the ancient religion are unquestionably strong, and in these he shared with some contemporaries of no inconsiderable fame. Asa collection of facts, however, the work is highly valuable, and he has the merit (whatever that may be esteemed) of placing the life and character of Wolsey in a more just light than any preceding writer. As the munificent founder of Christ church, he could not avoid a certain reverence for Wolsey, nor, if Atterbury assisted him, can we wonder at that prelate’s disposition to think well of so great a benefactor to learning, who would have proved a still greater benefactor, had he not been sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of his royal master.

, of the family of the lord keeper, was the son of sir Thomas Finch of Eastwell in Kent, and was born in that county, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford. From that he went to Gray’s Inn, and after pursuing the usual course of law studies, became a counsellor of reputation, and was autumn or summer reader of that house in 2 James I. In 1614 he attained the rank of a Serjeant, and two years after was knighted. He died Oct. 11, 1625, leaving a son, John, who was afterward created lord Finch of Fordwich, and was keeper of the great seal. Sir Henry Finch wrote “Nomotechnia, ou description del Commun Leys d'Angleterre, &c.” Lond. 1613, fol. This “Description of the Common Law” was afterwards published by himself in English, under the title “Of Law, or a Discourse thereof,” Lond. 1627, (636, and 1661, 8vo. But a better translation was published in 1758 by an anonymous hand. He published also “On the Calling of the Jews,” a work which Wood has so imperfectly described that it is not easy to discover its drift. Finet (Sir John), a man considerable enough to be remembered, was son of Robert Finet of Soulton, near Dover, in Kent, and born in 1571. His great grandfather was of Sienna, in Italy, where his family was ancient; and coming into England a servant to cardinal Campegius, the pope’s legate, married a maid of honour to queen Catherine, consort to Henry VIII. and settled here. He was bred up in the court, where, by his wit, mirth, and uncommon skill in composing songs, he very much pleased James I. In 1614 he was sent into France about matters of public concern; and the year after was knighted. In 1626 he was made assistant to the master of the ceremonies, being then in good esteem with Charles I. He died in 1641, aged seventy. He wrote a book entitled “Fineti Philoxenus: Some choice observations touching the reception and precedency, the treatment and audience, the punctilios and contests of foreign ambassadors in England, 1656,” 8vo published by James Howel, and dedicated to lord LTsle. He also translated from French into English “The beginning, continuance, and decay of Estates, &c. 1606;” written originally by R. de Lusing.

, a man who deserves some notice on account of his zeal for the reformation, was born in Kent, and, after an education at Oxford, went about 1525 to Gray’s Inn, to study the law. A play was then written by one Roo, or Roe, in which cardinal Wolsey was severely reflected on; and Fish undertook to act the part in which he was ridiculed, after every body else had refused to venture upon it. The cardinal issued his orders against him the same night, but he escaped, and went into Germany, where he found out, and associated himself with, William Tyndale. The year following he wrote a little piece, called, “The Supplication of Beggars;” a satire upon bishops, abbots, priors, monks, friars, and indeed the popish clergy in gejieral. About 1527 or 1528, after it had been printed, a copy was sent to Anne Boleyne, and by her given to the king, who was not displeased with it, and Wolsey being now disgraced, Fish was recalled home, and graciously countenanced by the king for what he had done. Sir Thomas More, who, when chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had answered Fish’s pamphlet, in another, entitled “The Supplication of Souls in Purgatory,” being advanced to the rank of chancellor in the room of Wolsey, the king ordered sir Thomas not to meddle with Fish, and sent a message to this purpose, with his signet, by the Jiands of Fish. On his delivering the message, sir Thomas told him, all this was sufficient for himself, but not for his wife, against whom it was complained that she had refused to let the friars say their gospels in Latin at her house. The chancellor appears to have made some attempt to prosecute the wife, but how far he succeeded is not known. Fish himself died about half a year after this of the plague, about 1531, and was buried in the church of St. Dunstan in the West. In one of the lives of sir Thomas More, it is reported that he turned papist before his death, but this circumstance is not mentioned by Fox. The “Supplication” was one of the publications afterwards prohibited by Cuthbert Tonstall, when bishop of London. Tanner ascribes to Fish two works called “The Boke of merchants rightly necessary to all folkes, newly made by the lord Pantapole” and “The Spiritual Nosegay.” He also published about 1530, “The Summ of the Scriptures,” translated from the Dutch. His widow married James Bainham, afterwards one of the martyrs.

Upon Luther’s appearance and opposition to popery, in 1517, Fisher, a zealous champion for the church of Rome, was one of the first to enter the lists against him. He not only endeavoured to prevent the propagation of his doctrine in his own diocese, and in the university of Cambridge, over which as chancellor he had a very great influence, but also preached and wrote with great eanifstness against him. He had even resolved to go to Rome, but was diverted by Wolsey’s calling together a synod of the whole clergy, in which the bishop delivered himself with great freedom, on occasion of the cardinal’s stateliness and pride. Hitherto he had continued in great favour with Henry; but in the business of the divorce, in 1527, he adhered so firmly to the queen’s cause and the pope’s supremacy, that jt brought him into great trouble, and in the end proved his ruin. For the king, who greatly esteemed him for his honesty and learning, having desired his opinion upon his marriage with Catherine of Arragon, the bishop declared, that there was no reason at all to question the validity of it; and from this opinion nothing afterwards could ever make him recede.

Respect to his great reputation for learning and piety, occasioned very earnest endeavours to bring him to a compliance. Some bishops waited on him for that purpose, as did afterwards the lord chancellor Audeley, and others of the privy-council; but they found him immoveable. Secretary Cromwell was also with him in vain, and afterwards Lee, bishop of Lichfield. The issue was, a declaration from Fisher, that he would “swear to the succession never dispute more about the marriage and promise allegiance to the king but his conscience could not be convinced, that the marriage was not against the law of God.” These concessions did not satisfy the king; who was resolved to let all his subjects see that there was no mercy to be expected by any one who opposed his will. Therefore, in the parliament which met Nov. 3, he was attainted for refusing the oath of “succession; and his bishopric declared void Jan. 2. During his confinement, the poor old bishop was most barbarously used, was left without decent clothing, and scarce allowed necessaries. He continued above a year in the Tower, and might have remained there till released by a natural death, if an unseasonable honour, paid him by pope Paul III. had not hastened his destruction; which was, the creating of him, in May 1535, cardinal, by the title of Cardinal Priest of St. Vitalis. When the king heard of it, he gave strict orders that none should bring the hat into his dominions: he sent also lord Cromwell to examine the bishop about that affair, who, after some conference, said,” My lord of Rochester, what would you say, if the pope should send you a cardinal’s hat would you accept of it“The bishop replied,” Sir, I know myself to be so far unworthy any such dignity, that I think of nothing less; but if any such thing should happen, assure yourself that I should improve that favour to the best advantage that I could, in assisting the holy catholic church of Christ; and in that respect I would receive it upon my knees.“When this answer was brought, the king said in a great passion,” Yea, is he yet so lusty Well, let the pope send him a hat when he will, Mother of God, he shall wear it on his shoulders then; for I will leave him never a head to set it on."

, a very learned lawyer in the reign of Henry VIII. was descended from an ancient family, and was the younger son of Ralph Fitzherbert, esq. He was born at Norbury, co. Derby , but it is not known in what year. After he had been properly educated in the country, he was sent to Oxford, and from thence to one of the inns of court; but we neither know of what college, nor of what inn he* was admitted. His great parts, judgment, and diligence, soon distinguished him in his profession; and in process of time he became so eminent, that on Nov. 18, 1511, he was called to be a serjeant at law. In 1516 he received the honour of knighthood, and the year after was appointed one of his majesty’s Serjeants at law. He began now to present the world with the product of his studies; and published from time to time several valuable works. In 1523, which was the fifteenth year of Henry the Eighth’s reign, he was made one of the justices of the court of common pleas, in which honourable station he spent the remaining part of his life; discharging the duties of his office with such ability and integrity, that he was universally respected as the oracle of the law. Two remarkable things are related of his conduct; one, that he openly opposed cardinal Wolsey in the height of his power, although chiefly on the score of alienating the church lands; the other, that on his death-bed, foreseeing the changes that were likely to happen in the church as well as state, he pressed his children in very strong terms to promise him solemnly neither to accept grants, nor to make purchases of abbey-lands. He died May 27, 1515—8, and was buried in his own parish church of Norbury. He left behind him a very numerous posterity; and as he became by the death of his elder brother John possessed of the family estate, he was in a condition to provide very plentifully for them. The Fitzherbert family, in the different branches of it, continues to flourish, chiefly in Derbyshire and Staffordshire.

, grandson of sir Anthony, and a very ingenious and learned man, was born in the county of Stafford, in 1552; and sent to either Exeter or Lincoln-college, in Oxford, in 1568. But having been bred a catholic, the college was uneasy to him; and though he would now and then hear a sermon, which was permitted him by an old Roman priest, who lived privately in Oxford, and to whom he recurred for instruction in matters of religion, yet he would seldom go to prayers, for which he was often admonished by the sub -rector of the house. At length, seeming to be wearied with the heresy of the times, as he called it, he receded without a degree to his patrimony: where also refusing to go to his parish church, he was imprisoned about 1572; but being soon set at liberty, he became still more zealous in his religion, maintaining publicly, that catholics ought not to go to protestant churches; for which, being like to suffer, he withdrew, and lived obscurely with his wife and family. In 1580, when the Jesuits Campian and Parsons came into England, he went to London, found them out, was exceedingly attached to them, and supplied them liberally: by which, bringing himself into dangers and difficulties, he went a voluntary exile into France, in 1582, where he solicited the cause of Mary queen of Scots, but in yam. After the death of that princess, and of his own wife, he left France, and went to Madrid, in order to implore the protection of Philip II.; but, upon the defeat of the armada, in 1588, he left Spain, and accompanied the duke of Feria to Milan. This duke had formerly been in England with king Philip, had married an English lady, and was justly esteemed a great patron of the English in Spain. Fitzherbert continued at Milan some time, and thence went to Rome; where, taking a lodging near the English college, he attended prayers as regularly as the residents there, and spent the rest of his time in writing books. He entered into the society of Jesus in 1614, and received priest’s orders much about the same time; after which he speedily removed into Flanders, to preside over the mission there, and continued at Brussels about two years. His great parts, extensive and polite learning, together with the high esteem that he had gained by his prudent behaviour at Brussels, procured him the government, with the title of rector, of the P^nglish college at Rome. This office he exercised for twenty-two years, vrith unblemished credit, during which time he is said to have been often named for a cardinal’s hat. He died there, Aug. 27, 1G40, in his eighty-eighth year, and was interred in the chapel belonging to the English college.

, grandson also to sir Anthony Fitzherbert, and cousin to Thomas, was born about 1550, and became a student of Exeter college in Oxford. About 1572, be left his native country, parents, and patrimony, for religion, as a voluntary exile. At first he settled at Bologna in Italy, 'to obtain the knowledge of the civil law, and was there in 1580. Not long after he went to Rome, and in 1587 began to live, as his secretary, in the family of William Alan, the cardinal of England. He continued with him till his death, after having distinguished himself by his knowledge in the laws, and in polite literature. He was unfortunately drowned, 1612, in a journey he made from Rome. He published the following pieces: 1. “Casao Galataei de bonis moribus,” 1595; a translation from Italian. 2. “Oxoniensis in Anglia Academiae Descriptio,” 1602. 3. “De Antiquitate et Continuatione Catholicse Religionis in Anglia,” 1608. 4. “Vitse Cardinalis Alani Epitome,” 1608: all printed at Rome. He also wrote the life of that cardinal, who was his patron, more at large; which, for reasons of state, was never published.

, an eminent naval commander, and earl of Southampton, in the sixteenth century, was the second son of sir Thomas Fitzvviliiam, of Aldwarke, in Yorkshire, knt. by Lucia, his wife, daughter and co-heir to John Neville, marquis Montacute. In 151O he was made one of the esquires for the body of king Henry VIII. which office was renewed to him for life ia 1512. The year following he was one of the chief commanders in the fleet sent out against France, to clear the sea of French ships before Henry and his allies attacked France by land; and he was seriously wounded by an arrow in attempting to destroy the French fleet at Brest. Shortly after he attended king Henry at the siege of Tournay, where his bravery procured him the honour of knighthood. In 1620 he was vice-admiral of England, and em^ ployed in guarding the channel at the time the emperor Charles V. came to England. He so ingratiated himself with his royal master that he obtained from him, in 1521, 9. grant of the manor of Navesby in Northamptonshire, part of the possessions of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, then lately attainted. At that time he was ambassador in France; but, upon a rupture between that kingdom and England, he was recalled, Jan. 1521-2, and ordered to sea with a strong fleet of twenty-eight sail, to secure our merchants, and take what French ships he could. Shortly after he assisted at the taking of Morlaix, in Bretagne; and with sir William Sandes and sir Maufice Berkeley, went and burnt Marguison, which was newly built and fortified, and many villages. In 1523, the king of France, preparing to send John duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, into that kingdom in order to invade England from that quarter, sir William was made admiral, and dispatched with a strong fleet to intercept him. Having missed him, he landed on the French coast at Treport, in Normandy, and burnt the suburbs of that town and several ships in the harbour, though there were but 700 English opposed to 6000 French. The year following, being captain of Guisnes, in Picardy, he greatly annoyed Boulogne, and other places adjacent. Before the end of that year he was made treasurer of the king’s household; and in October sent to France with Dr. John Taylor, a civilian, to see the lady regent (whose son, Francis I. was then prisoner in Spain) swear to observe the articles of a treaty newly concluded between the two crowns. In 1529 he was one of those who subscribed the articles exhibited in parliament against cardinal Wolsey. At the grand interview between the ki:igs of England and France, in 1532, he attended his master Henry V11I. to Boulogne, the place of interview between many other persons of the highest quality. In May 1535, he was sent with the duke of Norfolk, the of Ely, and Dr. Fox, to treat with the French king’s commissioners about a league between the crowns of England and France; one of the articles of which was, that the duke of Angonleme, third son to the king of France, should marry Elizabeth, second daughter of king Henry. Shortly after, he was made knight of the garter, and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; and in 1536 constituted admiral of England, Wales, Ireland, Normandy, Gascony, and Aquitaine. On Oct. 18, 1537, he was advanced to the title of earl of Southampton, and made lord privy-seal Oct. 27,1539. In April following, some disputes having arisen between England and France, he, with John lord Russel, lately made high admiral, were sent over to Calais with a few troops of horse, and returned quickly after executing their orders. He was also employed as captain of the Foreward in the expedition to Scotland, in October 1542, but died in his way thither, at Newcastle, so much esteemed, that, in honour of his memory, his standard was borne in the vanguard in all that expedition. By his will bearing date Sept. 10, of the same year, he ordered his body to be buried in the church of Midhurst, in Sussex. He left no issue by Mabel his wife, daughter to Henry lord Clifford, and sister to Henry first earl of Cumberland. Of his personal character it is only recorded that there was not a serviceable man under his command whose name he knew not; not a week passed but he paid his ships; not a prize but his seamen shared in as well as himself; and it was his opinion, that none fought well but those who did it for a fortune, which may be admitted, in some measure, if we consider that fortune and honours in the naval and military services are generally joined.

After this, Flaminio was removed by his father to Bologna for the study of philosophy, after which he returned again to Rome, and formed an intimacy with the most illustrious scholars of that city. Without devoting himself to any profession, he for some years attached himself to the cardinal de Sauli, and after his death resided with the prelate Ghiberti, either at Padua, or at his see of Verona, where he secured the friendship of Fracastorius and Naugerius, a friendship of the most generous and disinterested kind, as appears from many passages in their writings. About 1538 he went to Naples in consequence of a long indisposition, and by relaxation from his studies, recovered his former health, and repaired to Viterbo, where cardinal Pole then resided as pontifical legate, and honoured Flaminio by the most friendly intimacy. He also accompanied the cardinal to the council of Trent, but refused the office of secretary to this council, and by this refusal, as well as by other parts of his conduct, and a certain liberality of sentiment displayed in some of his writings, gave rise to suspicions that he was inclined towards the. opinions of the reformers. Whether this was actually the case has been a subject of dispute among his biographers; but that he was suspected is certain, for his writings were for some time prohibited in the Index Expurgatorius of the Roman church. Those who feel an interest in the question may consult Schelhornius’ dissertation on the subject in his “Amcenitates Hist. Eccles.” and compare it with Tiraboschi’s answer, who after being obliged to admit that Flaminio had embraced the opinions of the reformers, informs us that he was recalled to his former faith by cardinal Pole. And another account says, that cardinal Caraflfa (afterwards Paul IV.) attended him on his /death-bed. His death, which happened at Rome in 15.50, was lamented by all the learned of his time, and he appears to have deserved their highest encomiums. His poems place him in the first rank of the Latin school. Most of his poems are in the “Carmina quinque illustrium poetarum;” but the scarce editions of his works are, I. “M. Ant. Flaminii in Librum Psalmorum brevis explanatio,” Venice, 1545, 8vo. 2. “Epistolae aliquot de veritate doctrinae eruditae et sanctitate religionis, in Latinum veterem sermonem conversse, ex Italico hodierno, nee non narrationes de Flaminio,” &c. Noriberg. 1571, 8vo. 3. “M. A. Flaminii Carmina sacra, quue extant omnia, hoc modo nunquam hactenus edita,” c. Rostock, 1578, 8vo. There is an edition of his works, with those of his father, by Maucurti, mentioned before, which was reprinted in 1743.

His works are, 1. “CEuvres Mesle*es,” miscellaneous works, 12mo, in verse and prose, both French and Latin, Of his compositions in the latter language, it is generally remarked, that they are distinguished by classical purity and good taste. 2. An edition of Gratiani, “De casibus iliustriuni Virornm,” 4to. S. “Panegyrics of the Saints,” esteemed one of the best works of the kind. 4. His funeral Orations, which are* eight in number. 5. His Sermons, in 3 vols. If mo, less forcible than his panegyrics, or his orations. He had studied old quaint discourses, which he ridiculed, and called his buffoons; yet they had in some degree vitiated his style of writing sermons. 6. “The History of Theodosius,” above-mentioned. 7. “The Life of cardinal Ximenes,” one volume, 4to, or two volumes, 12mo. 8. “Letters,” 2 vols. 12mo, in a pure, but not an epistolary style, y. “The Life of cardinal Commendon, translated from the Latin of Gratiani,” one vol. 4 to, or two vols. 12mo. 10. Posthumous Works, containing pastoral letters of the most excellent paternal tenderness, and other matters. Of all these a handsome edition was printed in 1782, 9 vols. 8vo. But in this edition the correspondence with Baville, the persecuting intendant of Languedoc, which had been promised, was suppressed by authority.

Whatever disappointment he might feel in not succeeding to the archbishopric of York, it does not appear to have interfered with his generous design of founding a college; but his full intentions were frustrated by his death, which took place at Sleford, Jan. 25, 1430-31. He was interred in Lincoln cathedral, where a tomb was erected with a long epitaph in monkish rhime, some part of which was written by himself. The only information it conveys is, that the pr>pe consecrated him bishop of Lincoln with his own hand. In 1427 he obtained the royal licence to found a college or society of one warden or rector, seven, scholars, and two chaplains, in the church of All Saints in Oxford, which was then under his own patronage as bishop of Lincoln; and to unite, annex, and incorporate that church with the churches of St. Mildred and St. Michael, at the north-gate, which were likewise in his gift, and these churches, so united, were to be named the church of All Saints, and erected into a collegiate church or college. A certain chantry in the chapel of St. Anne, within the said church, was to be annexed, under thje patronage of the mayors of Oxford, provided that daily mass, &c. was duly performed in the chapel for the souls of the founder and others. There were also to be two chaplains, elected and removeable at the pleasure of the rector, who were to officiate in the said church with the cure of souls. The college was to be called, the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary and All Saints Lincoln, in the university of Oxford. The rector and scholars were also to be perpetual parsons of the said church, and were empowered to purchase lands, rents, and possessions, to the yearly value of ten pounds. This licence was dated Oct. 12, 1427. The founder then employed John Baysham, Nicholas Wynbush, and William Chamherlayn, clerks (who were intended to be of the number of his scholars), to purchase ground for the erection of buildings. The first purchase they made was a tenement called Deep Hall, situated in St. Mildred’s lane, between St. Mildred’s church on the west, and a garden on the east; but the founder’s death interrupting their progress, the society resided in Deep Hall, as it stood, maintained by the revenues of the churches above-mentioned, and the money left by the founder. They had as yet, however, no fixed statutes for their government, and were kept together merely at the discretion of the rectors, whose judicious conduct, joined to the utility of the institution, induced some benefactors to augment their revenues by gifts of lands and money. Among these were, John Forest, dean of Wells, who about 1437 built the chapel, library, hall, and kitchen, John Southam, archdeacon of Oxford, William Findarne,esq. cardinal Beaufort, and John Buketot; and these were followed by one who has been allowed to share the honours of foundership, Thomas Rotheram, bishop of Lincoln, of whom some account will be given, hereafter.

