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

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.)

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

Next to the opera of Berlin, that of Hamburgh was in the highest request and thither it was resolved to send him, with a view to improvement but his father’s death happening soon after, and his mother being left in narrow circumstances, he thought it necessary to procure scholars, and obtain some employment in the orchestra; and by this means was enabled to prove a great relief to her. He had a dispute at Hamburgh with one of the masters, in opposition to whom he laid claim to the first harpsichord, which was determined in his favour. The honour, however, had like to have cost him dear; for his antagonist so resented his being constrained to yield to such a stripling competitor, that, as they were coming out of the orchestra, he made a push at him with a sword, which had infallibly pierced his heart, but for the friendly score which he carried accidentally in his bosom. “Had this happened,” says his historian, “in the early ages, not a mortal but would have been persuaded that Apollo himself interposed to preserve him in the form of a music-book.” Dr. Burney, however, has subdued this flourish a little, by informing us that the sword broke against a metal button. t

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

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

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

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

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

The first appearance of Hawkwood in Italy-was in the 1*isan service in 1364; after which period he was every where considered as a most accomplished soldier, and fought, as different occasions presented themselves, in the service of many of the Italian states. In 1387 we find him engaged in a hazardous service in defence of the state of Florence. The earl of Armagnac, the Florentine general, having been lately defeated by Venni, the governor of the Siannese, the victors marched to surprize Hawkwood, and encamped within a mile and a half of him. But this cautious general retreated into the Cremonese, and when by several skirmishes he had amused the enemy, who kept within a mile of him, and thought to force his camp, he sallied out and repulsed them with loss. This success a little discouraged them. Venni is said to have sent Hawkwood a fox in a cage, alluding to his situation; to which Hawkwood returned for answer, “the fox knew how to find his way out.” This he did by retreating to the river Oglio, placing his best horse in the rear till the enemy had crossed the river, on whose opposite bank he placed 400 English archers on horseback. The rear by their assistance crossed the river and followed the rest, who, after fording the Mincio, encamped within ten miles of the Adige. The greatest danger remained here. The enemy had broken down the banks of the river, and let out its waters, swoln by the melting of the snow and mountains to overflow the plains. Hawkwood’s troops, surprized at midnight by the increasing floods, had no resource but immediately to mount their horses, and, leaving all their baggage behind them, marched in the morning slowly through the water, which came up to their horses bellies. By evening, with great difficulty, they gained Baldo, a town in the Paduan. Some of the weaker horses sunk under the fatigue. Many of the foot perished with cold, and struggling against the water; many supported themselves by laying hold on the tails of the stronger horses. Notwithstanding every precaution, many of the cavalry were lost as well as their horses. The pursuers, seeing the country under water, and concluding the whole army had perished, returned back. The historian observes, that it was universally agreed no other general could have got over so many difficulties and dangers, and led back his small army out of the heart of the enemy’s country, with no other loss than that occasioned by the floods, which no precaution could have prevented. One of the most celebrated actions of Hawkwood’s life, says Muratori, was this treat, performed with so much prudence and art, that ! deserves to be paralleled with the most illustrious Roman generals; having, to the disgrace of an enemy infinitely superior in number, and in spite of all obstructions from the rivers, given them the slip, and brought off his army safe to Castel Baldo, on the borders of the Paduan. Sir John Hawkwood, as soon as he found himself among his allies, employed himself in refreshing his troop and watching the enemy’s motions.

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

, a very elegant poet and critic, was born at Instead in Norfolk in 1766. At an early age he was placed under the care of the rev. Dr. Samuel Parr, then master of the grammar-school at Norwich. Even at this period he exhibited a superior elegance of mind, taste, and genius. He had a certain pensiveness of manner, which conciliated esteem and sympathy; and which, though it might in part have been excited by the delicacy of his constitution, was promoted and increased by his studious pursuits. From Norwich he removed, in 1782, to Oxford, where he became a member of Trinity college, a circumstance for which the world was probably indebted for his celebrated publication on the old English poets. Thomas Warton was then resident, as senior fellow of the college, and Headley naturally became acquainted with his labours as a poetical historian, which confirmed the bias of his mind; and from this time the study of old English poetry superseded every other literary pursuit.

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

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

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

, of Mitylene, was an ancient Greek historian, born in the year A. C. 496, twelve years before the birth of Herodotus. He wrote a history of “the earliest Kings of various Nations, and the Founders of Cities;” which is mentioned by several ancient authors, but is not extant. He lived to the age of eighty-five. There was another Hellanicus of much later times, who was a Milesian, but very little is known of either.