, the celebrated cardinal of that name, was born in 1653, at Lodeve in Languedoc, but was brought to Paris at the age of six, and there educated for the church. He distinguished himself in the progress of his studies; and when he began to mix with the world, appeared there with the natural advantages of a handsome figure, pleasing address, and wellmanaged wit. His first preferment was that of a canon of Montpellier; he was also a doctor of the Sorbonne. But his friends becoming numerous, much interest was made for him, and in 1698, Louis XIV. named him bishop of Frejus. “I have made you wait a long time,” said the king, “but you have so many friends, that I was determined to stay till I could have the sole merit of preferring you.” Louis XIV. a little before he died, appointed him preceptor to his grandson, in which office he succeeded Bossuet and Fenelon. In 1726 he was made cardinal, and soon after advanced to the place of prime-minister. He was then turned seventy. Yet the weight of this active: post did not alarm him; and, to the age of ninety, he manifested a mind in full vigour, and capable of conducting affairs. From 1726 to 1740, every thing prospered. He commenced and brought to a glorious conclusion for his country, the war for the succession in Spain; and he added Lorraine to the French territory. In the war which commenced in 174-0 he was not so fortunate; and in 1743 he died, full of grief for a succession of misfortunes, of which the nation reproached him as the author. A too rigid attention to economy had led him to neglect the marine of his country; and the successes of England by sea completed the evil which had been thus begun. We was of a mild and tranquil character, a lover of peace, and not a man to make himself feared. He governed, says Millot, if not like a sublime genius who executes great things, at least like a prudent man, who accommodates his plans to circumstances, prefers essential to specious adVantages, and regards tranquillity and order as the foundation of public happiness. He had neither the pride of Richelieu, nor the avarice of Mazarin. No minister could be less costly to the state; his income did not amount tq five thousand pounds sterling a year, one half of which was employed in secret acts of benevolence. In the state of disorder to which the profusion of Louis XIV. had reduced the finances of France, it was happy for that country to have such a minister as Fleury, whose pacific turn counterbalanced the impetuosity of Villars, which would continually have plunged the country in new wars.

It is mentioned by one of his biographers, as an instance of his weakness, that he had a great desire to obtain a seat in the French academy, and we are told that the force of this ambition imperceptibly undermined his constitution, and changed the natural suavity of his temper to a restless fretfulness. It was not a sufficient gratification of this passion, that he was already a member of the academies of Madrid, Lyons, and Florence; nothing short of a seat in the academy of Paris seemed to him capable of satisfying that ambition, which was gratified on the death of cardinal de Luines. He never was present at the admission of a new member into the academy, without experiencing a most singular agitation, and a violent oppression of the heart, which he was unable to conceal from observation. It is added, however, that notwithstanding the violence of this passion, Florian never so far yielded to its influence as to sacrifice to it those principles of honour and liberality which were the constant motives of his actions.

, a learned Italian ecclesiastic, was born at Florence in 1713, and went through his principal courses of study in that city, and evinced so much fitness for the office, that his superiors appointed him their librarian. This society, of which he became a member in 1737, was composed of the theologians of Florence, and he made his first public display in some historical and polemical theses respecting what were called the four articles of the clergy of France, agreed upon in 1682; but his subsequent writings have consigned these to oblivion. In 1741 he published a dissertation “de primisFlorentinorum apostolis,” a work much praised by Manni and Lami. The same year appeared another “against the reveries of certain Protestants;” but what procured him more reputation, was his edition of “Virgil,” published at Florence, 1741, 4to. This is a fac-simile of the Codex Mediceus, on which Heinsius had written a learned dissertation, inserted by JBurman in the first volume of his own edition of Virgil. The original manuscript is conceived to be more ancient than the Vatican one. It appears to have formerly belonged to Rodolphus Pius, a cardinal in the time of pope Paul III. who bequeathed it to the Vatican, from which it is supposed to have been fraudulently conveyed to the Medicean.

In 1742, Foggini refused the professorship of ecclesiastical history at Pisa, which was then vacant; but accepted an invitation from Bottari, second librarian of the Vatican, to come to Rome; where his merit being known to pope Benedict XIV. he gave him a place in the pontifical academy of history. Instead, however, of employing himself on the history of the popes, he devoted his time to a careful examination of the most valuable Mss. and had thus an opportunity of furnishing the editors of classics with much important assistance. The same researches enabled him to publish a Latin translation of a book of St. Epiphanius, addressed to Diodorus, which was printed in 1743, with a preface and notes; the subject is the twelve precious stones on the breast-plate of the high-priest of the Hebrews. About this time the pope appointed him coadjutor to Bottari; and in 1750 he drew up the form of prayers and instructions for the Jubilee. The same year he printed his Latin translation of St. Epiphnnius’s commentary on the Canticles. In 1752 he published a collection of passages from the Fathers, occasioned by a homily of the archbishop of Fermo, on the saying of Jesus Christ, respecting the small number of the elect. The following year he published the opinions of St. Charles Borromeo, and others on the theatre. In 1754 he published the first of eight volumes of writings of the fathers on the subject of grace; and in 1758 “The Works of St. Prosper,” 8vo, and separately, a poem by that saint, on ingratitude, with notes. These were followed by his “Treatise on the clergy of St. John de Lateran,” and in 1760, by an edition of the works of St. Fulgentius. The same year pope Ganganelli made him chamberlain of honour. He afterwards published some ecclesiastical pieces, and some on antiquities, among which was, “Fastorum Anni Ronaani Verrio Flacco ordinatorum reliquiae,” &c. Rome, 1780, fol. Verrius Flaccus composed a series of the Romania**!, which was engraved on tables of marble, and exposed to the view of the public at Praeneste. To recover these marbles, cardinal Stoppani, bishop of Praeneste, at the request of Foggini, ordered several excavations to be made, by which the fragments of four tables were discovered in 1774, and of these Foggini has given a description in this work. The last work by Foggini, noticed in our authority, is an appendix to the Byzantine history, published in 1777. When Pius VI. became pope, he promoted him to the charge of the secret chamber, and in 1775 he succeeded Bottari, as first librarian, but on account of his age, he was excused from the duties of the place, while he enjoyed the title and emoluments. He died May 31, 1783, regretted as a scholar of great accomplishments, and an amiable man.

, a learned Genoese, was born in that city in 1518, and descended from a noble family. Some writers have styled him a priest, but we do not find him in any of his writings assuming any other title than that of a Genoese noble. The troubles which agitated his country induced him to write a work by which they might be quieted, the subject of which was the distinction between noble and plebeian families; but he took so many liberties with the characters of the nobles, that they procured his banishment, a treatment which suggested to him as his future device, a lighted tiambeau with the inscription “Officio mihi officio.” Moreri says that he took an active part in the troubles at Genoa, which was the cause of his banishment, but this does not appear to have been the case. He submitted, however, to his sentence, like a philosopher, and applied his leisure to the cultivation of his mind. He chose Rome as the place of his retirement, and there acquired the patronage of Hippolyto cardinal d'Este, who received him into his house, where he died in 1581. His works were numerous, of which the following are the chief: 1. “Historia Genuensium, lib. 12.” L535, folio; diffuse, but faithful and elegant; translated into Italian by Francesco Sardonati. 2i “De ratione scribendae HistQrise.” 3. “Conjuratio Johannis Ludovici Flisci,” Neapoli, 1571, 4to, a very rare edition. 4. “Elogia clarorurn Ligurum,” 1574, 4to. 5. “De Linguae Latinae usu et prsestantia,” Romse, 1574, repubiished by Mosheim, 1723, with a life of the anthor. 6. “De causis magnitudinis Turcarum imperil.” 7. “Delia Republica di Genoa,” 8vo. 8. “Opuscula nonnulla,” 1574, 4to. Most of these works are scarce. His Latin style was peculiar, elegant, and pure, and his judgment at once accurate and sound.

, a learned Dominican of Lisbon, who studied at Paris, was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1542. Returning to Portugal, he was appointed professor of divinity at Coimbra, and preacher to the king. He left “Remarks on cardinal Cajetan’s Commentaries on the Bible,” Paris, 1539, fol.; “de Epidemia Febrili,” 4to, and other works. We find no account of the time of his death.

Though his disposition was exceedingly averse to confinement, or restraint of any kind, yet, to oblige his parents, he consented to marry; and, though the most unfeeling and insensible of mortals, was yet so far captivated by the wit and beauty of his \\ne, that he entertained a high opinion of her judgment, and never undertook any considerable work without consulting her. The dutchess of Bouillon, however, niece to cardinal Mazarine, being banished to Chateau-Thierry, Fontaine was presented to her, and had the happiness to please her; and this, added to a desire of conversing with the wits, tempted him to follow her when she was recalled to Paris. Here the intendant Fouquet soon procured him a pension, which he enjoyed in great comfort without troubling himself at all about his wife, or, perhaps, even reflecting that he had one. Upon the disgrace of this minister, he was admitted as gentleman to Henrietta of England; but the death of this princess put an end to all his court hopes, if, indeed, he was susceptible of hope. After this, among other favours from the most illustrious persons in the kingdom, the generous and witty madam de la Sabliere furnished him with an apartment and all necessaries in her house; who, one day, having hastily turned away all her servants, declared that she had kept but three animals in her house, which were her dog, her cat, and La Fontaine. In this situation he continued twenty years, during which time he became perfectly acquainted with all the wits of his time, with Moliere, Racine, Boileau, Chapelle, &c.

, a French critic, was born of a good family at Rouen, in 1685. At fifteen, he entered into the society of the Jesuits; and, at thirty, quitted it for the sake of returning to the world. He was a pnest, and had a cure in Normandy; but left it, and resided for some time in the character of a man of wit and letters, with the cardinal d'Auvergne. Having obtained some reputation at Paris by certain critical productions, the abbe“Bignon, in 1724, committed to him the editorship of the” Journal des Scavans.“He acquitted himself well in this department, and was peaceably enjoying the applauses of the public, when in 1725 the enemies whom by critical strictures in his Journal he had created, formed an accusation against him of a most abominable crime, and procured him to be imprisoned. By the credit of powerful friends, he was set at liberty in fifteen days; the magistrate of the police took himself the trouble of justifying him in a letter to the abbe Bignon; and this letter having been read amidst his fellow-labourers in the Journal, he was unanimously re-established in his former credit. But with whatever reputation he might acquit himself in his Journal, his frequent quarrels interrupted his labours, which, however, he employed on some newperiodical works, from which he derived his greatest fame. In 1731, he began one under the title of” Nouveliiste du Parnasse, ou Reflexions sur les ouvrages nouveanx,“but proceeded only to two volumes; the work having been suppressed by authority, from the incessant complaints of authors who were there ridiculed. About three years after, in 1735, he obtained a new privilege for a periodical production, entitled” Observations sur les Ecrits Modernes;“whk:h, after being continued to thirty-three volumes, was suppressed also in 1743. Yet the year following, 1744, he published another weekly paper, called” Jugemens sur les ouvrages nouveaux,“and proceeded to eleven volumes; the two last being done by other hands. Fontaines could go no farther: for, in 1745, he was attacked with a disorder in the breast, which ended in a dropsy, and this in five weeks’ time carried him oHF.” He was,“says M. Freron,” born a sentimental person; a philosopher in conduct as well as in principle; exempt from ambitton and of a noble firm spirit, which would not submit to sue for preferments or titles. In common conversation he appeared only an ordinary man, but when subjects of literature or any thing out of the common way were agitated, he discovered great force of imagination and wit."

, an eminent Italian architect, but perhaps more justly celebrated for his knowledge of mechanics, was born at Mili, on the lake of Lugano, in 1543, and came to Rome in his twentieth year, to study architecture. Sixtus V. to whom his merits were known when he was cardinal Montalti, was no sooner raised to the tiara, than he made him his architect. Among other great designs for ornamenting the city of Rome, this pontiff had conceived the project of digging out and re-erecting the famous obelisk, formed of one entire piece of granite, originally from Egypt, which had formerly decorated the circus of Nero, but was now partly buried near the wall of the sacristy of St. Peter’s. For this purpose he called together the ablest artists, engineers, and mathematicians, to consider of the means by which this vast relic of Roman grandeur, which was thirty-six feet high, and weighed above a million of pounds, could be removed, and placed on its pedestal in the front of the piazza of St. Peter’s. The machinery employed by the Egyptians in preparing this obelisk, or of conveying il to Rome, were so forgotten, that even tradition preserved no probable conjecture; but the ingenuity of Fontana was completely successful. He first produced before the pope a model of the machinery to be employed, and demonstrated the practicability of the operation; and having made all the necessary erections, the obelisk was raised and safely transported to the piazza, about 150 yards distance, and placed on its pedestal amidst the acclamations of the astonished populace of Rome, on Sept. 10, 1586, the same day that the duke of Luxembourg, ambassador from Henry IV. made his entry into the city. It is said that Fontana undertook this work with the alternative of losing his head if it did not succeed, and that he had provided horses at every gate at Rome, to aid his escape, in case of any accident. Be this as it may, the pope revyarded him munificently. He created him a knight of the golden spur, gave him titles of nobility, and caused medals to be struck to his honour. To all this he added a pension of 2000 crowns, with reversion to his heirs; 3000 crowns as a gift, and all the materials employed on the undertaking, the value of which was computed at 20,000 crowns. Besides the erection of this obelisk, on which Fontana’s fame chiefly rests, he constructed three others, and built for the pope a superb palace near St. John of Lateran, and the library of the Vatican, and repaired some of the ancient monuments of art in Rome. His forte, indeed, was rather in mechanics than in original architecture, in which last he is said to have committed many mistakes; and either this, or the envy which his great enterprize created, is supposed to have raised him enemies, who at length persuaded pope Clement VIII. to dismiss him from his office of pontifical architect. In 1592, however, he was invited to Naples by the viceroy, the count Miranda, who made him royal architect and chief engineer. In that city he built the royal palace and some other considerable edifices, and died there in 1607. He published an account of the removal of the obelisk, entitled “Delia transportatione dell' Obelisco Vaticano e delle fabriche Sixto V.” Rome, 1590, fol. reprinted at Naples in 1603. He had a brother, John, who assisted him in his works at Rome, but who excelled chiefly in hydraulic machinery. He died at Rome in the year 1614.

It was greatly advantageous to the cause of letters that Mr. Forcellini, being introduced to the notice of cardinal Cornaro, bishop of Padua, received from that prelate an order to compile a new Latin Dictionary, in which all the deficiencies of the preceding edition of Calepini’s performance, for the Latin department, should be supplied. Perhaps no person was better qualified for such an undertaking, or was possessed of more steadiness, patience, and perseverance; an almost incredible proof of which is, that he employed in it in-aHy forty years of his life He ransacked not only all the Latin writers of the several ages of Roman literature, but all the ancient grammarians, and every collection of inscriptions which had been published to his time. To each of the Latin words inserted in this new Dictionary he affixed the corresponding Italian and Greek, and, to render the work still more complete, he subjoined to u a copious list of barbarous words, and a numerous catalogue of the writers whose works he had investigated. The performance was soon considered classical and unrivalled. Besides the intimate friendship of Facciolati, his preceptor and benefactor, the abbe Forceliini was highly esteemed by Morgagni, Pontedera, Valsecchi, and other eminent professors in the university of Padua. His learning and his merit would have advanced him to high literary honours, had he been less modest and unassuming. He was regular in his domestic life, candid, disinterested, and exemplary; and as a literary character, he was satisfied that his memory would be dear to and respected by posterity. He died April 4, 1768.

, was a Scottish historian, whose time and place of birth are uncertain. It is most generally agreed that he was a priest in the church of Fordun in 1377, because he dedicated his history of Scotland to cardinal Wardlaw, who at that time was bishop of Glasgow. The time of his death is equally obscure, but may with probability be conjectured to have been soon after he finished his “Scoti-chronicon.” In this history there are some traditions that seem not sufficiently authenticated, and many legendary tales, too gross for belief, yet some curious and valuable particulars are also contained in it; among which may be reckoned the oration of a highland bard, delivered at the coronation of Alexander III. in 1249, a piece peculiar in its kind. Every convent in Scotland, and some in England, transcribed copies of this history; and two editions of it have been printed; one by Hearne at Oxford, 1722, in 5 vols. 8vo; the other by Mr. Goodall at Edinburgh, in a single volume, folio. ms copies are to be found in great plenty in the Bodleian library, in the British Museum, and at Edinburgh.

, a learned Portuguese ecclesiastic, was born at Lisbon in 1523, and entered among the Dominicans in February 1539. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, king John III. sent him to study theology in the university of Paris, where he became distinguished for his proficiency. On his return to Lisbon the king appointed him his preacher, and prince Louis at the same time entrusted to him the education of his son. Of all the divines sent by king Sebastian to the council of Trent in 1561, he held the first place in respect of talents. It is said that one day when he was about to ascend the pulpit, he asked the fathers of the council, who were his auditors, in what language they would wish to hear him preach, such facility he had in all the modern languages. In consideration of his uncommon merit these fathers appointed him a member of that celebrated council of Feb. 26, 1562. He was also appointed secretary to the committee for examining and condemning such publications as they thought unfit to be disseminated, and this office was ever after given to a monk of his order. The fathers of the council afterwards sent him on an important mission to pope Pius IV. who discovering his talents, and knowing his integrity, conferred upon him the place of confessor to his nephew, the cardinal St. Charles Borromeo. At Rome he was also employed to reform the Breviary and the Roman Missal, and to compose the Roman catechism. This detained him at Rome for some time; but having at length returned to Portugal, he was chosen prior of the Dominican convent at Lisbon in 1568. His other offices were those of confessor to king John III. and the princess Mary, daughter of king Emanuel, qualificator of the inquisition, and deputy of the tribunal of conscience, and of the military orders. From the profits of these places he built the convent of St. Paul in the village of Almada, opposite Lisbon, and there he died, Feb. 10, 1581. He published an oration at the council of Trent, and the catechism and breviary mentioned above; but his principal work was a commentary of Isaiah, “Isaiae prophetae vetus et nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commentario, &c.” Venice, 163, fol. This is a very rare edition; but the work was afterwards added to the London edition of the “Critici Sacri,”

, a learned Italian prelate and poet, was born in 1674, obtained the highest rank of episcopacy under pope Clement XI, and flattered himself that Clement XII. a friend of poetry and poets, would advance him to the dignity of cardinal. This pope continally giving him reason to hope, as constantly found excuses for disappointing him; at length one instance more of this duplicity, added to so many that had passed, completely extinguished the expectations of Fortiguerra, and this mortification so deeply affected him, that it proved fatal. When he was on his death-bed, Clement sent to him, endeavouring to comfort him once more, and revive his hopes, but the sick man turning himself about, and raising the clothes, only uttered such an explosion, as once surprised and entertained the British house of commons, and said, “that is my answer; a good journey to us both” <c Eccovi la riposta bon viaggio e per lei, e per me.“He died soon after this, which happened in 1735, being then sixty-one. His house was the general resort of wit and literature in Rome, and he wrote his ”Ricciardetto,“a burlesque poem in thirty cantos, in a very short time, to prove to a party of this kind, how easy it is for a man of imagination to write in the style of Ariosto, whom some of them had preferred to Tasso. In this poem he gave abundant liberty to his imagination, and its extravagance would be fatiguing beyond measure, were it not supported by the utmost ease of versification, and perpetual sallies of pleasantry and genius. It has been ably translated into French by a M. du Mourner, chev. of St. Louis, who died in 1768. There is also a translation of” Terence" by Fortiguerra, with the Latin text, printed at Urbino in 1736, and adorned with cuts, a very splendid book.

, count of Belle-Isle, more known by the name of marechal Bellisle, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1684. Politics and history attracted his attention from his very infancy, to which studies he afterwards added that of mathematics. He had hardly finished his education when Louis XIV. gave him a regiment of dragoons. He signalized himself at the siege of Lisle, received other steps of promotion, and at the peace returned to court, where the king entirely forgot the faults of the grandfather in the merits of his descendant. When war again broke out, after the death of Louis XIV. he proceeded to distinguish himself, but a change of ministry put a check to his career. He shared the disgrace of the minister Le Blanc, was for a time im-prisoned in the Bastile, and then banished to his own estate. In this retreat he composed a complete justification of himself, was recalled to court, and from that time experienced only favour, fortune, and promotion. In the war of 1733, he obtained a principal command in Flanders, distinguished himself before Philipsburg, and commanded during the rest of the campaign in Germany. In 1735 he was decorated with the order of the Holy Ghost, and was the confidential adviser of the minister, cardinal Fleury. About this time, taking advantage of an interval of peace, he wrote memoirs of all the countries in which he had served: but on the death of the emperor Charles VI. in 1740, he urged the cardinal to declare war. Ambition prompted this advice, and his ambition was not long without gratification. In 1741, he was created marechal of France. The witlings attacked him on his elevation, but he despised their efforts: “These rhymers,” said he, “would gain their ends, should I do them the honour to be angry.” At the election of the emperor in 1742, marechal Bellisle was plenipotentiary of France at the diet of Francfort, where his magnificence was no less extraordinary than the extent of his influence in the diet. He appeared rather as a principal elector than an ambassador, and secured the election of Charles VII. Soon after, by the desertion of the Prussians and Saxons, the marechal found himself shut up in Prague, and with great difficulty effected a retreat. He was obliged to march his army over the ice, and three thousand troops left in Prague were compelled to surrender, though with honour. On his return to Francfort, Charles VII. presented him with the order of the golden fleece, having already declared him a prince of the empire. In December 1743, as he was going again into Germany, he was taken prisoner at Elbingerode, a small town encircled by the territory of Hanover, and was carried into England, where he remained till August 1744. He then served against the Austrians in Provence; and, returning to Versailles to plan the campaign of 1748, was created a peer of France. He had enjoyed the title of duke of Gisors, from 1742. Afterthe peace in 1743, his influence at court continued to increase, and in 1757 he became prime minister; but in this situation he lived only four years; falling a victim, it is said, to his application to business, his sorrow for the misfortunes of France, and his anxious cares to extricate her from them. This patriotic character coincides with other anecdotes related of him. Having lost his brother, whom he tenderly loved, at a very critical period of public affairs, he suppressed his private grief as soon as possible, saying, “I have no brother; but I have a country, let me exert myself to save her.” He died in January, 1761, at the age of 77.

He was the author of many excellent works, as, 1. “The Principles and Practices of certain moderate divines of the Church of England, abusively called Latitudinarians, greatly misunderstood, truly represented and defended,” 1670, 8vo. This is written in the way of dialogue. 2. “The Design of Christianity or, a plain demonstration and improvement of this proposition, viz. that the enduing men with inward real righteousness and true holiness, was the ultimate end of our Saviour’s coming into the world, and is the great intendment of his blessed Gospel,” 1671, 8vo. John Bunyan, the author of the Pilgrim’s Progress, having attacked this book, the author vindicated it in a pamphlet with a very coarse title; 3. “Dirt wiped out; or, a manifest discovery of the gross ignorance, erroneousness, and most unchristian and wicked spirit of one John Bunyan, Lay-preacher in Bedford, c.” 1672, 4to. 4. “Libertas Evangelica; or, a Discourse of Christian Liberty. Being a further pursuance of The Design of Christianity,” 1630, 8vo. 5. Some pieces against popery; as, “The Resolution of this case of conscience, whether the Church of England’s symbolizing, so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it lawful to hold communion with the Church of Rome?” 1683, 4to. “A Defence of the Resolution, &c.” 1684, 4to. “Examination of Cardinal Bellarmine’s fourth note of the Church, viz. Amplitude, or Multitude and Variety of Believers.” “The texts which Papists cite out of the Bible, for the proof of their doctrine concerning the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, examined,” 1687, 4to. The two last are printed in “The Preservative against Popery,” folio. He published, also, 6. Two pieces on the doctrine of the Trinity, “Certain Propositions, by which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained, according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason. Together with a defence of them, &c.” 1694, 4to. “A Second Defence of the Propositions, &c.” 1695, 4to. 7. Eighteen Occasional Sermons; one of which was on “The great wickedness and mischievous effects of Slandering, preached in the parish church of St. Giles’s, Nov. 15, 1685, on Psalm ci. 5, with a large preface of the author, and conclusion in his own vindication,” 1685, 4to. 8. “An Answer to the Paper delivered by Mr. Ashton at his execution,” 1690, 4to. 9. “A Discourse on the great disingenuity and unreasonableness of repining at afflicting Providences, and of the influence which they ought to have upon us, published upon occasion of the death of queen Maw; with a preface containing some observations touching her excellent endowments and exemplary life,” 1695, 8vo.

, an eminent statesman, almoner to Henry VIII. and bishop of Hereford, was born at Dursley, in Gloucestershire; but it is not mentioned in what year. After passing through Eton school he was admitted of King’s college in Cambridge, 1512, where he was elected provost in 1528, and continued in that office till his death. Being recommended to cardinal Wolsey as a man of an acute spirit and political turn, he was taken into his service; and, according to Lloyd, was the person who encouraged the cardinal to aspire to the papacy. In 1528 he was sent ambassador to Rome, jointly with Stephen Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Winchester, in order to obtain bulls from Clement VII. for Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. He was then almoner to the king; and reputed, as Burnet says, one of the best diviues ia England. He was afterwards employed in embassies both in France and Germany; during which, as he was one day discoursing upon terms of peace, he said, “honourable ones last long, but the dishonourable, no longer than till kings have power to break them the surest?way, therefore, to peace, is a constant prepared ness for war.” Two things, he would say, must support a government, “gold and iron: gold, to reward its friends; and iron, to keep under its enemies.” It was to him that Cranmer owed his first introduction to court, with all its important results.

His last appearance in parliament was in 1523; he had then been nearly five years deprived of his sight, which he never recovered. Wolsey endeavoured to persuade him to resign his bishopric to him, and accept of a pension, but this he rejected, asserting, according to Parker, that “Tho' by reason of his blindness he was not able to distinguish white from black, yet he could discern between true and false, right and wrong; and plainly enough saw, without eyes, the malice of that ungrateful man, which be did not see before. That it behoved the cardinal to take care not to be. so blinded with ambition as not to foresee his own end. He needed not trouble himself with the bishopric of Winchester, but rather should mind the king’s affairs.”

“His character,” says Mr. Gough, “may be briefly summed up in these two particulars: great talents and abilities for business, which recommended him to one of the wisest princes of the age; and not less charity and munificence, of which he has left lasting monuments.” Of his writings, we have only an English translation of the “Rule ofSt. Benedict,” for the use of his diocese, printed by Pinson, 1516, and a Letter to cardinal Wolsey, the subject of which is the cardinal’s intended visitation and reformation of the clergy. Fox expresses his great satisfaction at any measures which might produce so desirable an effect. The general and respectful style of this letter either affords a proof of Fox’s meek and conciliatory temper, or suggests a doubt whether our historians have not too implicitly followed each other in asserting that Wolsey’s ingratitude was the principal cause of his retiring from court. That Wolsey was ungrateful may be inferred from the preceding quotation from archbishop Parker, but Fox’s discovery of it, there implied, was long subsequent to his leaving the court;and it is certain that in the letter now mentioned, and in another written in 1526, he addresses the cardinal in terms of the utmost respect and affection. Of these circumstances Fiddes and Grove, the biographers of Wolsey, have not neglected to avail themselves, but they have suppressed all notice of his offer to Fox respecting the resignation of the bishopric.

an eminent Italian poet and physician, was born at Verona in 1483. Two singularities are related of him in his infancy; one, that his lips adhered so closely to each other when he came into the world, that a surgeon was obliged to divide them with his knife; the other, that his mother, Camilla Mascarellia, was killed by lightning, while he, though in her arms at the very moment, escaped unhurt. Fracastorio was of parts so exquisite, and made so wonderful a progress in every thing he undertook, that he became eminently skilled, not only in the belles lettres, but in all arts and sciences. He was a poet, a philosopher, a physician, an astronomer, and a mathematician. He was a man also of great political consequence, as appears from pope Paul Ill.'s making use of his authority to remove the council of Trent to Bologna, under the pretext of a contagious distemper, which, as Fracastorio deposed, made it no longer safe for him to continue at Trent. He was intimately acquainted with cardinal Bembo, Julius Scaliger, and all the great men of his time. He died of an apoplexy, at Casi near Verona, in 1553; and in 1559 the town of Verona erected a statue in honour of him.

, was born at the castle of Sales, in the diocese of Geneva, August 21, 1567. He descended from one of the most ancient and noble families of Savoy. Having taken a doctor of law’s degree at Padua, he was first advocate at Chambery, then provost of the church of Geneva at Annecy. Claudius de Granier, his bishop, sent him as missionary into the valleys of his diocese to. convert the Zuinglians, and Calvinists, which he is said to have performed in great numbers, and his sermons were attended with wonderful success. The bishop of Geneva chose him afterwards for his coadjutor, but was obliged to use authority before he could be persuaded to accept the office. Religious aftairs called him afterwards into France, where he was universally esteemed; and cardinal du Perron said, “There were no heretics whom he could not convince, but M. de Geneva must be employed to convert them.” Henry IV. being informed of his merit, made him considerable offers, in hopes of detaining hioi in France; but he chose rather to return to Savoy, where he arrived in 1602, and found bishop Grimier had died a few days before. St. Francis then undertook the reformation of his diocese, where piety and virtue soon flourished through his zeal; he restored regularity in the monasteries, and instituted the order of the Visitation in. 1610, which was confirmed by Paul V. 1618, and of whicli the baroness de Chantal, whom he converted by his preaching at Dijon, was the foundress. He also established a congregation of hermits in Chablais, restored ecclesiastical discipline to its ancient vigour, and converted nnmerous heretics to the faith. At the latter end of 1618 St. Francis was obliged to go again to Paris, with the cardinal de Savoy, to conclude a marriage between the prince of Piedmont and Christina of France, second daughter of Henry IV. This princess, herself, chose de Sales for her chief almoner; but he -would accept the place only on two conditions; one, that it should not preclude his residing in his diocese; the other, that whenever he did not execute his office, he should not receive the profits of it. These xinusual terms the princess was obliged to consent to, and immediately, as if by way of investing him with his office, presented him with a very valuable diamond, saying, “On condition that you will keep it for my sake.” To which he replied, “I promise to do so, madam, unless the poor stand in need of it.” Returning to Annecy, he continued to visit the sick, relieve those in want, instruct the people, and discharge all the duties of a pious bishop, till 1622, when he died of an apoplexy at Lyons, December 28, aged fifty-six, leaving several religious works, collected in 2 vols. fol. The most known are, “The Introduction to a devout Life;” and “Philo,” or a treatise on the love of God. MarsoHier has written his life, 2 yols. 12mo, which was translated into English by Mr. Crathornc. He was canonized in 16 65.

, an Italian poet of the infamous class which disgraced the sixteenth century, was born at Benevento, in 1510, and under his father, who was a schoolmaster, acquired a knowledge of the learned languages. In his youth he became acquainted with Peter Aretino, and from being his assistant in his various works, became his rival, and whilst he at least equalled him in virulence and licentiousness, greatly surpassed him in learning and abilities. His first attempt at rivalship was his “Pistole Vulgari,” in 1539. A fierce war was commenced between them, and sustained on each side with the greatest rancour and malignity. Franco left Venice, and took up his abode at Montserrat, where he published a dialogue, entitled “Delle Belleze;” and a collection of sonnets against Aretino with a “Priapeia Italiana,” which contained the grossest obscenity, the most unqualified abuse, and the boldest satire against princes, popes, the fathers of the council of Trent, and other eminent persons. Yet all this did not injure his literary reputation; he was a principal member of the academy of Argonauti at Montserrat, and in this capacity wrote his “Rime Maritime,” printed at Mantua in 1549. At Mantua he followed the profession of a schoolmaster thence he removed to Rome, where he published commentaries on the “Priapeia,” attributed to Virgil, the copies of which were suppressed and burned by order of pope Paul IV, Under Pius IV. he continued to indulge his virulence, and found a protector in cardinal Morone. His imprudence, however, in writing a Latin epigram against Pius V. with other defamatory libels, brought upon him the punishment which he amply deserved. He was taken from his study in his furred robe, and hanged on the common gallows without trial or ceremony. He was author of several other works besides those already enumerated, and he left behind him in ms. a translation of Homer’s Iliad.

He was nineteen or twenty years of age when he began to learn to design under Francis Perier, and having spent two years in the school of that painter, and of Simon Vouet, he thought proper to take a journey into Italy, where he arrived at the end of 1633, or the beginning of 1634. As he had di.ring his studies, applied himself very much to that of geometry, he began upon his coming to Rome to paint landscapes, buildings, and ancient ruins. But, for the first two years residence in that city, he had the utmost difficulty to support himself, being abandoned by his parents, who resented his having rejected their advice in the choice of his profession; and the little stock of money which he had provided before he left France, proving scarce sufficient for the expences of his journey to Italy. 3eing destitute therefore of friends and acquaintance at Rome, he was reduced to such distress, that his chief subsistence for the greatest part of that time was bread, and a small quantity of cheese. But he diverted the sense of uneasy circumstances by an intense and indefatigable application to painting, until the arrival of the celebrated Peter Mignard, who had been the companion of his studies under Vouet, set him more at ease. They immediately engaged in the strictest friendship, living together in the same house, and being commonly known at Rome by the name of the Inseparables. They were employed by the cardinal of Lyons in copying all the best pieces in the Farnese palace. But their principal study was the works of Raffaelle and other great masters, and the antiques; and they were constant in their attendance every evening at the academy, in designing after models. Mignard had superior talents in practice; but Du Fresnoy was a great master of the rules, history, and theory of his profession. They communicated to each other their remarks and sentiments; Du Fresnoy furnishing his friend with noble and excellent ideas, and the latter instructing the former to paint with greater expedition and ease.

, a very eminent philosopher and mathematician, was born in Milan, April 13, 1727. He was first educated in the schools of the Barnabite fathers in that metropolis; and so uncommon was his progress in the classes, that it was soon predicted by his teachers and schoolfellows, that he would one day excel in polite literature, in poetry, and in pulpit eloquence; nature, however, had more unequivocally designed him to be what he really proved, a philosopher and a mathematician. In 1743, (the sixteenth of his age) he embraced the monastic life among the Barnabites of Lombardy, where he passed so rapidly through all the remainder of his studies, that he had the honour of being appointed, while still in the inferior orders, to the professorship of philosophy in the college of Lodi, and afterwards promoted, in the same capacity, to the royal school of Casale, in Monferrat, as a successor to the late celebrated cardinal Gerdil.,

, a learned preacher and martyr, was the son of an inn-keeper at Sevenoaks, in Kent, wher he was born (or as Fuller says, at Westerham, in the same county). He was educated at King’scollege, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. but afterwards went to Oxford, was admitted ad eundem, and upon account of his extraordinary learning, was chosen one of the junior canons of cardinal Wolsey’s new college, now Christ church. About 1525 he was instructed in the principles of the reformation, according to the Lutheran system, by the celebrated Tyndale. These he openly professed, and with some other young men of the same persuasion and boldness, was imprisoned by the commissary of the university. The hardships of this imprisonment proved fatal to some of his companions, but he obtained his release, and about 1528 went abroad, where he remained about two years, and became more seriously coufirmed in his new opinions. On his return, he was narrowly watched by the lord chancellor, sir Thomas More, whose resentment was said to have been occasioned by a treatise which Fryth wrote against him. Simon Fish, of Gray’s-inn, had written his “Supplication of the Beggars,” against the begging friars, and against indulgences, &c. (See art. Fish ) This work was highly acceptable to Henry VIII. as favouring his quarrel with the pope. The lord chancellor, however, who was a more consistent catholic than his majesty, answered it, and Fryth answered More, denying the doctrine of purgatory. His opinions on the sacrament were also highly obnoxious, and after a strict search, he was betrayed into the hands of the civil power by a treacherous friend, and sent prisoner to the Tower. He was several times examined by the lord chancellor, who uniformly treated him with contempt and cruelty, but refusing to recant, he was ordered to be burnt, which sentence was executed in Smithfield, July 4, 1533, in the prime of his life. He had a very remarkable opportunity, some time before, of making his escape, the servants who were to convey him to the archbishop’s palace at Croydon, offering to let him go. But this he refused, with more zeal than prudence. He was, according to all accounts, a scholar of great eminence, and well acquainted with the learned languages.

, an Italian cardinal and antiquary, the descendant of a noble family of Bergamo, was born there in 1685, He studied at Milan and Pavja, and made considerable progress in the knowledge of the civil and canon law. He went afterwards to Rome, where he held several ecclesiastical preferments, and in each was admired as much for his integrity as knowledge. Benedict XIV. who well knew his merit, was yet averse to raising him to the purple, on account of some disputes between them which took place in 1750. Yet it is said that Furietti might have received this high honour at that time, if he would have parted with his two superb centaurs, of Egyptian marble, which he found in 1736 among the ruins of the ancient town of Adrian in Tivoli, and which the pope very much wanted to place in the museum Capitolinum. Furietti, however, did not ehuse to give them up, and assigned as a reason: “I can, if I please, be honoured with the purple, but I know the court of Rome, and I do not wish to be called cardinal Centaur /” In 1759, however, Clement XIII. a year after his accession to the papal dignity, sent the cardinal’s hat to him, which he did not long enjoy, dying in 1764.

This disposition, added to his uncommon talents, did not escape the notice of cardinal Richelieu, who appointed him his library-keeper, and sent him into Italy to collect the best books printed or ms. that could be found. This employment extremely well suited Gaffarell’s taste, both as it gave him an opportunity of furnishing his own library with some curious pieces in oriental and other languages, and of making inquiries into that branch of literature which was his chief delight. With this view, while he was at Home, he went with some others to visit Campanella, the famous pretender to magic; his design in this visit was to procure satisfaction about a passage in that author’s took, “De sensu rerum et magiu.” Campanella was then in the inquisition, where he had been cruelly used, in order to force him to confess the crimes laid to his charge. At their entrance into his chamber he begged they would have a little patience, till he had finished a small note which he was writing to cardinal Magaloti. As soon as they were seated, they observed him to make certain wry faces, which being supposed to proceed from pain, he was asked if he felt no pain; to which, smiling, he answered, No! and guessing the cause of the question, he said he was fancying himself to be cardinal Magaloti, as he had heard him described. This was the very thing Gaffarell wanted; and convinced him, that in order to discover another person’s thoughts, it was not sufficient, as he had before understood Campanella, barely to fancy yourself to be like the person, but you must actually assume his very physiognomy. This anecdote will afford the reader a sufficient idea of the value of the discoveries of Campanella and GafTarell.