, a learned and laborious historian of the sixteenth century, was a native of Germany, a disciple of Melancthon, and became distinguished by his genealogical researches. His principal works are, 1. “Genealogiae Familiarum Saxonicarum,” Hamburgh, 1596, fol. 2. “Theatrum Genealogicum omnium Ætatum et Monarchiarum Familias complectens,” Magdeburgh, 1598, fol. 7 vols. in four, which Clement considers as of great rarity, and indeed it is very difficult to be found complete. It contains the Jewish families from Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem the origin of all other nations, and the families of the second and third monarchies the families of ancient Greece and Italy, and those of all the principal modern kingdoms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

, a Spanish historian of great fame, was born in 1565. He became first secretary to Vespasian Gonzaga, viceroy of Naples, and afterwards grand historiographer of India, with a considerable pension under Philip II. He did not receive his money unearned, but published a general history of India from 14^2 to 1554, in four volumes, folio. A very short time before his death he received from Philip IV. the appointment of secretary of state. He died in 1625. His History of India is a very curious work, carried to a great detail, and chargeable with no defects, except too great a love for the marvellous, a degree of national vanity, and too great inflation in the style. There is an English translation by capt. John Stevens, published in 1725 and 1726, 6 vols. 8vo. He published also a general History of Spain, from 1554 to 1598, which has been less esteemed than the other work. It is in three volumes, folio.

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

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

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

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

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

The ingenious abbe du Bos has often complained, that no history-painter of his time went through a scries of actions, and thus, like an historian, painted the successive fortune of an hero, from the cradle to the grave. What Du Bos wished to see done, Hogarth performed. He launches out his young adventurer a simple girl upon the town, and conducts her through all the vicissitudes of wretchedness to a premature death. This was painting to the understanding and to the heart; none had ever before made the pencil subservient to the purposes of morality and instruction; a book like this is fitted to every soil and every observer, and he that runs may read. Nor was the success of Hogarth confined to his figures. One of his excellencies consisted in what may be termed the furniture of his pieces; for as in sublime and historical representations the seldomer trivial circumstances are permitted to divide the spectator’s attention from the principal figures, the greater is their force; so in scenes copied from familiar life, a proper variety of little domestic images contributes to throw a degree of verisimilitude on the whole. “The Rake’s levee-room,” says Mr. Walpole, “the nobleman’s dining-rootn, the apartments of the husband and wife in Marriage a la Mode, the alderman’s parlour, the bedchamber, and many others, are the history of the manners of the age.” The novelty and excellence of Hogarth’s performances soon tempted the needy artist and printdealer to avail themselves of his designs, and rob him of the advantages which he was entitled to derive from them. This was particularly the case with the “Midnight Conversation,” the “Harlot’s” and “Rake’s Progresses,” and Others of his early works. To put a stop to depredations Kke these on the property of himself and others, and to secure the emoluments resulting from his own labours, as Mr. Walpole observes, he applied to the legislature, and obtained an act of parliament, 8 Geo. II. cap. 38, to vest an exclusive right in designers and engravers, and to restrain the multiplying of copies of their works without the consent of the artist. This statute was drawn by his friend Mr. Huggins, who took for his model the eighth of queen Anne, in favour of literary property; but it was not so accurately executed as entirely to remedy the evil; for, in a cause founded on it, which came before lord Hardwicke in chancery, that excellent lawyer determined, that no assignee, claiming under an assignment from the original inventor, could take any benefit by it. Hogarth, immediately after the passing of the act, published a small print, with emblematical devices, and an inscription expressing his gratitude to the three branches of the legislature. Small copies of the “Rake’s Progress” were published by his permission. In 1745, finding that, however great the success of his prints might be, the public were not inclined to take his pictures off his hands, he was induced to offer some of them, and those of the best he had then produced, for disposal by way of auction; but after a plan of his own, viz. by keeping open a book to receive biddings from the first day of February to the last day of the same month, at 12 o'clock. The ticket of admission to the sale was his print of “The Battle of the Pictures,” a humourous production, in which he ingeniously upheld his assertions concerning the preference so unfairly given to old pictures, and the tricks of the dealers in them.

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

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

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

, a lawyer, philologer, and historian of Leipsic, was born in 1722. He published his first work in 1743, which was a tract in 4to. 1. “De Legum civilium et naturalium Natura.” 2. “Oblectamenta Juris Feudalis, sive Grammaticaj Observationes jus rei clientelaris, et antiquitates Germanicas, varie illustrantes,” 1755. This was also in quarto, and tends, as well as his other works, to prove the pleasing qualities and the acuteness of his mind. 3. “Literatura Juris,” 1761, 8vo. 4. “Jurisprudentia numismatibus illustrata, necnon sigillis, gemmis, aliisque picturis vetustis varie exornata,” 1763, 8vo. 5. “Corpus juris civilis, cum notis variorum,” 1768, 8vo. 6. “Palingenesia librorum juris veterum,” &c. 1768, 3 vols. 8vo. He published some smaller tracts, but these are the most important. Hommel died in 1781.