In 1629, he published “Rabbi Flea, de fine mundi, Latine versus, cum notis,” Paris, 8vo, i. e. “A Latin version of Rabbi Elea’s treatise concerning the end of the world, with notes;” and the same year came out his “Curiositez Inouez, c. Unheard-of Cariosities concerning the talismanic sculpture of the Persians -, the horoscope of the Patriarchs, and the reading of the stars.” This curious piece went through three editions in the space of six months. In it the author undertakes to shew that talismans, or constellated figures, had the virtue to make a man rich and fortunate, to free a house and even a whole country from certain insects and venomous creatures; and from all the injuries of the air. He started many other bold assertions concerning the force of magic; and having also made some reflections upon his own country, and mentioned the decalogue according to the order of the Old Testament, and the protestant doctrine, he was censured by the Sorbonne, and therefore retracted these and Some other things advanced as errors submitting his faith; in all points to the doctrine of the catholic and apostolic church. In 1633 he was at Venice, where, among other things, he took an exact measure of the vessels brought from Cyprus and Constantinople, that were deposited in the treasury of St. Mark, at the request of the learned Peiresc, with whom he had been long acquainted, and who had a great esteem for him. During his abode in this city, he was invited to live with M. de la Thuillerie, the French ambassador, as a companion. He accepted the invitation, but was not content with the fruitless office of merely diverting the ambassador’s leisure hours by his learned conrersation. He aimed to make himself of more importance, and to do this friend some real service. He resolved therefore to acquaint himself with politics, and in that view wrote to his friend Gabriel Naude“, to send him a list of the authors upon political subjects; and this request it was, that gave birth to Naude’s t( Bibliographia Politica.” Gaffarell at this time was doctor of divinity and canon law, prothonotary of the apostolic see, and commendatory prior of St. Giles’s. After his return home, he was employed by his patron cardinal Richelieu, in his project for bringing back all the protestants to the Roman church, which he calls are-union of religions; and to that end was authorized to preach in Dauphin6 against the doctrine of purgatory. To the same purpose he also published a piece upon the pacification of Christians.

He survived the cardinal many years, and wrote several books besides those already mentioned; among which are, 1. “Index codicum MStorum quibus usus est Joh. Picus Comes Mirandulanus,” Paris, 1650. vid. Selden. de Synedriis Heb. 1653, p. 6-81. 2. “Un traite” de la poudre de sympathie et des Talismans.“3. (l Epistola prsefat. in Jlob. Leonis Mntinensis libellum de ritibus Hebraicis.” 4. “Cribrum Cabalisticum,” vid. Curiosites Inoiiez, p. 44, and 869. 5. “Avis aux Doctes touchant la necessite des langues orientales,” ibid. p. 54 and 84. 6. “The widow of Sarepta.” 7. “A treatise of good and evil Genii,” vid. Mercure galant, p. 161, for Jan. 1682. 8. “Ars nova & perquam facilis legendi Rabbinos sine punctis.” 9. “De musica Hebrseorum stupenda libellus.” 10. '-* In voces derelictas V. T. Centuriie duoe, nova cum, Scaligero de LXX Interpret, dissertatiuncula.“11.” De stellis cadentibus opinio nova.“12.” Quaestio Hebraicophilosophica, utrum a principio mare salsum extiterit.“13.” Lachrymae in obitum Jani Csecilii Frey. Medici,' 1 1631, 4to, and some others, mentioned by Leo Allatius, in Apibus.

, an Italian Jesuit, was born at Sabina, in Italy, in 1574, and was for some years a celebrated professor of rhetoric at Roma. He was then made rector of the Greek college in that city, where he died July 28, 1649. He published a small volume of orations on various literary arguments, an oration recited by him at the funeral of cardinal Bellarmine, also “Virgilianx VinUicationes,” with three commentaries on tragedy, comedy, and elegy, Rome, 1621, 4to. He was a strenuous defender of Virgil, in whose behalf, against Homer, he contended with madam Dacier. His most considerable publication was a commentary on Aristotle’s Morals, published at Paris, 2 vols. fol. 1632 1645.

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

, who was elevated to the popedom by the name of Clement XIV. was the son of a physician, and born in 1705. He was educated at Rimini, near his birth-place, and at the age of eighteen entered into the Franciscan order at Urbino. After finishing his studies at various seminaries, he was appointed in 1740 to be professor of divinity in the college of St Bonaventure, at Rome. In this situation he gained the good opinion of pope Benedict XIV. who gave him the place of counsellor of the holy office; and in 1759 Clement XIII. made him a cardinal. It is said that in all his intercourse with his brethren and at their public assemblies, he endeavoured to lower their tone, and to persuade them that it was almost too late to oppose the will of the sovereigns of Europe by a display of ecclesiastical power. This could not be very acceptable to the cardinals, who persisted in their opinion of the power of the reigning pontiff, and encouraged him in his disputes with France and other kingdoms. On the death of Clement XIII. Ganganelli was elected in his room In May 1769, chiefly by the influence of the courts of France and Spain, who now urged him to suppress the order of Jesuits, and although he did not enter on that measure without much deliberation, it was at last carried, and forms the principal event of his pontificate. He signed the brief for this purpose on July 21, 1773, and it is said, with considerable reluctance. The consequence to papal power was no doubt great, but it appeared after all to be but one link in the great chain of causes which must relieve the world entirely from its influence. Ganganelli did not long survive this event, dying Sept. 22, 1773. After his death, a life of him was published by Caraccioli, replete with anecdotes illustrative of his amiable character and liberal sentiments; but we know not how to give credit to a writer who soon afterwards published some volumes of “Letters” by Ganganelli, which, it is now universally acknowledged, were forgeries.

But his views were far from being confined to the university. He had some time before been taken into the family of the duke of Norfolk, and thence into that of Cardinal Wolsey, who made him his secretary. This post he now held, and it proved the foundation of his rise at court. The cardinal having projected the treaty of alliance with Francis I. in 1525, employed his secretary to draw up the plan, and the king coming to his house at Morepark, in Hertfordshire, found Gardiner busy at this work. He looked at it, liked the performance extremely well, the performer’s conversation better, and his fertility in the invention of expedients best of all; and from this time Gardiner was admitted into the secret of affairs, and entirely confided in, both by the king and his first minister. He received a public mark of that confidence in 1527, when he was sent to Rome, in order to negociate the arduous business of Henry’s divorce from queen Katharine. Edward Fox, provost of King’s-college, in Cambridge, went with him on this embassy; but Gardiner was the chief, being esteemed the best civilian in England at this time; and having been admitted into the king’s cabinet-­council for this affair, he is styled in the cardinal’s credential letters to the pope, “primary secretary of the most secret counsels.” He was now in such favour with the cardinal, that, in these very letters, he called Gardiner the half of himself, “Dimidium sui,” than whom none was dearer to him. He wrote that Gardiner should unlock his [the cardinal’s] breast to the pope; who, in hearing him speak, he might think he heard the cardinal himself. The successful issue of this embassy in obtaining a new commission, directed to the cardinals Wolsey and Campejus, as well as Gardiner’s address in the negociation, may be seen in the general histories of England. We shall only notice one particular not mentioned there, which is his success in disposing Campejus to make a tour to England. This requiring some extraordinary management, Gardiner took it upon himself; and having put every thing requisite to set the affair in a proper light at home, into the hands of his colleague Fox, dispatched him to carry the account to the king, who joined with Anne Boleyn in applauding the ingenuity, intrepidity, and industry of the new minister. But the loudest in his praises was the cardinal, in whose private business Gardiner had reconciled the pope to the endowment of his two colleges at Oxford and Ipswich, out of the revenues of the dissolved lesser monasteries. This added to the rest, made such an impression upon the cardinal’s mind, that crying out, “O inestimable treasure and jewel of this realm!” he desired Fox to remark those words, and insert them in his letter. There was still another instance of Gardiner’s abilities and attachment to Wolsey, which had its share in exciting this burst of admiration. During the course of this embassy, the pope falling dangerously ill, the cardinal set all his engines to work, to secure the keys provisionally to himself, in case of a new election, and the suffrages of one-third part of the cardinals were procured for him. He dispatched orders immediately to provide that those cardinals should be withdrawn to a place of safety, and should there declare him pope, though the majority should appear against him; assuring his own party, that they should be vigorously sustained by king Henry and his allies. This scheme, however, was rendered abortive by the recovery of Clement VII. but the pains taken in it by the cardinal’s agents, among whom Gardiner had at least an equal share, could not fail to be highly pleasing to him. In the event, indeed, the king had most reason to be satisfied with his minister, who gave his opinion that all solicitations at Rome would be lost time; the pope, in his judgment, being immoveable in the resolution to do nothing himself; though he might not improbably be brought to confirm such a sentence as his majesty could draw from the legates Henry, fully persuaded in the issue of the sincerity and judgment of this advice, recalled Gardiner, resolving to make use of his abilities in managing the legantine court .

During his residence at Rome, he had among other things obtained some favours at that court for bishop Nix of Norwich, who on his return rewarded him with the archdeaconry of Norfolk, in 1529; and this probably was the first preferment he obtained in the church. In truth, it must be owned that his merit as a divine did not entitle him to any extraordinary expectations that way, but as he made his first entrance into business in a civil capacity, so he continued to exercise and improve his talents in state affairs, which, gave him an opportunity of rendering himself useful, and in a manner necessary to the king; who soon after his arrival, took him from Wolsey, and declared him secretary of state. Thus introduced into the ministry at home, besides the ordinary business of his office, and the large share he is said to have had in the administration of affairs in general, he was particularly advised with by the king in that point which lay nearest to his heart; and when cardinal Campejus declared that the cause of the divorce was evoked to Rome, Gardiner, in conjunction with Fox the almoner, found out Cranmer, and discovering his opinion, introduced him to his majesty, whom they thus enabled to extricate himself out of a difficulty then considered as insuperable.

As this step proved the ruin of Wolsey, in his distress he applied to his old servant the secretary, who on this occasion is said by the writer of his life in the Biog. Britannica, to have afforded an eminent proof of his gratitude, in soliciting his pardon; which was followed in three days by his restoration to his archbishopric, and 6000l. sent him, besides plate and furniture for his house and chapel. It is certain, however, that Gardiner did not interpose before Wolsey had supplicated him more than once in the most humble manner, to intercede for him, and it is equally certain that Gardiner did not risk much in applying to the king, who for some time entertained a considerable regard for the fallen Wolsey. Gardiner also, at the cardinal’s recommendation, in 1530, introduced the provost of Beverly to the king, who received him graciously, and shewed him that he was his good and gracious lord, and admitted and accepted him as his orator and scholar. These were matters of easy management. But the year had not expired, when the king’s service called the secretary to a task of another nature, which was to procure from the university of Cambridge their declaration in favour of his majesty’s cause, after Cranmer’s book should appear in support of it. In this most difficult point his old colleague Fox was joined with him; and they spared no pains, address, or artifice in accomplishing it. To make amends for such an unreserved compliance with the royal will, a door was presently opened in the church, through which, by one single step (the archdeaconry of Leicester, into which he was installed in the spring of 1531), Gardiner advanced to the rich see of Winchester, and was there consecrated the November following. Gardiner was not, at the time, apprized of the king’s design of conferring on him this rich bishopric; for Henry, in his caprice, would sometimes rate him soundly, and when he bestowed it on him said, “I have often squared with you, Gardiner, but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give you will convince you.” As bishop of Winchester he now assisted in the court when the sentence, declaring Katharine’s marriage null and void, was passed by Cranmer, May 22, 1533. The same year he went ambassador to the French king at Marseilles, to discover the designs of the pope and that monarch in their interview, of which Henry was very suspicious; and upon his return home, being called, as other bishops were, to acknowledge and defend the king’s supremacy, he readily complied, and published his defence for it, with this title, “De vera Obedientia.” His conduct was very uniform in this point, as well as in that of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, and he acquired great reputation by his writings in defence of them.

In 1535, Cranmer visiting the see of Winchester, in virtue of his metropolitan power, Gardiner disputed that power with great warmth. Some time afterwards, he resumed his embassy to France, where he procured the removal of Pole (then dean of Exeter, afterwards cardinal) out of the French dominions, having represented him as his master’s bitter enemy; and this was the original root of that disagreement between them, which in time became public. Before his return this second time, being applied to by Cromwell for his opinion about a religious league with the protestant princes of Germany, he declared himself against it, and advised a political alliance, which he judged would last longer, as well as answer the king’s ends better, if strengthened by subsidies. In 1538 he was sent ambassador to the German diet at Ratisbon, where he incurred the suspicion of holding a secret correspondence with the pope. Whatever truth there may be in this charge, it is certain that Lambert this year was brought to the stake by his instigation, for denying the real presence in the sacrament. This instance of a sanguinary temper was then shown before the statute of the six articles was enacted; a law on which many were put to death, and which he undeniably framed and promoted in the house of lords to the utmost extent of his influence. This act passed in 1540; and the first person condemned by it, and burnt in Smithfield, the same year, was Robert Barnes, who at his death declared his suspicion of Gardiner’s having a hand in it . Upon the death of Cromwell, his rival long in the king’s favour, the university of Cambridge, where he still held his mastership of Trinity-hall, chose him their vice-chancellor; and in return he shewed his sense of it by an assiduity in his office among them, and a warm zeal to assist them on all occasions with his interest at court; which, as long as the sunshine of any signal service lasted, was very good. But in this, his case, like other courtiers, was subject to the sudden vicissitudes of light and shade which so remarkably checquered the series of that reign; and this minister was no more excepted than his fellows from complying with those conditions of ministerial greatness, which were indispensable as long as Henry sat at the helm: and, though he tells us himself that, after the king had let him into the secret, that he could look sour and talk roughly, without meaning much harm, he ever after bore those sallies with much less anxiety, and could stand a royal rattling pretty well ; yet this was only sometimes, and on some occasions. For upon others, we rind him submitting to very disagreeable supplications and expressions of deep humility, and great sense of his failings, directly contrary to the convictions of his own conscience and understanding. Of this we have the following remarkable instance. The bishop had for his secretary a relation of his own name, Gardiner, who, in some conferences with Fryth the martyr, had acquitted himself so well that they were judged fit for the public view. This young clergyman was much in his master’s favour, yet he fell under a prosecution upon the act of supremacy; and being very obstinate, was executed as a traitor, March 7, 1544. This was made an engine against the bishop by his enemies, who whispered the king that he was very likely of his secretary’s opinion, notwithstanding all he had written; and that if he was once in the Tower, matter enough would come out against him. On this suggestion, his majesty consented to his proposed imprisonment. But the bishop being informed of it in time, repaired immediately to court; confessed all that his majesty had charged him with, whatever it was; and thus, by complying with the king’s humour, and shewing the deepest concern for real or pretended failings, obtained full pardon, to the great mortification of his enemies. We have selected this instance from many others of a similar nature, all which are evident proofs of Gardiner’s want of honest and sound principle, because it may be of use in discovering his real principles upon the subject of the supremacy, which will at last be found to be nothing more, in fact, than an engine of his political craft. It has indeed been alleged in his behalf, that he was not always so servile and ready an instrument of the king’s will, especially upon the matter of the supremacy, and Strype publishes (Memorials, vol. I. p. 215) a letter in the Cottonian library, which Gardiner wrote to the king in consequence of his majesty’s being angry with him for approving some sentiments in a book that seemed to impugn his supremacy. But if this letter, as Strype conjectures, was written about 1535, this was the time when the king had some thoughts of a reconciliation with the see of Rome, and of returning the supremacy to the pope, which being very well known to Gardiner, might encourage him to speak with the more freedom on that subject. Gardiner, than whom no man seems to have more carefully studied the king’s temper, was not accustomed to look upon himself as undone because he sometimes received such notices of his majesty’s displeasure as threw some other courtiers into the most dreadful apprehensions. This knowledge and his artful use of it taught him to seek his own safety, in taking a share with others, in the divorce of Anne of Cleves, and that of queen Catherine Howard; the first of which, if we consider his skill in the law, must have been, against his conscience, and the second as much against his inclination, on account of his attachment to that noble family. The same regard for himself might also, had he been in the kingdom at the time, have led him to take a part against queen Anne Boleyn, sir Thomas More, and bishop Fisher.

In the course of the proceedings, Gardiner always behaved himself contemptuously toward the judges, and particularly called them sacramentarians and heretics; on which account he was ordered to be removed to a meaner lodging in the Tower; to be attended by one servant only, of the lieutenant’s appointment to have his books and papers taken from him to be denied pen, ink, or paper; and nobody suffered to visit him. However, as he continued a close prisoner here during the rest of Edward’s reign, the severity of this order was afterwards mitigated; as appears from various pieces written by him in this confinement. He is said to have kept up his spirits and resolution, and it is not improbable, that he foresaw the great alteration in affairs which was speedily to take place. The first dawning of this began to appear on the demise of king Edward, when Mary was publicly proclaimed queen July 19, 1553. On Aug. 3 she made her solemn entry into the Tower, when Gardiner, in the name of himself and his fellow-prisoners, the duke of Norfolk, duchess of Somerset, lord Courtney, and others of high rank, made a congratulatory speech to her majesty, who gave them all their liberty. The spokesman took his seat in council the same day, and on the 8th performed the obsequies for the late king in the queen’s presence. On the 9th he went to Winchester-house in Southwark, after a confinement of somewhat more than five years; and was declared chancellor of England on the 23d. He had the honour of crowning the queen Oct. I, and on the 5th opened the lirst parliament in her reign. By these hasty steps Gardiner rose to the prime ministry; and was possessed at this time of more power, civil and ecclesiastical, than any English minister ever enjoyed, except his old master cardinal Wolsey. He was also re-chosen chancellor of Cambridge, and restored to the mastership of Trinity-hall there, of which, among his other preferments, he had been deprived in the former reign.

The great and important attain* transacted under his administration, in bringing about the change in the constitution by queen Mary, are too much the subject of general history to be related here. The part that Gardiner acted is very well known; and although from the arrival of cardinal Pole in England, he held only the second place in affairs relating to the church, in matters of civil government, his influence was as great as before, and continued without the least diminution to the last. By his advice a parliament was summoned to meet in Oct. 1555. As he was always a guardian of the revenues of the ecclesiastics, both regular and secular, he had at this time projected, some additional security for church and abbey lands. He opened the session with a well-judged speech, Oct. 21, and. was there again on the 23d, which was the last time of his appearing in that assembly. He fell ill soon after, and died Nov. 12, aged seventy-two. His death was occasioned probably by the gout; the lower parts of his body, however, being mortified, and smelling offensively, occasion was hence taken to consider the manner of his death as a judgment. The report that he was seized with the disury in consequence of the joy with which he was transported on hearing of the martyrdom of Latimer and Ridley, has been disproved by the dates of that event, and of his illness, in this way. Fox says that when seized with the disorder he was put to bed, and died in great torments a fortnight afterwards. But, says Collier, Latimer and Ridley suffered Oct. 16, and Gardiner opened the parliament on the 2 1st, and was there again on the 23d, and lastly, died Nov. 12, not of the disury, but the gout. The reader will determine whether the disorder might not have been contracted on the 16th, and increased by his subsequent exertions; and whether upon the whole, Collier, with all liis prejudices in favour of popery, which are often very thinly disguised, was likely to know more of the master than the contemporaries of Gardiner. Godwin and Parker say that he died repeating these words, “Erravi cum Petro, at non flevi cum Petro;” i. e. “I have sinned with Peter, but I have not wept with Peter.”