, a Dutch poet and historian, but principally eminent in the latter capacity, was born at Amsterdam in 1581. He was honoured by Louis XIII. with a ribband of the order of St. Michael, probably in consequence of his history of Henry IV. Frederic Henry prince of Orange being dead, Hooft was preparing to attend his funeral, when he was himself taken violently ill, and died in 1647. His works consist of, 1. “Epigrams, Comedies, and other Poems.” 2. “The History of the Low Countries, from the abdication of Charles V. to the year 1598.” A good edition of it appeared in 1703, in 2 vols. folio. 3. “A History of Henry IV. of France,” in Latin. 4. “A Translation of Tacitus into Dutch,” very highly esteemed in that country. To familiarize the style of his author completely to his mind, he is said to have read all the extant works of Tacitus fiftytwo times.

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

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

Regardless of this reproach, Dr. Horsley remained silent for eighteen months. A sermon “On the Incarnation,” preached in his parish church of St. Mary Newington, upon ttie feast of the Nativity in 1785, was the prelude to a renewal of the contest on his side, and was followed early in the ensuing spring, by his “Remarks on Dr. Priestley’s second Letters to the archdeacon of Saint Alban’s, with proofs of certain facts asserted by the archdeacon.” This tract consists of two parts; the first is a collection of new specimens of Dr. Priestley’s temerity in assertion; the second defends the attack upon the character of Origen, and proves the existence of a body of Hebrew Christians at JEYia. after the time of Adrian the fact upon which the author’s good faith had been so loudly arraigned by Dr. Priestley. With this publication Dr. Horsley promised himself that the controversy on his part would be closed. But at last he yielded, as he says, with some reluctance, to collect and republish what he had written in an octavo volume (printed in 1789) and took that opportunity to give Dr. Priestley’s Letters a second perusal, which produced not only many important notes, but some disquisitions of considerable length; and the remarks on Dr. Priestley’s second letters having produced a third set of “Letters” from him, upon the two questions of Origen’s veracity, and the orthodox Hebrews of the church of >Elia these two are partly answered in notes, and partly in two of the disquisitions. Towards the conclusion of Dr. Horsley' s “Remarks,” after exhibiting specimens of Drr Priestley’s incompetency to write on such subjects as fell within their controversy, he says, “These and many other glaring instances of unfinished criticism, weak argument, and unjustifiable art, to cover the weakness and supply the want of argument, which must strike every one who takes the trouble to look through those second letters, put me quite at ease with respect to the judgment which the public would be apt to form between my antagonist and me, and confirmed me in the resolution of making no reply to him, and of troubling the public no more upon the subject, except so far as might be necessary to establish some facts, which he hath- somewhat too peremptorily denied, and to vindicate my character from aspersions which he hath too inconsiderately thrown out.” It ought not to be forgot, that in this controversy Dr. Horsley derived not a little support from the Rev. Mr. Badcock, whose criticisms on Dr. Priestley’s works in the MonthJy Review left scarcely any thing unfinished that was necessary to prove his errors as a divine, and his incompetency as a historian.

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

, an English historian, who flourished in the reign of Henry II. was born in Yorkshire, most probably in the town of that name, was of a good family, and lived beyond the year 1204, but the exact periods of his birth and death are not known. He is said to have had some situation in the family of Henry II. and to have been employed by that monarch in confidential services, such as visiting monasteries. He was by profession a lawyer, but, like other lawyers of that time, in the church, and also a professor of theology at Oxford. After the death of Henry, he applied himself diligently to the writing of history, ancl composed annals, which he commenced at the year 731, the period where Bede left off, and continued to the third year of king John, 1202. These annals were first published by Savile among the Historic! Anglici, in 1595, and reprinted at Francfort in 1601, folio, in two books. Leland says of him, “If we consider his diligence, his knowledge of antiquity, and his religious strictness of veracity, he may be considered as having surpassed, not only the rude historians of the preceding ages, but even what could have been expected of himself. If to that fidelity, which is the first quality of a historian, he had joined a little more elegance of Latin style, he might have. stood the first among the authors of that class.” Vossius says that he wrote also a history of the Northumbrian kings, and a life of Thomas a Becket. Edward the Third caused a diligent search to be made for the works of Hoveden when he was endeavouring to ascertain his title to the crown of Scotland. Savile bears the same testimony to his fidelity that we have seen given by Leland.

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

, a native of Dockum, in the Dutch territories, famous as a lawyer, an historian, and a philologer, was born in 1635, and became professor at Franeker, and afterwards at Lewarde. He published, 1. in 1662, seven dissertations, “De genuina aetate Assyriorum, et regno Medorum.” Also, 2. A treatise “De Jure civitatis.” 3. “Jurisprudentia Frisiaca.” 4. “Specimen Philosophise civilis.” 5. “Institutiones Historiae civilis;” and several other works. From 1688, he was engaged in violent controversy with Perizonius, on some points of jurisprudence, and on his work last-mentioned, the “Institutiones historic civilis.” He died in 1694. The dispute with Perizonius was carried on with sufficient scurrility on both sides.

, a celebrated philosopher and historian, was descended from a good family in Scotland, and born at Edinburgh April 26, 1711. His father was a descendant of the family of the earl of Hume or Home, and his mother, whose name was Falconer, was descended from that of lord Halkerton, whose title came by succession to her brother. This double alliance with nobility was a source of great self-complacency to Hume, who was a philosopher only in his writings. In his infancy he does not appear to have been impressed with those sentiments of religion, which parents so generally, we may almost add universally, at the time of his birth, thought it their duty to inculcate. He once owned that he had never read the New Testament with attention. However this may be, as he was a younger brother with a very slender patrimony, and of a studious, sober, industrious turn, he was destined by his family to the law: but, being seized with an early passion for letters, he found an insurmountable aversion to any thing else; and, as he relates, while they fancied him to be poring upon Voet and Vinnius, he was occupied with Cicero and Virgil. His fortune, however, being very small, and his health a little broken by ardent application to books, he was tempted, or rather forced, to make a feeble trial at business; and, in 1734, went to Bristol, with recommendations to some eminent merchants: but, in a few months, found that scene totally unfit for him. He seems, also, to have conceived some personal disgust against the men of business in that place: for, though he was by no means addicted to satire, yet we can scarcely interpret him otherwise than ironically, when, speaking in his History (anno 1660) of James Naylor’s entrance into Bristol upon a horse, in imitation of Christ, he presumes it to be “from the difficulty in that place of finding an ass”

In 1754, he published the first volume, in 4to, of “A Portion of English History, from the Accession of James I. to the Revolution.” He strongly promised himself success from this work, thinking himself the first English historian that was free from bias in his principles: but he says, “that he was herein miserably disappointed and that, instead of pleasing all parties, he had made himself obnoxious to all.” He was, as he relates, “so discouraged with this, that, had not the war at that time been breaking out between France and England, he had certainly retired to some provincial town of the former kingdom, changed his name, and never more have returned to his native country.” The “cheerful and sanguine temper” of which he formerly boasted, had now forsaken him, and the philosopher had dwindled to a mere irritable author. He recovered himself, however, so far, as to publish, in 1756, his second volume of the same history and this was better received. “It not only rose itself,” he says, “but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.” Between these publications came out, along with some other small pieces, his “Natural History of Religion:” which, though but indifferently received, was in the end the cause of some consolation to him; because, as he expresses himself, “Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the Warburtonian school;” so well aware was he, that, to an author, attack of any kind is much more favourable than neglect. Dr. Hurd, however, was only the ostensible author; he has since declared expressly, that it proceeded from Warburton himself. In 1759, he published his “History of the House of Tudor;” and, in 1761, the more early part of the English History: each in 2 vols. 4to. The clamour against the former of these was almost equal to that against the history of th two first Stuarts; and the latter was attended with but tolerable success: but he was now, he tells us, grown callous against the impressions of public censure. He had, indeed, what he would think good reason to be so; for the copy-money given by the booksellers for his history, exceptionable as it was deemed, had made him not only independent, but opulent.

Being now about fifty, he retired to Scotland, determined never more to set his foot out of it; and carried with him “the satisfaction of never having preferred a request to one great man, or even making advances of friendship to any of them.” But, while meditating to spend the rest of his life in a philosophical manner, he received, in 1763, an invitation from the earl of Hertford to attend him on his embassy to Paris; which at length he accepted, and was left there charg6 d'affaires in the summer of 1765. In Paris, where his peculiar philosophical opinions were then the mode, he met with the most flattering and unbounded attentions. He was panegyrized by the literati, courted by the ladies, and complimented by grandees, and even princes of the blood. In the beginning of 1766 he quitted Paris; and in the summer of that year went to Edinburgh, with the same view as before, of burying himself in a philosophical retreat; but, in 1767, he received from Mr. Con way a new invitation to be under-secretary of state, which, like the former, he did not think it expedient to decline. He returned to Edinburgh in 1769, “very opulent,” he says, “for he possessed a revenue of lOOOl. a year, healthy, and, though somewhat stricken in years, with the prospect of enjoying long his ease.” In the spring of 1775, he was struck with a disorder in his bowels; which, though it gave him no alarm at first, proved incurable, and at length mortal. It appears, however, that it was not painful, nor even troublesome or fatiguing: for he declares, that “notwithstanding the great decline of his person, he had never suffered a moment’s abatement. of his spirits; that he possessed the same ardour as ever in study, and the same gaiety in company: insomuch,” says he, “that, were I to name a period of my life which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this latter period.” He died August 25, 1776; and his account of his own life, from which we have borrowed many of the above particulars, is dated only four mjonths previous to -hi* decease. As the author was then aware of the impossibility of a recovery, this may he considered as the testimony of a dying man respecting his own character and conduct. But it disappointed those who expected to find in it some acknowledgment of error, and some remorse on reflecting on the many whom he had led astray by his writings. Hume, however, was not the man from whom this was to be expected. He had no religious principles which he had violated, and which his conscience might now recall. He had none of the stamina of repentance. From a mere fondness for speculation, or a love of philosophical applause, the least harmful motives we can attribute to Hume, it was the business of his life, not only to extirpate from the human mind all that the good and wise among mankind have concurred in venerating, the authority and obligations of revealed religion; but he treats that authority and the believers in, and defenders of revealed religion, with a contempt bordering on abhorrence; or, as has been said of another modern infidel, “as if he had been revenging a personal injury.” Hume early imbibed the principles of a gloomy philosophy, the direct tendency of which was to distract the mind with doubts on subjects the most serious and important, and, in fact, to undermine the best interests, and dissolve the strongest ties of society. Such is the character of Hume’s philosophy, by one who knew him as intimately as Dr. Smith , who respected his talents and his manners, but would have disdained to insult wisdom and virtue by bestowing the perfection of them on the studies, the conversation, and the correspondence that were constantly employed in ridiculing religion. Another reason, perhaps, why Hume died in the same state of mind in which he had lived, gibing and jesting, as Dr. Smith informs us, with the prospect of eternity, may be this, that he was at the last surrounded by men who, being of nearly the same way of thinking, contemplated his end with a degree of satisfaction or as the triumph of philosophy over what he and they deemed superstition. Even his clerical friends, the Blairs and Robertsons, who professed to know, to feel, aud to teach what Christianity is, appear to have withheld the solemn duties of their office, and by their silence at least, acquiesced in his obduracy. His social qualities, his wit, his acuteness, and we may add, his fame, preserved to him the regard of his learned countrymen, who forgot the infidel in the historian.