His Latin works, consisting of treatises on grammar and rhetoric, orations, letters, &c. do not form the only title he has to be considered among the revivers of learning and elegant Latinity. He merited this honour also, like Aurispa and Guarino, for his ability in explaining the ancient classics, and in decyphering the manuscript copies which at that time engaged the curious researches of the learned world. His “Epistles” form an epoch in the history of French printing. When two doctors of the Sorbonne, William Fichet, and John de la Pierre, had engaged from Germany three printers, Gering, Crantz, and Friburger, to come to Paris, in 1459, a printing-press was set up in the house of the Sorbonne, and Gasparino’s “Epistles” were the first typographical production in France. The title was “Gasp. Pergamensis (Bergomensis) Epistolre,” 4to, without date, but printed in 1470. All Gasparino’s works were collected and printed by cardinal Furietti at Rome, 1725, 4to, with those of his son Guiniforte. This son was born at Pavia in 1406. He had not the same reputation for eloquence and elegance as his father; but his works shew that he had studied the ancients with equal assiduity. He lectured at Novara on Cicero’s Offices, and Terence’s comedies, when a lucky circumstance introduced him to Alphonso king of Arragon. Being admitted to address him at Barcelona, in 1432, the king was so struck with his eloquence, as immediately to appoint him one of his council, and Guiniforte in consequence had the honour to accompany him in his expedition to the coast of Africa. Falling sick, however, in Sicily, he obtained leave to return to Milan, but without any loss of the king’s respect and friendship for him. Here the duke Philip of Milan gave him the title of his vicar-general. With this he held the office of professor of moral philosophy, the duties of which were frequently interrupted by his being employed in diplomatic affairs to the courts of Arragon and Rome. After the death of Philip, his successor appointed Guiniforte to be ducal secretary, and he passed the rest of his life in that office. It is thought he died about the end of 1459.

In 1628 he accompanied Francis Luillere, master of accounts at Paris, in his journey to the Netherlands; which was the only time he was ever out of France. In Holland he wrote his Exercitation against Fludd in defence of Mersennus, who, upon his setting out on this journey, had put Fludd’s book into his hands for that purpose. During his stay in this country, he also became acquainted, among others, with Des Cartes and John Gerard Vossius; against the former of whom he maintained a dispute upon the subject of metaphysics, and he convinced the latter of his great skill in mathematics. In 1640 he was nominated for proctor of his diocese in the general synod of the Gallican church, but the election was carried for another by the interest of cardinal Richelieu.

Gassendi had from his infancy a turn to astronomy, which grew up with his years; and, in 1618, he had begun to make observations upon the stars, and to digest them into a method. His reputation daily increasing, he became so eminent in that science, that in 1645 he was appointed royal professor of mathematics at Paris, by the interest of Alphonse du Plessis, cardinal of Lyons, and brother to car/dinal Richelieu. This institution being chiefly designed for astronomy, Gassendi not only employed himself very diligently in observations, but read lectures with great applause to a crowded audience. He did not, however, hold this place long; for, contracting a cold, which brought on a dangerous cough, and an inflammation of his lungs, he found himself under a necessity of quitting Paris; and being advised by the physicians to return to Digue for the benefit of his native air, he went there in 1647. This advice had the desired success; which was also effected the sooner by the kindness of Louis Valois, earl of Alais, and viceroy of Provence, who, observing the philosopher’s circumstances, invited him to his house; where Gassendi’s conversation upon points of learning gave him so high an idea of his talents, that he frequently made use of him as a friend and counsellor in political affairs. After enjoying this honourable ease until this nobleman was called to court, Gassendi returned to Digne, where he began to write the Ij^e of his patron, the famous Nicolas Peiresc, a task which had been enjoined him by the earl of Alais.

, a very eminent promoter of the revival of letters in Europe, was born at Thessalonica in Greece in 1398. Some have erroneously called him Theodore de Gaza, as if he had been a native of that village. His country being invaded by the Turks in 1430, he went into Italy, and applied himself, immediately on his arrival there, to learn the Latin tongue, under the tuition of Victorinus de Feltre, who taught it at Mantua. He was, indeed, past the age when languages are usually attained, yet he made himself such a master of Latin, that he spoke and wrote it with the same facility and elegance as if it had been his native tongue: though Erasmus is of opinion, that he could never fairly divest himself of his Greek idiotn. His uncommon parts and learning soon recommended him to public notice; and particularly to the patronage of cardinal Bessarion. Gaza had taken a very fair and exact copy of Homer’s “Iliad,” which the cardinal was extremely desirous to purchase; and he obtained either that, or one like it, which was long extant in his library at Venice. About 1450, Gaza went to Rome, in consequence of an invitation from pope Nicholas V. with many other professors of the Greek language, scattered about Italy, to translate the Greek authors into Latin, but unfortunately jealousies and dissensions arose among them, and in particular a quarrel between Gaza and George Trapezuntius. Panl Jovius assures us, that Gaza not only far surpassed all the Greeks, his fellow-labourers and contemporaries, in learning and solidity of judgment, but also in the knowledge of the Latin: which, says Jovius, he attained to that degree of perfection, that it was not easy to discern, whether he wrote best in that or his native tongue. On account of these extraordinary qualities probably, he was admitted to such a familiarity with cardinal Bessarion, as to be called by him in some of his writings his friend and companion.

Nicholas V. dying in 1456, Gaza went to Naples, where he was honourably received by king Alphonsus, to whom he had been well recommended; but this prince dying in 1458, he returned to his patron the cardinal at Rome, who soon after gave him a benefice in Calabria. This would have been a very competent provision for a man of his temperance, but he was always poor and in distress; for he was so extremely attentive to letters, that he left the management of his substance to servants. It is related, that towards the latter end of his life he went to Rome, witli one of his performances finely written upon vellum, which he presented to Sixtus IV. expecting to receive from his holiness an immense reward for so curious and valuable a present. But the pope, having coolly asked him the expence he had been at, gave him but just what was sufficient to defray it: which moved him to say, with indignation, that “it was high time to return to his own country, since these over-fed asses at Rome had not the least relish for any thing but weeds and thistles, their taste being too depraved for what was goqd and wholesome.” Pierius Valerianus, who relates this in his book “De Infelicitate Literatorum,” adds, that Gaza Hung the money into the Tiber, and died of disappointment and grief, at Rome, in 1478. There is not, however, much reason to credit this cause of his death, as he had attained the eightieth year of his age.

, a French historian, was born of an obscure family at Rouen, in 1659, and educated and patronized by Harlay, archbishop of Rouen, and afterwards of Paris. This patron gave him first a canonry of Notre-Dame, and afterwards he was made abbé of ClaireFontaine, in the diocese of Chartres. He died at Paris, Feb. 1, 1733. Le Gendre was author of several works, of which the most important were the following: 1. “A History of France, from the commencement of the Monarchy, to the Death of Louis XIII.” in 3 vols. folio, or 8, 12mo, published in 1718. This history, which is considered as an abridgement, is much esteemed by his countrymen. The style is simple, and rather low, but it contains many curious particulars not recorded in other histories. It is reckoned more interesting than Daniel’s, though less elegant. His first volumes, from the nature of the subject, were less admired than the last. 2. “Manners and Customs of the French, in the different periods of the monarchy,” 1755, a single volume, in 12mo, which may serve as an introduction to the history. 3. “The Life of Francis Harlay,” 1695, 8vo, a work dictated by gratitude, but more esteemed for its style than its matter. 4. “An Essay on the Reign of Louis the Great;” a panegyric, which ran through four editions in eighteen months, but owed its popularity to the circumstance of being presented to the king in person. 5. “A Life of cardinal d'Amboise, with a parallel of other cardinals who have been ruling statesmen,” Paris, 1724, 4to; an instructive, but not very laboured work. 6. “Life of Peter du Bosc,” 1716, 8vo, At his death he left five histories of his own life, each composed in a different style and manner, which he directed to be published. He left also bequests for various singular foundations, some of which, being disputed as to the testator’s meaning, it was decided that they should be applied to the institution of prizes in the university of Paris.

“Urna capit cineres, nomen non orbe tenetur.” His principal works are a “Sacred Chronology,” 8vo; a “Commentary on the Psalms,” 8vo three books “on the Trinity,” 8vo; a Latin treatise, in which he maintains the right of the clergy and people to elect bishops, contrary to the king’s appointment, 8vo (the parliament of Provence sentenced this treatise to be burnt, and banished Genebrard from the kingdom); a French translation of various Rabbins, fol. and a translation of Josephus; “Excommunication of the Ecclesiastics who assisted at divine service with Henry de Valois, after the assassination of cardinal de Guise,” 1589, 8vo, Latin, and other works. St. Francis de Sales gloried in having been his pupil.

, an Italian painter, whose family name was Lomi, which he exchanged for that of his maternal uncle, Gentileschi, was born at Pisa in 1563. After having made himself famous at Florence, Rome, Genoa, and in other parts of Italy, he removed to Savoy; whence he went to France, and at last, upon the invitation of Charles I. came over to England. He was well received by that king, who appointed him lodgings in his court, together with a considerable salary; and employed him in his palace at Greenwich, and other public places. The most remarkable of his performances in England, were the cielings of Greenwich and York-house. He painted a Madona, a Magdalen, and Lot with his two Daughters, for king Charles; all which he performed admirably well. After the death of the king, when his collection of paintings were exposed to sale, nine pictures of Gentileschi were sold for 600l. and are now said to be the ornaments of the hall in Marlborough-house. His most esteemed work abroad was the portico of cardinal Bentivoglio’s palace at Rome, and a “David standing over Goliah,” painted with a vigour and vivacity of tints that make' him start from the canvass, and give the idea of a style yet unknown. This is in the house Cambiasi, at Genoa. He made several attempts in portrait- painting, but with little success his talent lying altogether in histories, with figures as large as the life. He was much in favour with the duke of Buckingham, and many others of the nobility. After twelve years continuance in England, he died here in 1647, and was buried in the queen’s chapel at Somersethouse. His head is among the prints taken from Vandyke, by whom he had been painted.

, son of the preceding, but unworthy of him, was born in London in 1590, matriculated a member of Christ church, at the very early age of nine, and took the degree of B. A. as a member of Jesus college in 1603. After this he was translated to St. John’s college, and thence elected probationer fellow of All Souls’ in 1607, by his father’s influence, for he was then under the statutable years. In this college he took a degree in civil law, but afterwards became extremely loose and dissipated, and a disgrace to his parents. It is said, however, that he went abroad, and returned a more sober character, and received a pension from the king. At what time he died is uncertain, but probably not before 1654. His latter years he employed in translating, 1. Paul Servita’s “History of the Inquisition,” Lond. 1629, 4to. 2. Malvezzi “On the success and chief events of the monarchy of Spain,” 1639, 12mo. 3. “Considerations on the lives of Alcibiades and Coriolanus,” by the same author, 1650, 12mo. 4. “A compendious Method for attaining the Sciences, in a short time, with the statutes of the academy founded by cardinal Richelieu,” from the French, 1654, 8vo. 5. “The antipathy between the French and the Spaniard,” from the Spanish, 1641, 12mo, dedicated to sir Paul Pindar, with a promise to publish some original work, which it is not known that he executed.

, a Roman cardinal, and a metaphysician of very considerable talents, was born at Samoens, in one of the northern districts of the Piedmontese dominions, in 1718. He was first instructed by an uncle, who afterwards placed him in the royal college at Anneci. In 1732 he entered the Barnabite order, and as soon as his divinity studies were finished, removed to Bologna, where he so recommeuded himself to Benedict XIV. then archbishop of that city, as to be employed by him in making extracts, translating passages and collecting hints for the treatise on canonization which that pontiff published some years afterwards. In 1742 he became professor of philosophy in the convent of Macerata, and in 1747 published at Turin his best metaphysical work, a “Treatise on the Immortality of the Soul,” which originated in this expression of Locke, that “we shall never know whether God has not communicated the power of thinking to matter.” Gerdil, in opposition to this opinion, which it is well known occasioned the charge of irreligion against Locke, maintains that “the immateriality of the soul can be demonstrated from the same principles by which Locke argues the existence and immateriality of the Supreme Being.” Those, however, who gave father Gerdil credit for his success in this argument, were less pleased with finding that in his next work, published at Turin in 1748, a “Treatise on the nature and origin of Ideas,” he maintained the opinions of Malebranche against those of Locke; and this his biographer considers as a retrograde step in metaphysics.

The reputation of, these two works, whatever may now be thought of them, procured him the professorship of philosophy in the university of Turin in 1750, and he was also appointed a fellow of the royal academy which was instituted at that time. Many excellent memoirs from his pen are printed in the first five volumes of its transactions, published in 1759. In 1757 he published what was thought the most useful of all his works, the “Introduction to the Study of Religion,” against the infidel writers of his day. The merit of this work induced the pope Benedict XIV. to recommend him to his Sardinian majesty, to be tutor to the prince royal, afterwards the late (abdicated) king of Sardinia. For the use of his royal pupil he wrote an excellent treatise on duels; and during the time he was employed in the court of Turin, published three works in confutation of some paradoxes of as many eminent French writers,Melon, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. He confuted Melon in his doctrine, that luxury contributes tcr the prosperity of nations; Montesquieu, in his principle that monarchic governments can subsist without virtue; and Rousseau, in the whole of his system of education, exhibited in the Emile. This last appears to be the best. Rousseau himself acknowledged that it was the only book written against him which he thought worthy of being read to the end, a compliment, however, as much to himself as to Gerdil, and containing more vanity than truth. This work was translated into English, and published at London in 1764, under the title “Reflections on Education; relative both to theory and practice,” &c. 2 vols. 12mo. Gerdil afterwards diminished in some degree his general reputation by publishing a work on the phenomena of capillary tubes, in which he combated the doctrine of attraction. On this occasion the late celebrated astronomer La Lande said, *' Gerdil is learned in many other branches of science; and his reputation may safely dispense with this work.“In 1777, on the nomination of his Sardinian majesty, Gerdil was made a cardinal, and consequently left Turin for Rome, where, however, he lived in a state of comparative retirement, and is said to have been dissatisfied with the political conduct of the court of Rome, from which he foresaw many evils to the church. In 1801 he warmly opposed the intended negociations with the French consular government, and treated Buonaparte’s proposal for a concordate as an impudent hypocritical farce, and therefore openly dissented from it. It was generally reported that he told the late pope, Pius VI. that” by the signature of the concordate he had signed the destruction of religion," which in one sense was probably true. Gerdil was a catholic of the old school, and with him there was no religion but that of the church, and no power but that of the court of Rome. These predominant sentiments of his mind are not unfrequently discoverable in his works. He died at Rome, Aug. 17, 1802, much regretted by his admirers, by his colleagues, and by the public at large. He was buried by his own desire in the plainest manner, in the church of his convent of St. Charles, at Cattinari. The year after his death a complete edition of his works was published at Bologna, in 6 vols. 4to. They are written in Latin, Italian, and French.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born at Orleans June 17, 1663, and entered the society of Jesuits in 1680. Much of his life appears to have passed in controversy. He was a man of unquestionable learning, and an elegant Latin writer, but not so much admired as a critic. He entered the lists of controversy, with two men of great abilities, Mabillon and Coustant, in consequence of father Mabillon' s work on diplomas, in which he thought he discovered that Mabillon had advanced some things on the authority of forgeries. This produced Germon’s first work, “De veteribus regum Francorum Diplomatibus, et arte secernendi antiqua' diplomata vera a falsis,” Paris, 1703, 12mo, which was followed by two other treatises on the same subject. Mabillon answered in his “Supplement a la Diplomatique,” 1704, but without naming Germon; and the controversy employed other pens, but appears to have ended at last in favour of Mabillon. Germon afterwards engaged in the disputes on grace, &c. and is thought to have been the author of a “Traite Theologique sur les 101 propositions enoncees dans le bulle Unigenitus,” 2 vols. 4to, published by the cardinal de Bissy, as his own. One of his most curious publications appears to be “De Yeteribus Hsereticis Ecclesiasticorum codicum corruptoribus,” Paris, 1713, 8vo. In this he takes a view of the many forgeries, interpolations, &c. that have occurred, either in editions of the bible, or in the writings of the ancient divines. Germon died Oct. 2, 1718, at Orleans, whither he had gone to pay a visit.

, a learned general of the Augustines, and cardinal, was so called from the place of his birth. He was well skilled in languages, and much consulted by the learned of his age on that account. He opened the Lateran council under Julius II. 1512, and conducted several affairs of importance for Leo X. He died November 12, 1532, at Rome. This cardinal left “Commentaries” on some of the “Psalms;” “Remarks on the First Three Chapters of Genesis” “Dialogues, Epistles, and Odes,” in praise of Pontanus, &c. which may be found in Martenne’s “Amplissima Collectio,” and contained many useful notices respecting the state of learning and events of his time.

, a distinguished scholar and traveller, was born 1490, at Albi. After travelling over France, and into Italy, he spent some time, at his return, with George d'Armagnac, bishop of Rhodes, afterwards cardinal, who was his patron; and, at this prelate’s request, wrote his 16 books on the nature of animals, “De vi et natura Animalium,” Lyons, 1533, 4to, extracted from Ælian, Porphyry, Heliodorus, and Oppian to which he has added his own observations, and a book of the fish found at Marseilles. He dedicated this work to Francis I. and entreated him, in the dedication, to send some learned men into foreign countries, at his own expence. Francis approved this plan, and the author was sent to the Levant some time after but, receiving nothing from the king during his stay there, he was obliged, at the king’s death, 1547, to enlist himself in the service of Soliman II. for a maintenance. In 1550, however, he returned to France with M. d‘Aramont, ambassador from that kingdom to the Porte; he went afterwards to cardinal d’Armagnac at Rome, being entrusted with the affairs between France and the holy see, and died in that city in 1555. Besides his work above mentioned, he left “Elephanti descriptio,” 8vo; “De Bosphoro Thracio,” 24to; “De Topographia Constantinouoleos,” 24to; and in Banduri’s Imperium Orientate, editions of Demetrius of Constantinople in “Rei Accipitrariae Auctores,” 1612, 4toj of Tbeodpret’s “Commentary on the Twelve minor Prophets;” and of the “Hist, of Ferdinand, king of Arragon,” by Laurentius Valla.

If at this time, from perusing the writings of Erasmus, or by any other means, he entertained scruples respecting the religion of the Romish church, in which he had been bred up, he had the discretion to suppress his sentiments, and before he said any thing which might shake the faith of others, he determined to establish his own. He had not been long settled in his fellowship before a very public testimony was given to the reputation he had acquired, by his being one of the first in Oxford who were recommended to cardinal Wolsey for Christ Church college, which he had just founded, and accordingly Mr. Gilpin removed thither from Queen’s, and continued his former studies. From the nature of these, and the ingenuity and honesty of his disposition, it is not improbable that he might in time have been led by his own reasonings to that discovery of truth he aimed at; but Providence rewarded a pious endeavour, by throwing in his way the means of an earlier attainment of it. Under the patronage of Edward VI. who had now succeeded Henry VIII. Peter Martyr went to Oxford, where he read divinity lectures in a strain to which the university had been hitherto little accustomed, and particularly refuted the doctrine of tl^e corporal pretence. This occasioned a controversy of much warmth, such was Mr. Gilpia't credit at the university that the popish party were very solicitous to engage him on theic side. But, although he was as yet but imperfectly acquainted with the arguments of the reformers, he had, it seems, lately discovered, through a dispute he had been engaged in with Dr. Hooper, afterwards bishop of Worcester, that several of the Romish doctrines were not so well supported by Scripture as was commonly imagined; and, with a mind in this unsettled condition, he thought himself but ill qualified to espouse either side publicly. lit consequence, however, of repeated importunities, he ventured to appear in a public disputation against Peter Martyr, the consequence of which was, his ingenuously owning that he could not maintain his opinions, and a determination to enter into no more controversies until he had gained the full information he was in pursuit of. Peter Martyr acknowledged this candid behaviour, so different from that of Gilpin’s fellow disputants, Chedsey, Morgan, Tresham, &c. and often told his friends that it was the subject of his daily prayers that God would be pleased at length to touch the heart of this pious papist with the knowledge of true religion. Nor, says his biographer, did he pray in vain; for Mr. Gilpin from this time became every day more reconciled to the reformers.