It is, indeed, as an historian, or perhaps occasionally as a political writer, that Hume will probahly be best known to posterity; and it is in these capacities that he can be read with the greatest pleasure and advantage by the friends of sound morals and religion. Yet even as an historian, he has many faults; he does not scruple to disguise facts from party motives, and he never loses an opportunity of throwing out his cool sceptical sneer at Christianity, under the names of fanaticism and superstition. “When Mr. Hume rears the standard of infidelity,” says Gilpin, “he acts openly and honestly; but when he scatters his careless insinuations, as he traverses the paths of history, we characterize him as a dark, insidious enemy.”

, an ancient English historian, was the son of one Nicholas, a married priest, and was born about the beginning of the twelfth century, or end of the eleventh, for he informs us that he was made an archdeacon by Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1123. He was educated by Albinus of Anjou, a learned canon of the chqrch of Lincoln, and in his youth discovered a great taste for poetry, by writing eight books of epigrams, as many of love verses, with three long didactic poems, one of herbs, another of spices, and a third of precious stones. In his more advanced years he applied to the study of history; and at the request of Alexander bishop of Lincoln, who was his great friend and patron, he composed a general History of England, from the earliest accounts to the death of king Stephen, 1154, in eight books, published by sir Henry Savile. In the dedication of this work to bishop Alexander, he tells us, that in the ancient part of his history he had followed the venerable Bede, adding a few things from some other writers: that he had compiled the sequel from several chronicles he had found in different libraries, and from what he had heard and seen. Towards the conclusion be very honestly acknowledges that it was only an abridgment, and that to compose a complete history of England, many more books were necessary than he could procure. Mr. Wharton has published a long letter of this author to his friend Walter, abbot of Ramsay, on-the contempt of the world, which contains many curious anecdotes of the kings, nobles, prelates, and other great men who were his contemporaries. In the Bodleian library is a ms Latin poem by Henry, on the death of king Stephen, and the arrival of Henry II. in England, which is by no means contemptible, and in Trinity college library, Oxford, is a fine ms. of his book “De imagine mundi.” When he died is uncertain.

With this apology, we return to his well-earned promotions. In 1762, he had the sine-cure rectory of Folkton, near Bridlington, Yorkshire, given him by the lord chancellor (earl of Northington), on the recommendation of Mr. Allen of Prior-Park and in 1765, on the recommendation of bishop Warburton and Mr. Charles Yorke, he was chosen preacher of Lincoln’s-inn; and was collated to the archdeaconry of Gloucester, on the death of Dr. Geekie, by bishop Warburton, in August 1767. On Commencement Sunday, July 5, 1768, he was admitted D. D. at Cambridge; and on the same day was appointed to open the lecture founded by his friend bishop Warburton, for the illustration of the prophecies, in which he exhibited a model worthy of the imitation of his successors. His “Twelve Discourses” on that occasion, which had been delivered before the most polite and crowded audiences that ever frequented the chapel, were published in 1772, under the title of “An Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies concerning the Christian Church, and in particular concerning the Church of Papal Rome;” and raised his character as a divine, learned and ingenious, to an eminence almost equal to that which he possessed as a man of letters; but his notion of a double sense in prophecy, which he in general supposes, has not passed without animadversion. This volume produced a private letter to the author from Gibbon the historian, under a fictitious name, respecting the book of Daniel, which Dr. Hurd answered; and the editor of Gibbon’s Miscellaneous Works having printed the answer, Dr. Hurd thought proper to include both in the edition of his works published since his death (in 1811). It was not, however, until the appearance of Gibbon’s “Miscellaneous Works,” that he discovered the real name of his correspondent.

, a topographical historian, the son of the rev. Richard Hutchins, was born in the parish of Bradford Peverel, Sept. 21, 1698. His father was rector of All Saints in Dorchester, and curate of Bradford Peverel. His income was small, and his son’s education was suited to the frugality of the station in which he was born. He appears to have been sent early to the grammar-school at Dorchester, where his master was the rev. Mr. Thornton, rector of West Stafford, whom he afterwards mentioned with gratitude, as behaving to him with the kindest attention, and as a second parent. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, where his residence was not long; for he took his master of arts degree at Cambridge, a proof that he had not kept a statutable residence for that degree in his own university, by applying to another in which none is required; and it is also a proof that he determined in Oxford; for, unless that exercise be performed, a certificate of a bachelor of arts degree is never granted. He was matriculated in Easter term, 1718, from Hart-hair, now Hertford college; but was afterwards removed by a bene discessit to Baliol college; and, as it appears by their books, he was admitted a member of that society in Easter term, April 10, 1719, and was regularly admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts in Lent term, Jan. 18, 1721-2. He was a determining bachelor in the same term; so that his whole residence in the university did not exceed four years; yet the friendships he contracted in both societies of which he was a member, continued with life; of which Mr. Charles Godwyn, fellow of Baliol college, was an instance in one; and his tutor, Mr. Davis, vice-principal of Harthall, in the other; and in what esteem he held both the one and the other, different passages in his “History” evince.

, earl of Clarendon, and chancellor of England, was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire, and born at Dinton in Wiltshire, Feb. 16, 1608. In 1622, he was entered of Magdalen-hall in Oxford, and ir 1625, took the degree of bachelor in arts but failing of a fellowship in Exeter college, for which he stood, he removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied the law for several years with diligence and success. When tha lawyers resolved to give a public testimony of their dissent from the new doctrine advanced in Prynne’s “Histriomastix,” in which was shewn an utter disregard of all manner of decency and respect to the crown, Hyde and Whitelocke were appointed the managers of the masque presented on that occasion to their majesties at Whitehall on Candlemas-day, 1633-4. At the same time he testified, upon all occasions, his utter dislike to that excess of power, which was then exercised by the court, and supported by the judges in Westminster-hall. He condemned the oppressive proceedings of the high-commission court, the star-chamber, the council-board, the earl-marshal’s court, or court of honour, and the court of York. This just way of thinking is said to have been formed in him by a domestic accident, which Burnet relates in the following manner: “When he first began,” says that historian, “to grow eminent in his profession of the law, he went down to visit his father in Wiltshire; who one day, as they were walking in the fields together, observed to him, that ‘ men of his profession were apt to stretch the prerogative too far, and injure liberty: but charged him, if ever he came to any eminence in his profession, never to sacrifice the laws and liberty of his country to his own interest, or the will of his prince.’ He repeated this twice, and immediately fell into a fit of apoplexy, of which he died in afew hours; and this advice had so lasting an influence upou the son, that he ever after observed and pursued it”

It is as a historian that lord Clarendon will be longest remembered, and if compared with those who preceded, or were contemporaries with him, his superiority must in every respect be acknowledged. He knew more and has told more of the histories of his times than any other man, and that with an impartiality which gives us an equally favourable opinion of his head as of his heart. It may be every where seen that he cannot disguise the truth even when it makes against the cause he supports; and where there is any appearance of partiality, it may easily be traced to a warmth of loyalty and friendship, for which every honourable man will find an apology in his own breast. The republicans of his time had much to allege against him, and those of more modern times will never forgive a loyalty which they cannot comprehend, a steadiness of principle which ill accords with their versatile schemes of innovation, and a species of patriotism which would preserve the balance between liberty and licentiousness. “Like justice itself,” says lord Orford, in a character of our author, by no means very favourable, “he held the balance between the necessary power of the supreme magistrate and the interests of the people. This never-dying obligation his contemporaries were taught to overlook and to clamour against, till they removed the only man, who, if he could, would have corrected his master’s evil government.” Such was Clarendon’s n^-erit in the corrupt court of Charles II. when, “if he had sought nothing but power, his power |iad never ceased.” The fact was, that Clarendon, in his History, not then published, but certainly written, had traced the misfortunes of the preceding reign to their true source, and was the only man at court who wished to profit by his experience. As to his style, as a historian, it has chiefly been objected that his periods are long; but it seems scarcely worth while to enlarge on the style of a writer who lived at a time when style was so little cultivated, so imperfectly known. His excellencies are his comprehensive knowledge of mankind, which enabled htm to draw those exact portraits of the leading characters of:his time, which have scarcely been equalled, and probably can never be excelled. No man brings us nearer to the personages with whom we wish to be familiar. He is, says Granger, in this particular as unrivalled among the moderns as Tacitus among the ancients. He paints himself in drawing the portraits of others; and we every where see the clear and exact comprehension, the uncommon learning, the dignity and equity of the lord chancellor, in his character as a writer.