, an Italian ecclesiastic of considerable learning, was born in 1711 at St. Maur in the diocese of Rimini. In 1727 he entered the Augustin order, and studied in their various schools at Verona, Bologna, Padua, &c. where he became an accomplished scholar, particularly in the oriental languages. He afterwards was professor at various Italian seminaries until 1745, when pope Benedict XIV. invited him to Rome to the theological chair of La Sapienza, which he filled with great reputation for some time. The same pontiff also made him librarian del Angelica, and ordered him to efface from the Index Expurgatorius of the Spanish inquisition, the works of cardinal de Novis, which that tribunal had condemned. During the height of his reputation the emperor Francis I. endeavoured to persuade him to settle at Vienna, and made him most liberal offers, which he repeatedly declined. When the missionaries were sent by the college de Propaganda to Thibet, they found themselves much embarrassed to understand the language of that country, notwithstanding the assistance afforded by Hyde, Lacroix, Vespiere, and other authors, but were much relieved by a valuable publication of Giorgi’s, which appeared in 1761, entitled “Alphabetum Thibetanum,” 4to, enriched with valuable dissertations on the geography, mythology, history and antiquities of Thibet; and in this he explains with great ability the famous manuscripts found in 1721 near the Caspian sea by some Russian troops, and sent by Peter I. to M. Bignon. His next publication was not less important to the learned world, ^ Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis Grseco-Copto Thebaicum sseculi quarti; additamentum ex vetustissimis membranis lectiortum evangelicarum divinse Missae Cod. Diaconici reliquiae, et liturgica alia fragmenta, &c." Rome, 1789, 4to. His other works, enumerated by Fabroni, consist of letters, and dissertations on subjects of oriental criticism and antiquities, and some polemical treatises. Among his unpublished writings, was one on the Greek marbles of the temple of Malatesi at Rimini. Giorgi died May 4, 1797.

, in Latin Gy raid us, an ingenious and learned Italian critic, was born at Ferrara in 1479, of an ancient and reputaWe-family. He learned the Latin tongue and polite literature under Baptist Guarini; and afterwards the Greek at Milan under Demetrius Chalcondyles. He retired into the neighbourhood of Albert Picus, prince of Carpi, and of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula; and, having by their means access to a large and well-furnished library, he applied himself intensely to study. He afterwards went to Modena, and thence to Rome, but being unfortunately in this city when it was plundered by the soldiers of Charles V. in 1527, he lost his all in the general ruin; and soon after his patrou cardinal Rangone, with whom he had lived some time. He was then obliged to shelter himself in the house of the prince of Mirandula, a relation of the great Picus, but had the misfortune to lose this protector in 1533, who was assassinated in a conspiracy headed by his nephew. Giraldi was at that time so afflicted with the gout, that he had great difficulty to save himself from the hands of the conspirators, and lost all which he had acquired since the sacking of Rome. He then returned to his own country, and lived at Ferrara, where he found a refuge from his misfortunes. The gout, which he is said to have heightened by intemperance, tormented him so for the six or seven last years of his life, that, as he speaks of himself, he might be said rather to breathe than to live. He was such a cripple in his hands and feet, that he was incapable of moving himself. He made, however, what use he could of intervals of ease, to read, and even write: and many of his books were composed in those intervals. He died at length of this malady in 1552 and was interred in the cathedral of Ferrara, where an epitaph, composed by himself, was inscribed upon his tomb.

, advocate to the parliament of Paris, and to the council, and member of the French academy, was born at Paris in 1596. His abilities an 1 probity recommended him to some very honourable employments, and he particularly enjoyed the confidence of cardinal Mazarin. He was author of the following translations “Dialogues des Orateurs,” 4to. “l'Apologie de Socrate” “riiist. Sacree de Sulpice Severe;” “I'Apologetique de Tertullien,” for which he was received into the academy; “la Cite de Dieu, de St. Augustin,” I vol, 4to.; “Epitres Choisies de St. Augustin,” 5 vols. 12mo. He died in 1665, at Paris. His son, Francis, who was provincial of the Minim order, gained great reputation by some devotional works; but deserves little credit for his principal publication, “Les Vies des Saints,” fol. which although esteemed for its piety, is full of fables, and far from accurate as to facts. P. Raft'ron, of the same order, has written his life, 12mo.

, a learned French bishop and writer, was descended from a good family at Dreux, and born in 1605. Being inclined to poetry from his youth, he applied himself to it, and so cultivated his genius, that he made his fortune by it. His first essay was a paraphrase in verse of the Benedicite, which was much commended. He was but twenty -four when he became a member of that society which met at the house of Mr. Conrart, to confer upon subjects of polite learning, and to communicate their performances. From this society cardinal Richlieu took the hint, and formed the resolution, of establishing the French academy for belles lettres; and our author in a few years obtained the patronage of that powerful ecclesiastic. The bishopric of Grasse becoming vacant in 1636, cardinal Richelieu recommended him to the king, who immediately conferred it upon him; and as soon as the ceremony of consecration was over, he repaired to his diocese, and applied himself to the functions of his office. He held several synods, composed a great number of pastoral instructions for the use of his clergy, and restored ecclesiastical discipline, which had been almost entirely neglected. He obtained from pope Innocent X. a bull for uniting the bishopric of Vence to that of Grasse, as his predecessor William le Blore had before obtained from Clement VIII. This arrangement, considering the propinquity of the two dioceses, and the small income of both together (about 450l.) was not unreasonable; but when Godeau found the people and clergy averse to it, he gave up his pretensions, and contented himself with the bishopric of Vence only. He assisted in several general assemblies of the clergy, held in 1645 and 1655; in which he vigorously maintained the dignity of the episcopal order, and the system of pure morality, against those who opposed both. One of his best pieces upon this subject, was published in 1709, with the title of “Christian Morals for the Instruction of the Clergy of the Diocese of Vence” and was afterwards translated into English, by Basil Kennet. These necessary absences excepted, he constantly resided upon his diocese, where he was perpetually employed in visitations, preaching, reading, writing, or attending upon the ecclesiastical or temporal affairs of his bishopric, till Easter-day, April 17, 1671; when he was seized with a fit of an apoplexy, of which he died the 21st.

, a Portuguese writer of the sixteenth century, was born at Alanquar near Lisbon, of a noble family, in 1501, and brought upas a domestic in, the court of king Emanuel, where he was considered both as a man of letters and of business. Having a strong passion for travelling, he contrived to get a public commission; and travelled through almost all the countries of Europe, contracting as he went an acquaintance with all the learned. At Dantzic he became intimate with the brothers John and Olaus Magnus; and he spent five months at Friburg with Erasmus. He afterwards went to Padua, in 1534, where he resided four years, studying under Lazarus Bonamicus; not, however, without making frequent excursions into different parts of Italy. Here he obtained the esteem of Peter, afterwards cardinal Bembus, of Christopher Maclrucius, cardinal of Trent, and of James Sadolet. On his return to Lou vain in 1538, he had recourse to Conrad Goclenius and Peter Nannius, whose instructions were of great use to him, and applied himself to music and poetry; in the former of which he made so happy a progress, that he was qualified to compose for the churches. He married at Louvain, and his design was to settle in this city, in order to enjoy a little repose after fourteen years travelling; but a war breaking out between Charles V. and Henry II. of France, Louvain was besieged in 1542, and Goez, who has written the history of this siege, put himself at the head of the soldiers, and contributed much to the defence of the town against the French, when the other officers had abandoned it. When he was old, John III. of Portugal, recalled him into his country, in order to write the history of it; but as it became first necessary to arrange the archives of the kingdom, which he found in the greatest confusion, he had little leisure to accomplish his work. The favours also which the king bestowed upon him created him so much envy, that his tranquillity was at an end, and he came to be accused; and, though he cleared himself from all imputations, was confined to the town of Lisbon. Here, it is said that he was one day found dead in his own house; and in such a manner as to make it doubted whether he was strangled by his enemies, or died of an apoplexy; but other accounts inform us, with more probability, that he fell into the fire in a fit, and was dead before the accident was discovered. This happened in 1560, and he was interred in the cburck of Notre Dame, at Alanquar. Rewrote “Fides, Religio, Moresque Æthiopum” “De Imperio et Rebus Lusitanorum” “Hispania;” “Urbis OlissiponensisDescriptio;” “Chronica do Rey Dom Emanuel” “Historia do Principe Dom Juao” and other works, which have been often printed, and are much esteemed. Antonio says, that, though he is an exact writer, yet he has not written the Portuguese language in its purity; which, however, is not to be wondered at, considering how much time he spent out of his own country.

In the mean time, he was constantly seen at those meetings of all the persons of quality and merit, which were kept at the house of Mad. Rambouillet. This was like a small choice court, less numerous indeed than that of the Louvre, but, had charms which entirely engaged the heart of Gombauld; and he frequented it with great pleasure, as well as with more assiduity than any other, the Louvre not excepted. Thus he passed his time in a way the most agreeable to a poet, and at length devoted himself entirely to the belles lettres. He published several things, of which the most admired was his “Endymion,” a romance in prose. It was printed in 1624. 2. “Amarantha, a Pastoral.” 3. A volume of “Poems.” 4. A volume of “Letters,” all published before 1652. He was now accounted one of those choice spirits, who make up the ministry in the republic of letters, and form the schemes of its advancement. In this employ we find him among those few men of wit, whose meetings in 1626 gave rise to the Academy of Belles Lettres, founded by cardinal Richelieu; and, accordingly, he became a member of that society at its first institution. He was one of the three who was appointed to examine the statutes of the new academy in 1643, and he afterwards finished memoirs for completing them. On March 12, 1635, he read a discourse before the academy upon “Je ne scai quoi,” which was the sixth of those that for some years were pronounced at their meetings the first day of every week.

He lived many years in the enjoyment of these honours, and had his fortune increased by an additional pension from M. Seguier, chancellor of France. These marks of esteem do honour to his patrons, for he openly professed the reformed religion, although in such a manner as to avoid giving offence, or shocking the prejudices of those with whom he associated. He had always enjoyed very good health; but, as he was one day walking in his room, which was customary with him, his foot slipped; and, falling down, he hurt himself so, that he was obliged almost constantly to keep his bed to the end of his life, which lasted near a century. However, in 1657, when at the age of 90, he published a large collection of epigrams; and, many years after, a tragedy called “Dana'ides.” This was some time before his death; which did not hap*­pen till 1666. In manners he was modest and regular, sincere in his piety, and proof against all temptations. He was of a hot and hasty temper, much inclined to anger, though he had a grave and reserved countenance. He was also a man of wit, and not always very guarded in the use of it. Having shown one of his performances to cardinal Richelieu, he said “Here are some things 1 do not understand.” “That is not my fault,” answered Gombauld, and the cardinal wisely affected not to hear him. His posthumous works were printed in Holland in 1678, with this title, “. Traites & Lettres de Monsieur Gombauld sur la Religion.” They contain religious discourses, and were most esteemed of all his works by himself: he composed them from a principle of charity, with a design to convert the catholics, and confirm the protestants in their faith.

, Sieurde, an ingenious French writer, was born at Chevreuse, in the diocese of Paris, or as some say in Paris itself, in 1599. He was early distinguished by some successful publications which had given him a literary reputation, and made him be enrolled among the number assembled by cardinal Richelieu for the purpose of founding the French academy in 1635. His first publications were romances and works of a light nature, but at the age of forty-five he formed the resolution of consecrating his pen to religion, and adopted a penitentiary course of life, which some think was more strict at the commencement than at the termination of it. He died June 14, 1674. One of the most curious of his works, “La doctrine des Mceurs, tiree de la philosophic des Stoiques, representee en cent tableaux,” 1646, fol. is perhaps now more admired for the plates than for the letterpress. They are engraved by Peter Daret from designs by Otho V emius. In this work Gornberville assumes the disguised name of Thalassius Basilides (Marin le Roi) His romances were il Cariti'e,“” Polexandre,“” Cytherea,“and” La jeune Alcidiane,“published in 1733 by madame Gomez, who says that Gomberville left merely an outline of it. His other works were, 1.” Relation de la riviere des Amazones,“1632, 2 vols. 12mo. 2.” Memoires de Louis de Gonzague, due de Nevers,“1665, 2 vols. fol. 3.” Discours des vertus et des vices de Phistoire," 1620, 4to, and various pieces of sacred poetry, &c.

, was born at St Eulalia, near Toledo, in 1515, and was educated at Alcala, where he obtained a high character for diligence and learning. He was patronized by Philip II. who engaged him to prepare an edition of the works of Isidore, which death prevented him from completing. It was afterwards finished and published by John Grialus. He was author of many works; but the most esteemed is a “Life of Cardinal Ximenes,” 1569, folio, and afterwards inserted in a collection of the writers on Spanish history. Gomez died in 1580.

, an eminent English prelate, was the second son of Edward Goodrich of East Kirby in Lincolnshire. He was admitted pensioner of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, soon after 1500, became fellow of Jesus college in 1510, commenced M. A. in 1514, and the following year was proctor of the university. Being of a studious turn, he made great proficiency in several branches of learning, particularly in the civil and canon laws. In 1529, he was appointed one of the syndics to return an answer from the university of Cambridge, concerning the lawfulness of king Henry VIII.’s marriage with queen Catherine: and from his readiness to oblige the king in that business, was recommended to his royal favour. He was presented to the rectory of St. Peter’s Cheap in London, by cardinal Wolsey, at that time commendatory of the monastery of St. Alban’s; and soon after was made canon of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, and chaplain to the king. On the death of Dr. West, bishop of Ely, his nephew and godson Dr. Nicholas Hawkins, archdeacon of Ely, at that time the king’s ambassador in foreign parts, was designed to succeed him; but he dying before his consecration could be effected, the king granted his licence to the prior and convent, dated March 6, 1534, to choose themselves a bishop; who immediately elected in their chapter-house the 17th of the same month, Thomas Goodrich, S.T.P. which was confirmed by the archbishop April 13th following, in the parish church of Croydon.

, an Italian poet and miscellaneous writer, was born at Rome in 1525, where he pursued his studies in the house of the cardinal de Santa Fiora, but in his seventeenth year was taken into the service of Ferdinand Gonzaga, then viceroy of Sicily, and governor of Milan, to which city he accompanied that nobleman in 1546, and became his secretary. He was afterwards taken to the court of Spain, where he obtained the esteem and favour of Philip II. Under the duke of Albuquerque he was imprisoned on a charge of conspiracy against the life of John Baptist Monti, but vindicated his own cause, and was not only released, but admitted to public employment under the succeeding governors of Milan. He died Feb. 12, 1587, leaving behind him several works, that obtained for him high reputation; of these the principal are, “The Life of Ferdinand Gonzaga,” 1579, 4to. “Three Conspiracies,” &c. 1588, 8vo. “Rime,” or a collection of poems, several times reprinted. “Discourses.” “Letters,” &c. and he translated into Italian a French work entitled “A true account of things that have happened in the Netherlands, since the arrival of Don Juan of Austria.”

, a learned cardinal, was born at Bologna Sept. 5, 1664. He was the son of James Gotti, a doctor of laws, and professor in the university of Bologna. In 1680 he became of the Dominican order, and having completed his course of philosophy at Bologna, was sent to study theology for four years at Salamanca in Spain. Upon his return in 1688, he was appointed professor of philosophy in the university of Bologna, and was also made prior and provincial of his order, and inquisitor of Milan. In 1728, pope Benedict XIII. created him a cardinal, and three years afterwards appointed him member of the congregation for examining bishops; and such was his reputation, that in the last conclave, held during his time, a considerable number of the cardinals were for his being raised to the papal throne. Soon after this he died at Rome in 1742. His works are much valued by the catholics in Italy, and display considerable erudition. Of these the principal are, 1. “De vera Christi Ecclesia,” Rome, 1719, 3 vols, and reprinted with additions at Milan in 1734. 2. “Theologia Scholastico-dogmatica, juxta mentem divi Thornse Aquinatis, &c.” 6 vols. 4to. 3. “Colloquia Theologica-polemica, in tres classes distributa, &c.” Bologna, 4to. 4. “De Eligenda inter Dissidentes Christianos Sententia,” written in answer to a piece with the same title, by Le Clerc; and an elaborate work in defence of the truth of the Christian religion against atheists, idolaters, Mahometans, Jews, &c. 1735 1740, in 12 vols. He was employed at the time of his death in writing “A Commentary on the Book of Genesis.” A long life of him, “De vita et studiis, &c.” 4to, was published at Rome in 1742.

In the midst of these encouragements, the first volume of this important work came out in 1707, at Oxford, in folio and bvo. This volume contained the Octateuch, and his design was to print the rest, according to the tenor of the ms. but, for want of some materials to complete the historical and prophetical books, he chose rather to change that order, and to expedite the workjis much as possible. The chief materials for which he waited not yet coming to hand, he was sensible that the world might expect to see the reasons of the delay, and therefore published a dissertation the following year, giving a particular account of it, under the title of “Dissertatio de variis vims LXX Interpretum ante B. Origenis yevum illatis, & remediis ab ipso Hexaplari ejusdem versionis additione adhibitis, deque hujus editionis reliquiis tam mannscriptis tarn praelo excusis.” The helps he wanted, as above intimated, were a Svriac ms. of the historical books of the Old Testament, 'with Origen’s marks upon them; besides two Mss. one belonging to cardinal Chigi, and the other to the college of Lewis le Grand. He received all afterwards, and made collations from them, as also for a volume of annotations upon the whole work, as well as for the prolegomena; all which requiring some time to digest into a proper method, the second volume did not come out till 1719, when the fourth also appeared, and was followed by the third the ensuing year.

the latter province he was, by cardinal Dietrichstein, placed at the head of a college. He died at Lubec in 1635. He published many Latin poems, and theses on a variety of subjects; but his historical and topographical works have been found of most value. These are, 1. “Asia, sive historia universalis Asiaticarum gentium, &c.” Antwerp, 1604, 4to. 2. “Bruxella cum suo comitatu,” Brux. 1606, 4to. 3. “Arscotum Ducatus cum suis Baronatibus,” ibid. 1606, 4to. 4. “Thenae et Brabantise ultra Velpem, quse olim Hasbaniae pars,” ibid. 1606, 4to. 5. “Gallo-Brabantia,” 3 parts or vols. ibid. 1606. 6. “Antwerpise Antiquitates,” ibid. 1610. 7. “Antiquitates ducatus Brabantiae,” ibid. 1610 4to. 8. “Taxandria,” ibid. 1610, 4to, 9. “Antiquitates Gaudenses,” Ant. 1611,4to. 10. Africa illustrata,“Torn. 1622, 4to. 11.” Diarium rerum Argelae gestarum,“Col. 1623, 12mo. These are his observations during his captivity. 12.” Respublica Namurcensis,“Amst. 1634, 24. 13.” Specimen Litterarum et Linguarum universi orbis," Athi. 4to.

, in Latin, Gramondus, president of the parliament of Toulouse, and son of the dean of the counsellors to the same parliament, descended from an ancient family in Rouergue, who were long in possession of the estate of Gramont. He wrote in Latin a History of the reign of Louis XIII. from the death of Henry IV. to 1629. This history, the best edition of which is 1643, fol. may be considered as a supplement to that of the president du Thou, although much inferior both as to style and fidelity: the author flatters cardinal de Richelieu because he hoped for his favour; and abuses Arnauld d'Andilly, and others, from whom he had no expectations. He died in 1654. In 1623 he published his “Historia prostratae a Ludovico XIII. Sectariorum in Gallia rebellionis,” 4to, which contains some curious and interesting facts, mixed with strong prejudices against the protestants, which lead him to such excess of bigotry as to vindicate the horrible massacre of St. Bartholomew.

, a Parisian, doctor of the Sorbonne, to which honour he was admitted in 1685, was author of many works on ecclesiastical rites, ceremonies, and general history, the principal of which are, 1 “De l'Antiquite des Ceremonies des Sacremens.” 2. “Traite” de Liturgies.“3.” L'Ancien Sacramentaire de PEglise.“4.” Traduction Franchise de Catecheses de S. Cyrille de Jerusalem.“5.” Conunentaire historique sur le Breviaire Romain,“&c. This last is much esteemed. 6.” Critique des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques,“2 vols. 8vo. 7.” La Science des Confesseurs,“2 vols. J2mo. 8.” Hist, abregee de TEglise de Paris," 2 vols. 12mo. This history was suppressed because of the freedoms the author took with the cardinal de Noailles. He died August 1, 1732, at Paris. The whole of his works are more valuable for the matter than the manner.

, curate and canon of Loudun in France, famous for his intrigues and tragical end, was the son of a notary royal of Sable, and born at Bouvere near Sable, in the latter part of the fifteenth century, but we know not in what year. He was a man of reading and judgment, and a famous preacher; for which the rnonka of Loudun soon hated him, especially after he had urged the necessity of confessing sins to the parochial priests at Easter. He was a handsome man, of an agreeable conversation, neat in his dress, and cleanly in his person, which made him suspected of loving the fair sex, and of being beloved by them. In 1629, he was accused of having had a criminal conversation with some women in the very church of which he was curate on which the official condemned him to resign all his benefices, and to live in penance. He brought an appeal, this sentence being an encroachment upon the civil power; and, by a decree of the parliament of Paris, he was referred to the presidial of Poitiers, in which he was acquitted. Three years after> some Ursuline nuns of Loudun were thought, by the vulgar, to he possessed with the devil; and Grandier’s enemies, the capuchins of Loudun, charged him with being the author of the possession, that is, with witchcraft. They thought, however, that in order to make the charge succeed according to their wishes, it was very proper to strengthen themselves with the authority of cardinal Richlieu. For this purpose, they wrote to father Joseph, their fellowcapuchin, who had great credit with the cardinal, that Grandier was the author of the piece entitled “La Cordonnierre de Loudun,” or “The Woman Shoemaker of Loudon,' r a severe satire upon the cardinal’s person and family. This great minister, among many good qualities, harboured the most bitter resentment against the authors of libels against him; and father Joseph having persuaded him that Grandier was the author of” La Cordonniere de Loudun," he wrote immediately to De Laubardemont, counsellor of state, and his creature, to make a diligent inquiry into the affair of the nuns. De Laubardemont accordingly arrested Grandier in Dec. 1633; and, after he had thoroughly examined the affair, went to meet the cardinal, and to take proper measures with him. In July 1634, letters patent were drawn up and sealed, to try Grandier; and were directed to De Laubardemont, and to twelve judges chosen out of the courts in the neighbourhood of Loudun; all men of honour indeed, but very credulous, and on that account chosen by Grandier’s enemies. In Aug. 18, upon the evidence of Astaroth, the chief of possessing devils; of Easas, of Celsus, of Acaos, of Eudon, &c. that is to say, upon the evidence of the nuns, who asserted that they were possessed with those devils, the commissaries passed judgment, by which Grandier was declared well and duly attainted, and convicted of the crime of magic, witchcraft, and possession, which by his means happened on the bodies of some Ursuline nuns of Loudun, and of some other lay persons, mentioned in his trial; for which crimes he was sentenced to make the amende honor' able, and to be burnt alive with the magical covenants and characters which were in the register-office, as also with the ms. written by him against the celibacy of priests; and his ashes to be thrown up into the air. Grandier heard this dreadful sentence without any emotion; and, when he went to the place of execution, suffered his punishment with great firmness and courage, April 18, 1634.

, a learned French divine, was born at St, Quentin, Nov. 11, 1604, and was educated ia classic.il learning at Noyon and Amiens. At the age of seventeen he came to Paris, where he studied divinity under the Jesuit Mairat, and afterwards taught a course of philosophy in the college of cardinal Le Moine. He was then admitted a doctor of the Sorbonne, and in 1638 appointed professor of divinity, which office he retained until his death, Nov. 16, 1691. He was a man of piety and talents, and an elegant and correct speaker. His course of theological lectures was published by M. du Plessis d'Argemre, 1710—1712, in 6 vols. 4to, under the title of “Opera Theoiogica.”

, a learned bishop of Amelia, was born in 1536 in the little city called Borgodi-san-Sepulcro in Tuscany. He was educated by cardinal Commendo, who trusted him with the most important affairs, and gave him a rich abbey. After this cardinal’s death, Gratiaiii was secretary to pope Sixtus V. then to cardinal Montalto and Clement VIII. who was partly indebted to him for his elevation to the papal chair, made him bishop of Amelia, sent him to Venice as nuncio, and would have even created him cardinal, but was dissuaded from it by cardinal Aldobraudino, because Gratiani was the duke of Florence’s subject. The air of Venice not agreeing with his health, he retired to Amelia, devoted himself to the duties of a holy bishop, and died there, 1611. He left “Synodal Ordinances;” “The Life of Cardinal Commendo,” 4to, which has been translated into French by M. Flechier; “De Bello Cyprio,” 4to; “De Casibus adversis illustrium virorum sui oevi,” 4to, translated into French by le Pelletier. In 1745, a posthumous work was published at Florence, “De Scriptis invita Minerva ad Aloysium fratrem libri viginti,” 4to.

, a very eminent French antiquary and lawyer, was born at Nismes in the beginning of 1635, and being educated for the profession of the law, became an advocate of the parliament of Toulouse, and of the presidial court of Nismes, and director and secretary of the academy of that place. During his researches into matters of history and antiquities, he made a very fine collection of medals and manuscripts, among which were the originals of the proceedings of the popish inquisitors against the Albigenses. So highly was Graverol esteemed for learning, that no strangers of distinction visited Nismes without paying their respects to him, and such was his reputation in Italy that, in 1691, he was elected an associate of the Ricovrati of Padua; and when the states of Languedoc formed the plan of collecting their records respecting their fiefs and seignories, they considered Graverol as the only person fit to execute the work, which he was earnestly requested to undertake by the cardinal Bonzi. But his adherence to the protestant religion impeded his advancement in life, and involved him in serious troubles. He retired first to Orange in 1685, where he was very favourably received, but not thinking that a place of safety, left it for Swisserland or Holland. During this journey he was arrested and confined at Montpellier for about two months. After this he must have been released, and permitted to go home, as we find he died at Nismes Sept. 10, 1694. Among the works which contributed most to his reputation, are, 1. “Observations sur les arrets du parlement de Toulouse recueillespar la Rochefiavin,” Toulouse, 1682. 2. “Notice ou abrege historique des vingt-deux villes chefs des dioceses de la province de Languecloc,” 1 posthumous work published in 1696. 3. “Sorberiana, sive excerpta ex ore Samuelis Sorbiere,” Toulouse, 1691, 1714, Paris, 1694, and 1732. His other works were dissertations on medals and antiquities, most of which are printed with the “Sorberiana.” In the Journal des Savans for March 1685, two considerable works are announced by him, which the persecution he afterwards met with probably prevented him from completing; the one was a collection of letters to several crowned heads, written by cardinal Sadolet in the name of Leo X.; the other, a “Bibliotheque du Languedoc,” a kind of literary journal, in. which he was to give the lives of the eminent men of that province, and particulars of its history, &c.

, an eminent scholar, and illustrious lawyer of Italy, was born of genteel parents at Roggiano, February 18, 1664; and educated under Gregory Caloprese, a famous philosopher of that time, and his cousin-german. He went to Naples at sixteen, and there applied himself to the Latin and Greek languages, and to civil law; which application, however, did not make him neglect to cultivate, with the utmost exactness, his own native tongue. He was so fond of stu<jy, that he pursued it ten or twelve hours a day, to the very last years of his life; and, when his friends remonstrated agakist this unnecessary labour, he used to tell them that he knew of nothing which could afford him more pleasure. He went to Rome in 1689, and some years after was made professor of canon law, in the college of Sapieozia, by Innocent XL who esteemed him much; which employment he held as long as he lived. He does not, however, seem to have been of an amiable cast; at least he had not the art of making himself beloved. The free manner in which he spoke of all mankind, and the contempt with which he treated the greatest part of the learned, raised him up many enemies; and among others the famous Settano, who has made him the subject of some of his satires. It is said that he missed a cardinal’s hat because of his satirical turn of mind. When at Rome he used to bow to coach-horses, “because,” said he, “were it not for these poor beasts, these great people would have men, and even philosophers, to draw their coaches.” There were at one time doubts of his religious principles, and his pupil Metastasio seems inclined to justify these, by sinking this part of his history. Many universities of Germany would have drawn Gravina to them, and made proposals to him for that purpose; but nothing was able to seduce him from Rome. That of Turin offered him the first professorship of law, at the very time that he was attacked by the distemper of which he died, and which seems to have been a mortification in his bowels. He was troubled with pains in those parts for many years before; but they did not prove fatal to him till Jan. 6, 1718. He had made his will in April 1715, in which he ordered his body to be opened and embalmed.

, called Bolognese, was born at Bologna in 1606, and studied under A. Caracci, to whom he was related. He was a good designer of figures, but became chiefly distinguished for his landscapes. When he arrived at Rome, Innocent X. did justice to his merit, employed him to paint in the Vatican and the Q,uirinal, and even in churches. This pope used to visit him when at work, and talk familiarly with him. His reputation reached cardinal Mazarine at Paris, who sent for him, settled a large pension on him, and employed him for three years in embellishing hi? palace and the Louvre, by the order of Lewis XIII. The troubles of the state, and the clamours raised against the cardinal, whose party he warmly espoused, put him so much in danger, that his friends advised him to retire among the Jesuits, for whom he painted a decoration for the exposition of the sacrament during the holy days, according to the custom of Rome. This piece was much relished at Paris: the king honoured it with two visits, and commanded him to paint a similar piece for his chapel at the Louvre. Grimaldi after that returned to Italy, and at his arrival at Rome found his great patron Innocent X. dead; but his two successors Alexander VII, and Clement IX. honoured him equally with their friendship, and found him variety of employment. His chief power lay in landscape, though he designed figures well, and his pencil equalled his design, light, and flowing with great depth of colour, bolder in the masses and the dash of bushy foliage than Caracci’s, but perhaps tc-o green. The gallery Colon n a, at Rome, has many of his views, which remained chiefly in Italy, less known on this side of the Alps than those of Poussin and Claude. He understood architecture, and has engraved in aqita fortis forty-two landscapes in an excellent manner, five of which are after Titian. Grimaldi was amiable in his manners, as well as skilful in his profession: he was generous without profusion, respectful to the great without meanness, and charitable to the poor. The following instance of his benevolence may serve to characterise the man. A Sicilian gentleman, who had retired from Messina with his daughter, during the troubles of that country, was reduced to the misery of wanting bread. As he lived over-against him, Grimaldi was soon informed of it; and in the dusk of the evening, knocking at the Sicilian’s door, without making himself known, tossed in money and retired. The thing happening more than once, raised the Sicilian’s curiosity to know his benefactor; who, finding him out, by hiding himself behind the door, fell down on his knees to thank the hand that had relieved him: Grimaldi remained confused, offered him his house, and continued his friend till his death. He died of a dropsy at Rome in 1G60, and left a considerable fortune among six children; of which the youngest, named Alexander, was a pretty good painter.

, a learned cardinal, was born at Venice in 1460. His father being procurator of St. Mark, and afterwards doge of the city, the son was soon brought into public notice, and employed by the state in important offices. In 1493 he was raised to the purple by pope Alexander VI. having previously acquired great fame on account of the piety which he displayed towards his father, who was commander of a fleet, and being defeated by the Turks, was imprisoned and treated with great rigour. The son offered to take his place, which being refused, he attended him in prison, and rendered him all the service in his power. Grimani was also an eminent patron of the fine arts: he collected a choice and valuable library, consisting of eight thousand volumes in all languages, which, at his decease, in 1523, he bequeathed to the canons regular of St. Salvadore, in Venice. It was afterwards increased by the addition of many valuable works by the cardinal patriarch Marino Grimani, and was preserved until nearly the end of the seventeenth century, when it was unfortunately destroyed by fire. Dominick Grimani also made a fine collection of statues, and other remains of antiquity. In 1509, he was visited by Erasmus, who relates the particulars of. his reception, in one of his letters, with interesting minuteness, and afterwards dedicated to him his “Paraphrasis in hlpistol. Pauli ad Romanes.” On another occasion we find Erasmus soliciting cardinal Grimani for a copy of Origen’s commentary on the Psalms, a translation of which he had been urged to undertake by Warham, archbishop of Canterbury. Grimani is said to have transiated irom the Greek some homilies of Chrysostom.

He had apparently other views at that time, for having experienced many advantages to his literary pursuits by his visit to England, he resolved to see France. In his tour thither, he passed through the cities of Brabant and Flanders; and arriving at Paris, was received with all the respect due to his father’s reputation and his own merit, which presently brought him into the acquaintance of Chaplain, d'Herbelot, Thevenot, and several other persons of distinguished learning. This satisfaction was somewhat damped by the news of his father’s death in 1672 soon after which he left Paris to attend Mr. Paats, ambassador extraordinary from the States-general to the court of Spain. They set out in the spring of 1672; and our author went thence into Italy, where, visiting Tuscany, he was entertained with extraordinary politeness by the great duke, who, among other marks of esteem, gave him a very considerable stipend, and the professor’s place of Pisa, vacant by the death of Chimentel. This nomination was the more honourable, both as he had the famous Henry Norris, afterwards a cardinal, for his colleague; and as he obtained it by the recommendation of Magliabecchi, whom he frequently visited at Florence, where he had an opportunity of consulting the Mss. in the Medicean library.

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

, an Italian historian, was born 1606, of a noble family at Vincenza. He was historiographer to the emperor, and distinguished himself in the seventeenth century by his historical works, written, in a very pleasing style, in Italian; the principal are, “History of the Wars of Ferdinand II. and Ferdinand III.” from 1630 to 1640, fol. “History of Leopold,” from 1656 to 1670, 3 vols. fol.; History of Troubles in France,“from 1648 to 1654. The authors of the” Journal des Savans,“March 16, 1665, said they had found as many errors as words in this work. But Gualdo, not discouraged by that censure, continued his History to the peace of the Pyrenees, and reprinted it with that addition at Cologn, 1670. His” History of cardinal Mazarine’s Administration“is much esteemed, and has been translated into French, 1671, 3 vols. 12mo;” The Life and Qualities“of the same cardinal, a valuable work, which appeared in French, 1662, 4to” An account of the Peace of the Pyrenees" the most ample edition is, Cologn, 1667, 12mo. This work is likewise much esteemed, and has been translated into Latin, and inserted in the fourth volume of the Public Law of the Empire, published at Francfort, 1710. It has been also translated into French. Gualdo died at Vincenza in 1678.

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

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

, the celebrated historian of Italy, was descended of an ancient and noble family at Florence, where he was born March 6, 1482. His father, Peter Guicciardini, an eminent lawyer, bred up his son in his own profession; in which design he sent him, in 1498, to attend the lectures of M. Jacobo Modesti, of Carmignano, who read upon Justinian’s Institutes at Florence, but his son submitted to this resolution with some reluctance. He had an uncle who was archdeacon of the metropolitan church of Florence, and bishop of Cortona; and the prospect of succeeding to these benefices, which yielded near 1500 ducats a year, had Bred the ambition of the nephew. He had hopes of rising from such a foundation through richer preferments by degrees to the highest, that of a cardinal; and the reversion of the uncle’s places might have been easily obtained. But, though his father had five sons, he could not think of placing any of them in the church, where he thought there was great neglect in the discipline. Francis proceeded therefore with vigour in the study of the law, and took his degrees at Pisa, in 1505; but, looking upon the canon law as of little importance, he chose to be doctor of the civil law only. The same year he was appointed a professor of the institutes at Florence, with a competent salary for those times. He was now no more than twenty-three years of age, yet soon established a reputation superior to all the lawyers his contemporaries, and had more business than any of them. In 1506 he married Maria, daughter of Everardo Salviati, by far the greatest man in Florence; and, in 1507, was chosen standing counsellor to several cities of the republic. Two years after he was appointed advocate of the Florentine chapter, a post of great honour and dignity, which had been always filled with the most learned counsellors in the city; and, in 1509, he was elected advocate of the order of Calmaldoli.

Guicciardini did not remain continually at Bologna, but divided his time between that city and Florence. In February this year, he sent a letter of instructions to Florence; and in April received orders from the Pope to reform the state there, and to put Alessandro in the possession of the government. Wise and prudent, however, as he was, discontents and faction at length arose. As long as Clement sat in the papal chair, the discontented murmured only in private; but upon that Pope’s death, in 1534, the disgust shewed itself openly: two noblemen in particular, Castelli and Pepoli, who till then had been fugitives, entered the city at noon-day, with a retinue of several of their friends, and some outlawed persons, well armed. The governor, looking upon this as done in contempt of his person, meditated how to revenge the affront. One evening two proscribed felons, under Pepoli’s protection, were taken up by the officers as they were walking the streets, and carried to prison: and Guicciardini, without any farther process, ordered them to be immediately executed. Pepoli, highly incensed, assembled a number of hrs friends, and was going in quest of the governor to seek his revenge, when the senate sent some their members to desire him to return home, and not to occasion a tumult, which> for fear of disobliging that body, he complied with. It was this good disposition of the senate towards him, which prevailed with Guicciardini to remain in the government after the death of Clement. He foresaw that the people would no longer submit to his commands, and therefore had resolved to quit the government; but the senate, considering that many disorders might happen, if they were left without a governor in the time of the vacant see, begged him to continue, promising that he should have all the assistance requisite. To this he at last consented; and, with true magnanimity and firmness of mind, despising the danger that threatened him, remained in the city, till he understood that a new governor was appointed, when he resolved to quit the place. Some time after his arrival in Florence, upon the death of the duke, he had influence enough in the senate to procure the election of Cosmo, son of John de Medici, to succeed in the sovereignty. But, though he had interested himself so much in the election, yet he soon quitted the court, and meddled in public affairs no farther than by giving his advice occasionally, when required. He was now past fifty, an age when business becomes disgusting to persons of a reflecting turn. His chief wish was, that he might live long enough, in a quiet recess, to finish his history. In this resolution he retired to his delightful country-seat at Emma, where he gave himself up entirely to the work; nor could he be drawn from it by all the intreaties and advantageous offers that were made him by pope Paul III. who, in the midst of his retirement, passing from Nice to Florence, earnestly solicited our historian, first in person, then by letters, and at last by the mediation of cardinal Ducci, to come to Rome. But he was proof against all solicitations, and, excusing himself in a handsome manner to his holiness, adhered closely to his great design; so that, though he enjoyed this happy tranquillity a few years only, yet in that time he brought his history to a conclusion; and had revised the whole, except the four last books , when he was seized with a fever, May 27, 1540, of which he died.

Guicciardini wrote several other pieces, as “The Sacking of Rome;” “Considerations on State-Affairs;” “Councilu and Admonitions,” and there are extant several of his “Law-Cases,” with his opinion, preserved in the famous library of Signior Carlo Tomaso Strozzi and an epistle in verse, which has given him a place among the Tuscan poets, in the account of them by Crescimbeni. It were to be wished, that we could look into his correspondence but all his letters, by fatal negligence, have perished our curiosity in that point can only be satisfied by some written to him: part of these are from cardinal Pietro Bern bo, secretary to pope Leo X. and are to be seen in his printed letters; and oners from Barnardo Tasso. Berabo’s letters shew, that his correspondent possessed the agreeable art of winning the affections both of private persons and princes. Guicciardini was survived by his wife (who lived till 1559) and three daughters. Two married into the family of Capponi, and the third into that of Ducci.

His abode in this city was highly advantageous to him; for, being received into the academy which was held at the queen of Sweden’s, he became acquainted with several of the learned who were members of it. He began then to read the poems of Dante, Petrarch, and Chiabrara; which reformed the bad taste he had contracted. The reading of these and other good authors entirely changed his manner of writing; and the pieces he wrote afterwards were of quite a different style and taste. Though the queen of Sweden was very kind to him, and obtained a good benefice for him from Innocent XI. yet he did not cease to feel the esteem of his master the duke of Parma, but received from him a pension, which was paid very punctually. The death of his royal patroness happened in 1689, but he did not leave Rome; lor the duke of Parma gave him an apartment in his palace there, and his loss was abundantly recompensed by the liberality of many persons of quality. In July 1691, he was made a member of the academy of Arcadi at Rome, under the name of Erilo Cleoneo, nine months after its foundation, and was one of its chief ornaments. Clement XI. who knew him well, and did him kind offices while he was a cardinal, continued his favours to him after he was raised to the pontificate.