, was an ancient Latin writer, who flourished in the time of Augustus. Suetonius, in. his book “De illustribus Grammaticis,” says that he was a freedman of Augustus, and by nation a Spaniard; though some think that he was an Alexandrian, and brought by Caesar to Rome when Alexandria was taken. He was a diligent follower and imitator of Cornelius Alexander, a celebrated Greek grammarian; and was also himself a teacher at Rome. He was made keeper of the Palatine library; was very intimate with the poet Ovid, and with Caius Licmius, a man of consular dignity and an historian, who has taken occasion to inform us, that he died very poor, and, while he lived, was supported chiefly by his generosity; but Vossius thinks that the person here named the consular historian Caius Licinius, should be Caius Asinius, who wrote a history of the civil war, and was consul with Cneius Domitius Calvinus, U. C. 723.

, a most beautiful, virtuous, and learned lady of antiquity, was the daughter of Theon, who governed the Platonic school at Alexandria, the place of her birth and education, in the latter part of the fourth century. Theon was famous among his contemporaries for his extensive knowledge and learning; but what has chiefly rendered him so with posterity, is, that he was the father of Hypatia, whom, encouraged by her prodigious genius, he educated not only in all the qualifications belonging to her sex, but likewise in the most abstruse sciences. She made an amazing progress in every branch of learning, and the things that are said of her almost surpass belief. Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, a witness whose veracity cannot be doubted, at least when he speaks in favour of an heathen philosopher, tells us, that Hypatia “arrived at such a pitch of learning, as very far to exceed all the philosophers of her time:” to which Nicephorus adds, “those of Other times.” Philostorgius, a third historian of the same stamp, affirms, that “she was much superior to her father and master Theon, in what regards astronomy;” and Suidas, who mentions two books of her writing, one “on the Astronomical Canon of Diophantus, and another on the Conies of Apollonius,” avers, that “she not only exceeded her father in astronomy, but also that she understood all the other parts of philosophy.” It is some confirmation of these assertions that she succeeded her father in the government of the Alexandrian school: filling that chair, where Ammonius, Hierocles, and many great and celebrated philosophers had taught; and this, at a time, when men of immense learning abounded both at Alexandria, and in many other parts of the Roman empire. Her fame was so extensive, and her worth so universally acknowledged, that we cannot wonder, if she had a crowded au> ditory. “She explained to her hearers,” says Socrates, “the several sciences, that go under the general name of philosophy for which reason there was a confluence to her, from all parts, of those who made philosophy their delight and study.”

But though Orestes escaped with his life, Hypatia afterwards fell a sacrifice. This lady, as we have observed, was profoundly respected by Orestes, who much frequented and consulted her “for which reason,” says Socrates, “she was not a little traduced among the Christian multitude, as if she obstructed a reconciliation between Cyril and Orestes. This occasioned certain enthusiasts, headed by one Peter a lecturer, to enter into a conspiracy against her; who watching an opportunity, when she was returning home from some place, first dragged her out of her chair; then hurried her to the church called Cæsars; and, stripping her naked, killed her with tiles. After this, they tore her to pieces; and, carrying her limbs to a place called Cinaron, there burnt them to ashes.” Cave endeavours to remove the imputation of this horrid murder from Cyril, thinking him too honest a man to have had any hand in it; and lays it upon the Alexandrian mob in general, whom he calls “levissimum hominum genus,” “a very trifling inconstant people.” But though Cyril should be allowed to have been neither the perpetrator, nor even the contriver of it, others have thought that he did not discountenance it in the manner he ought to have done: and was so farfrom blaming theoutrage committed by the Nitrian monks upon the governor Orestes, that “he afterwards received the dead body of Ammonius, whom Orestes had punished with the rack; made a panegyric upon him, in the church where he was laid, in which he extolled his courage and constancy, as one that had contended for the truth; and, changing his name to Thaumasius, or the Admirable, ordered him to be considered as a martyr. However, continues Socrates, the wiser sort of Christians did not approve the zeal which Cyril shewed on this man’s behalf; being convinced, that Ammonius had justly suffered for his desperate attempt.” We learn from the same historian, that the death of Hypatia happened in March, in the 10th year of Honorius’s, and the 6th of Theodosius’s, consulship that is, about A. D. 415.

, or Geoffrey, of Monmouth (ap Arthur), the famous British historian, who flourished in the time of Henry I. was born at Monmouth, and probably educated in the Benedictine monastery near that place; for Oxford and Cambridge had not yet risen to any great height, and bad been lately depressed by the Danish invasion so that monasteries were at this time the principal seminaries of learning. Tradition still points out a small apartment of the above monastery as his library; it bears in the ceiling and windows remains of former magnificence, but is much more modern than the age of Jeffery. He was made archdeacon of Monmouth, and afterwards promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph in 1152. He is said by some to have been raised to the dignity of a cardinal also, but on no apparent good grounds. Robert earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry I. and Alexander bishop of Lincoln, were his particular patrons; the first a person of great eminence and authority in the kingdom, and celebrated for his learning; the latter, for being the greatest patron of learned men in that time, and himself a great scholar and statesman.