, an Italian poet, was born at Lucca in 1550. Having received an excellent education, he was introduced to the service of cardinal Alexander Farnese, afterwards pope Paul III. He became very intimate with Annibal Caro, and with many other men of letters at Rome. When his patron was elevated to the popedom, he was made governor of the city, and bishop of Fossombrone. In 1535 he was sent nuncio to the emperor Charles V. whom he accompanied in his expedition to Tunis, and on other journeys. He was, about 1539, made president of Romagna, and afterwards commissary-general of the pontifical army, and governor of the Marche. So well did he act his part in all these employments, that he would have been raised to the dignity of cardinal had he not been carried off by a disease in 1541. He was author of an oration to the republic of Lucca, of many letters, and of a number of poems which gave him a high reputation. His works ka*e been several times printed. The best edition is that of 1749—50, 2 vols. 4to.

, king of Sweden, commonly called the Great, a title which, if great valour united with great wisdom, great magnanimity with regard to himself, and great consideration of the wants and infirmities of others, have any claim, he seems well to have deserved. He was born at Stockholm in 1594. His name Gustavus he inherited from his grandfather Gustavus Vasa, and he was called Adolphus from his grandmother Adolpha. His education was calculated to form a hero, and seems, in all respects, to have resembled that bestowed on Henry the Fourth of France. He had a great genius, a prodigious memory, and a docility and desire of learning almost beyond example. He ascended the throne of Sweden in 1611, being then no more than fifteen; but the choice he made of ministers and counsellors proved him fully adequate to govern. His valour in the field was tried first against Denmark, Muscovy, and Poland. He made an honourable peace with the two first, and compelled the last to evacuate Livonia. He then formed an alliance with the protestants of Germany against the emperor, and what is commonly called the league. In two years and a half he overran all the countries from the Vistula as far as the Danube and the Rhine. Every thing submitted to his power, and all the towns opened to him their gates. In 1631 he conquered Tilly, the imperial general, before Leipsic; and a second time at the passage of the Lech. In the following year, he fought the famous battle in the plains of Lutzen, where he unfortunately fell at the immature age of thirty-eight, Nov. 16, 1632. Besides his other noble qualities he loved and cultivated the sciences. He enriched the university of Upsal; he founded a royal academy at Abo, and an university at Dorp in Livonia. Before his time there were no regular troops in Sweden; but he formed and executed the project of having 80,000 men constantly well armed, disciplined, and cloathed. This he accomplished without difficulty, on account of the love and confidence which his subjects without reserve reposed in their king. Some historians have delighted to draw a parallel between Gustavus and the great Scipio, and it is certain that they had many traits of character in common. Scipio attacked the Carthaginians in their own dominions; and Gustavus undertook to curb the pride of Austria by carrying the war into the heart of her country. Here indeed the advantage is with Gustavus; for, the Carthaginian power was already debilitated; but the emperor’s had before never received any check. He died literally, as it is said of him, with the sword in his hand, the word of command on his tongue, and victory in his imagination. His life has been well written by our countryman Harte; and he appears in all respects to have deserved the high and numerous encomiums which writers of all countries have heaped upon his memory. Some have suspected this exalted character to have lost his life from the intrigues of cardinal Richelieu; others from Lawemburgh, one of his generals, whom Ferdinand the emperor is said to have corrupted. He left an only daughter, whom he had by the princess Mary of Brandenburg, and who succeeded her father at the age of five. This princess was the celebrated Christina queen of Sweden.

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

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

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

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

There are various characters given of this chronicle by antiquaries. Bishop Nicolson speaks of it with disrespect, as a record of the fashions of clothes; but Peck vindicates Hall with some warmth. The author of a fragment, supposed to be Stow, published by Hearne in the appendix to the chartulary of Worcester, also vindicates the merit of the work; and Hearne says it is written in a masculine and elegant style, and contains nothing but what is agreeable to the dignity and majesty of an historian. On the other hand Fox and Ascham object to the fidelity and style of our author. Hall has been accused of being no favourer of the clergy, and some instances of misrepresentation in that respect have been pointed out by Fiddes in his life of cardinal Wolsey (p. 50, &c.)

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

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

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

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

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

The agitation which all France felt by Law’s system, and the consequent sending of the parliament into exile, was a trial to the wise policy of the president Henault. His friendship for the first president, De Mesmes, led him to second the views of that great magistrate: he took part inall the negociations, and was animated purely by the public good, without any private advantage. On the death of the cardinal du Bois, in 1723, he succeeded in his place at the French academy. Cardinal Fleury recommended him to succeed himself as director, and he pronounced the eloge of M. de Malezieux.

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

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Olivet, near Orleans, in 1499. He learned Greek and Latin from his childhood, and was made tutor to Claudius de l‘Aubespine, who was afterwards secretary of state. Hervet going then to Paris, assisted Edward Lupset, an Englishman, in an edition of Galen, and, following Lupset into England, was entrusted with the education of Arthur Pole; from thence he was called to Rome by cardinal Pole, to translate the Greek authors into Latin. He gained the friendship of this cardinal, and of all the illustrious men in Italy; distinguished himself at the council of Trent; was grand-vicar of No}’on and Orleans, and afterwards canon of Kheims, in which last city he passed the remainder of his life, wholly devoted to study. He died September 12, 1584. He left many works in Latin and in French: the principal are, Latin translations from several works of the Fathers; two discourses delivered at the council of Trent, 4 to, one to prove the clergy should not be ordained without a title; the other, that marriages contracted by gentlemen’s children, without consent of parents, are null: several controversial tracts in French; a French translation of the Council of Trent, &c. Hervet has been mentioned by Wood in his “Athenae,” but it does not appear that he was a member of the university of Oxford, although he might reside there while in England. He acquired such knowledge of the English language, as to translate into it; 1. Xenophon’s Treatise of Householde," 1532, 8vo; and

His other works are, a dialogue composed of all the proverbs in the English language; and three quarto pamphlets, containing six hundred epigrams. Of both of these there were numerous editions before the year 1598. None of his dramatic works, which are six in number, have extended beyond the limits of an interlude. The titles of them are as follow: 1. “A Play between Johan the husband, Tyb the wife, and sir Johan the priest,” 1533, 4to. 2. “A merry Play between the Pardoner and the Friar, the Curate and Neighbour Prat,” 1533, 4to. 3. “The Play called the Four Pp. A newe and a very merry Interlude of a Palmer, a Pardoner, a Potycary, a Pedlar,” N. D. D. C. 4to. 4. “A Play of Genteelness and Nobility,” N. D. Int. 4to. 5. “A Play of Love,” Int. 1533, 4to. 6. “A Play of the Weather, called, A new and a very merry Interlude of Weathers,” 1553, 4to, amply described in Cens. Lit. vol. III. Phillips and Winstanley have attributed two other pieces to him, viz. “The Pindar of Wakefield,” and “Philotas, Scotch.” But Langbaine rejects their authority, with very good reason, as both those pieces are printed anonymous, and both of them not published till upwards of thirty years after this author’s death. A poem of his, however, entitled “A Description of a most noble Lady,” princess Mary, occurs among the Harleian Mss. and some of his “witty sayings,” among the Cotton Mss. in the British Museum. He left two sons, both eminent men the eldest of whom, Ellis Heywood, was born in London, and educated at All Souls’ college in Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1547. Afterwards he travelled into France and Italy continued some time at Florence, under the patronage of cardinal Pole and became such an exact master of the Italian tongue, that he wrote a book in that language, entitled “II Moro,” Firenz. 1556, 8vo. He then went to Antwerp, and thence to Louvain, where he died in the twelfth year after his entrance into

In 1728, Mr. Hawkins Browne, then of LincolnVinn, who had always a just sense of Highmore’s talents and abilities, addressed to him a poetical epistle “Ou Design and Beauty;” and, some years after, an elegant Latin ode, both now collected in his poems. In the summer of 1732, Mr. Highmore visited the continent, in company with Dr. Pemberton, Mr. Benj. Robins, and two other friends, chiefly with a view of seeing the gallery of pictures belonging to the elector palatine at Dusseldorp, collected by Rubens, and supposed to be the best in Europe. At Antwerp also he had peculiar pleasure in contemplating the works of his favourite master. In their return they visited the principal towns in Holland. In 1734, he made a like excursion, but alone, to Paris, where he received great civilities from some of his countrymen, particularly the duke of Kingston, Dr, Hickman (his tutor), Robert Knight, esq. (the late cashier), &c. Here he had the satisfaction of being shewn, by cardinal de Polignac, his famous group of antique statues, the court of Lycomedes, then just brought from Rome, and since purchased by the king of Prussia, and destroyed at Charlottenbourg, in 1760, by the Russians. In 1742, he had the honour to paint Frederic prince and the princess of Wales, for the duke of Saxe Gotha; as he did some years after, the queen of Denmark, for that court. The publication of Pamela, ia 1744, gave rise to a set of paintings by Mr. Highmore, which were engraved by two French engravers, and published by subscription, in 1745. In the same year ha painted the only original of the late general Wolfe, then about 18. His Pamela introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of the excellent author, whose picture he drew, and for whom he painted the only original of Dr. Young. In 1750 he had the great misfortune to lose his excellent wife. On the first institution of the Academy of Painting, Sculpture, &c. in 1753, he was elected one of the professors; an honour, which, on account of his many avocations, he desired to decline. In 1754 he published, “A critical examination of those two Paintings [by Rubens] on the cieling of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, in which architecture is introduced, so far as relates to perspective together with the discussion of a question which has been the subject of debate among painters” printed in 4to, for Nourse. In the solution of this question he proved that Rubens, and several other great painters, were mistaken in the practice, and Mr. Kirby, and several other authors, in the theory and practice: and in the eighteenth volume of the “Monthly Review,” he animadverted (anonymously) on Mr. Kirby’s unwarrantable treatment of Mr. Ware, and detected and exposed his errors, even where he exults in his own superior science. Of the many portraits which Mr. Highmore painted, in an extensive practice of 46 years, (of which several have been engraved), it is impossible and useless to discuss particulars. His principal historical pictures were “Hin;ar and Ishmael,” a present to the Foundling-hospital “The Good Samaritan,” painted for Mr. Shepherd of Cainpsey Ash “The fin ding of Moses,” purchasedathis sale by gen. Lister: “The Harlowe Family,” as described in “Cianssn,” in the possession of Tiiomas Watkinson Payler, esq. at Heden in Kent: “Clarissa,” the portrait mentioned in that work “The Graces unveiling Nature,” drawn by memory from Rubens “The Clementina of Grandison,” and “the ^iueen-mother of Edward IV. with her younger son, &c. in Westminster-abbey:” the three last in the possession of his son.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

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.

, cardinal, was born at Cracow, in Poland, in 1503, of low parents, but being welleducated, bore such a character after taking his degrees, as to be admitted into the Polish se.nate. He was, here distinguished by the acuteness of his genius, the retentiveness of his memory, and other accomplishments mental and personal and was advanced successively to the places ofsecretary to the king, canon of Crac.ow, bishop of Culm, and bishop of Warmia. He was sentby the. pope Pius IV. to engage the emperor Ferdinand to continue the council of Trent; and the emperor was sq charmed with his eloquence and address, that he granted whatever he asked. Pius then made him a cardinal, and employed him as his legate, to open and preside at the council.Hosius was a zealous advocate for the Rpmish church, and de.? fended it ably, both in speeches and writings the latter of which amounted to two tolio, volumes, and were often printed during his life. He died in 1579, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried in the chmrch of St. Lawrence, from which he took hie title as cardinal. By his will he left his library to the university of Cracow, with an annual sum to provide for its support and increase. Am.ong his works, th^ chief are, 1. “Confessio Catholicae Fidei,” said to have been reprinted in various languages, thirty- four times. 2. “De Communione sub utraque specie.” 3. “De sacerdotum conjugio.” 4, " De Missa vulgari lingua celebrandaV' &c. His works were first collectively published, at Cologne, in 1584.

, 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,

, a pious and learned translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, and commentator on them, was born at Paris in 168t>. In 1702 he became a priest of the congregation named the Oratory; and being-, by deafness, deprived of the chief comforts of society, addicted himself the more earnestly to books, in which he found his constant consolation. Of a disposition naturally benevolent, with great firmness of soul, goodness of temper, and politeness of manners, he was held in very general estimation, and received honours and rewards from the pope (Bened. XIV.) and from his countrymen, which he had never thought of soliciting. Though his income was’ but small, he dedicated a part of it to found a school near Chantilly; and the purity of his judgment, joined to the strength of his memory, enabled him to carry on his literary labours to a very advanced age. Even when his faculties had declined, and were further injured by the accident of a fall, the very sight of a book, that well-known gonsoler of all his cares, restored him to peace and rationality. He died Oct. 3 I, 1783, at the advanced age of ninetyeight. His works, for which he was no less esteemed in foreign countries than in his own, were chiefly these: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a Latin version and notes, published at Paris in 1733, in 4 vols. folio. This is the most valuable and important work of the author, and contains the Hebrew text corrected by the soundest rules of criticism, a Latin version, and useful notes: and prefixed to each book is a very learned preface. Benedict XIV. who justly appreciated the value and difficulty of the work, honoured the author with a medal, and some other marks of approbation; and the clergy of his own country, unsolicited, conferred a pension on him. 2. A Latin translation of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, 1746, 12mo. 3. Another of the Old Testament at large, in 1753, in 8 vols. 8vo. 4. “Racines Hebraiques,” 1732, 8vo, against the points. 5. “Examen du Psautier des Capuchins,” 12mo, the mode of interpretation used in which, he thought too arbitrary. 6. A French translation of an English work by Forbes, entitled “Thoughts on Natural Religion.” 7. Most of the works of Charles Leslie translated, Paris, 1770, 8vo. Father Houhigant is said also to have left several works in manuscript, which, from the excellence of those he published, may be conjectured to be well deserving of the press. Among these are a “Traite des Etudes;” a translation of “Origen against Celsus;” a “Life of Cardinal Berulle;” and a complete translation of the Bible, according to his own corrections. The first of these was to have been published by father Dotteville, and the rest by Lalande, but we do not find that any of them have appeared.

, 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.

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.

Mr. Warton commences his account of Surrey by observing, that “Lord 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 anecdotes of the other.” He then gives the memoirs of Surrey almost in the words of lord Orford, except in th following instances: “A friendship of the closest kind commencing between these two illustrious youths (Surrey and the duke of Richmond), about the year 1530, they were both removed to cardinal Wolsey’s college at Oxford. Two years afterwards (1532) for the purpose of acquiring every accomplishment of an elegant education, the earl accompanied his noble friend and fellow-pupil into France, where they received king Henry, v on his arrival at Calais to visit Francis I. with a most magnificent retinue. The friendship of these two young noblemen was soon strengthened by a utw tie; for Richmond married the lady Mary Howard, Surrey’s sister. Richmond, however, appears to have died in the year 1536, about the age of seventeen, having never cohabited with his wife. It was long before Surrey forgot the untimely loss of this amiable youth, the friend and associate of his childhood, and who nearly resembled himself in genius, refinement of manners, and liberal acquisitions.”

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.

, a celebrated cardinal of the Dominican order, was so called from the place of his birth, at the gates of Vienne, where there is a church dedicated to St. Cher. He acquired great reputation in the 13th century by his prudence, learning, and genius; was doctor of divinity of the faculty of Paris, appointed provincial of his order, afterwards cardinal by Innocent IV. May 28, 1244, and employed by this pope and his successor Alexander IV. in affairs of the greatest consequence. He died March 19, 1263, at Orvieto. His principal works are a collection of the various readings of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Mss. of the bible, entitled “Correctorium Bibliae,” which is in the Sorbonne in ms.; a “Concordance of the Bible,” Cologn, 1684, 8vo; the earliest work of this kind. He is said to have been the inventor of concordances. “Commentaries on the Bible” “Speculum Ecclesiae,” Paris, 1480, 4to, &c.

, a celebrated divine and martyr, was born at a town in Bohemia, called Hussenitz, about 1376, and liberally educated in the university of Prague. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1393, and that of master in 1395; and we find him, in 1400, in orders, and a minister of a church in that city. About this time the writings of our countryman Wickliffe had spread themselves among the Bohemians, which was owing to the following circumstance: Queen Anne, the wife of Richard II. of England, was daughter to the emperor Charles IV. and sister to Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, and Sigismund emperor of Germany. She was a princess of great piety, virtue, and knowledge, nor could she endure the implicit service and devotion of the Romish church. Her death happened in 1394, and her funeral was attended by all the nobility of England. She had patronized Wickliffe, and after her death, several of Wickliffe’s books were carried by her attendants into Bohemia, and were the means of promoting the reformation there. They had also been carried into the same country by Peter Payne, an Englishman, one of his disciples, and principal of Edmund-hall. Fox mentions another person, a young nobleman of Bohemia, who had studied some time at Oxford, and carried home with him several of Wickliffe’s tracts. They were particularly read by the students at Prague, among the chief of whom was Huss; who, being much taken with Wickliffe’s notions, began to preach and write with great zeal against the superstitions and errors of the church of Rome. He succeeded so far, that the sale of indulgences gradually decreased among the Bohemians; and the pope’s party declared, that there would soon be an end of religion, if measures were not taken to oppose the restless endeavours of the Hussites. With a view, therefore, of preventing this danger, Subinco, the archbishop of Prague, issued forth two mandates in 1408; one, addressed to the members of the university, by which they were ordered to bring together all Wickliffe’s writings, that such as were found no contain any thing erroneous or heretical might be burnt; the other, to all curates and ministers, commanding them to teach the people, that, after the consecration of the elements in the holy Sacrament, there remained nothing but the real body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Hjiss, whose credit and authority in the university were very great, as well for his piety and learning, as on account of considerable services he had done, found no difficulty in persuading many of its members of the unreasonableness and absurdity of these mandates: the first being, as he said, a plain encroachment upon the liberties and privileges of the university, whose members had an indisputable right to possess, and to read all sorts of books; the second, inculcating a most abominable error. Upon this foundation they appealed to Gregory XII. and the archbishop Subinco was summoned to Rome. But, on acquainting the pope that the heretical notions of WicklifTe were gaining ground apace in Bohemia, through the zeal of some preachers who had read his books, a bull was granted him for the suppression of all such notions in his province. By virtue of this bull, Subinco condemned the writings of Wickliffe, and proceeded against four doctors, who bad not complied with his mandate in bringing in their copies. Huss and others, who were involved in this sentence, protested against this projcedure of the archbishop, and appealed from him a second time, in June 1410. The matter was then brought before John XXIII. who ordered Huss, accused of many errors and heresies, to appear in person at the court of Rome, and gave a special commission to cardinal Colonna to cite him. Huss, however, under the protection and countenance of Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, did riot appear, but sent three deputies to excuse his absence, and to answe'r all which should be alledged against him. Colonna paid no regard to the deputies, nor to any defence they could make; but. declared Huss guilty of contumacy to the court of Rome, and excommunicated him for it. Upon this the deputies appealed from the cardinal to the pope, who commissioned four other cardinals to examine into the affair. These commissaries not only confirmed all that Colonna had done, but extended the excommunication, which was limited to Huss, to his friends and followers: they also declared him an Heresiarch, and pronounced an interdict against him.

He was in France in 1518-, whence he went to Mentz, and engaged in the service of the elector Albert; and attended him a little after to the diet of Augsburg, where the elector was honoured with a cardinal’s hat. At this diet, articles were exhibited against the duke of Wirtemberg, on which occasion the murder of John de Hutten, marshal of his court, was not forgotten: and a league was after formed against him. Ulric Hutten served in this war with great pleasure; yet was soon disgusted with a military life, and longed earnestly for his studies and retirement. This we find by a letter of his to Frederic Piscator, dated May 21, 1519: in which he discovers an inclination for matrimony, and expresses himself somewhat loosely on that subject.