Leland, Bale, and Pits inform us, that Walter Mapreus, or Mapes, alias Calenius, who was at this time archdeacon of Oxford, and of whom Henry of Huntingdon, and other historians, as well as Jeffery himself, make honourable mention, as a man very curious in the study of antiquity, and a diligent searcher into ancient libraries, and especially after the works of ancient authors, happened while he was in Armorica to meet with a history of Britain, written in the British tongue, and carrying marks of great antiquity. Being overjoyed at his discovery, he in a short time came over to England, where inquiring for a proper person to translate this curious but hitherto unknown book, he very opportunely met with Jeffery of Monmouth, a man profoundly versed in the history and antiquities of Britain, excellently skilled in the British tongue, and besides (considering the time) an elegant writer, both in verse and prose; and to him he recommended the task. Jeffery accordingly undertook to translate it into Latin; which he performed with great diligence, approving himself, according to Matthew Paris, a faithful translator. At first he divided it into four books, written in a plain simple style, a copy of which is said to be at Bene't-college, Cambridge, which was never yet published; but afterwards made some alterations, and divided it into eight books, to which he added the book of “Merlin’s Prophecies,” which he had also translated from British verse into Latin prose. A great many fabulous and trifling stories are inserted in the history, upon which account Jeffery’s integrity has been called in question and many authors, Polydore Vevgil, Buchanan, and some others, treat the whole as fiction and forgery. On the other hand, he is defended by very learned men, such as Usher, Leland, Sheringham, sir John Rice, and many more. His advocates do not deny, that there are several absurd and incredible stories inserted in this book; but, as he translated or borrowed them from others, the truth of the history ought not to be rejected in the gross, though the credulity of the historian may deserve censure. Canulen alleges, that his relation of Brutus, and his successors in those ancient times, ought to be entirely disregarded, and would have our history commence with Caesar’s attempt upon the island, which advice has since been followed by the generality of our historians. But Milton pursues the old beaten tract, and alleges thai we cannot be easily discharged of Brutus and his line, with the whole progeny of kings to the entrance of Julius Ca-sar; since it is a story supported by descents of ancestry, and long continued laws and exploits, which have no appearance of being borrowed or devised. Cainden, indeed, would insinuate, that the name of Brutus was unknown to the ancient Britons, and that Jeffery was the first person who feigned him founder of their race. But Henry of Huntingdon had published, in the beginning of his history, a short account of Brutus, and made the Britons the descendants of the Trojans, before he knew any thing of Jeffery’s British history: and he professes to have had this account from various authors. Sigibertus Gemblacensis, a French author, somewhat more early than Jeffery, or Henry of Huntingdon (for he died, according to Beilarmine, in 1112) gives an account of the passage of Brutus, grandson of Ascanius, from Greece to Albion, at the head of the exiled Trojans and teljs us, that he called the people and country after his own name, and at last left three sons to succeed him, after he had reigned twentyfour years. Hence he passes summarily over the affairs of the Britons, agreeably to the British history, till they were driven into Wales by the Saxons.

We have, however, no need of any other arguments than the confession of Jeffery himself, who acknowledges that the history of Britain was not wholly a translation of the Welsh manuscript; he avows that he added several parts, particularly Merlin’s Prophecies, before-mentioned, and inserted some circumstances “which he had heard from that most learned historian, Walter archdeacon of Oxford.”

Soon after his father’s death, at the general election in 1742, he was unanimously chosen one of the representatives for the county of Cambridge. From this time he continued to sit in parliament, either for the county or borough of Cambridge, until 1780, except on the call of a new parliament in 1754, when he was returned for the borougli of Dumvich. In 1755, he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the board of trade and plantations, at which he sat during. all changes of administration, until the business of the board, which was not great, was removed into another department. At the time of its abolition, it consisted of our author, the present earl of Carlisle, the late lord Auckland, and Gibbon the historian. Mr. Cumberland, the well-known dramatic poet, was secretary. His parliamentary conduct was more uniform than is supposed to be consistent with freedom of opinion, or the usual attachments of party. When he was first elected a member, he found sir Robert Walpole on the eve of being dismissed from the confidence of the House of Commons, and he had the courage, unasked and unknown, to give his support to the falling minister, as far as he could without contributing his eloquence, for Mr. Jenyns seldom spoke, and only in reply to a personal question. He was conscious that he could make no figure as a public speaker, and early desisted from the attempt. After the dismissal of sir Robert Walpole, he constantly ranked among the friends of government. Without giving a public assent to every measure of the minister for the day, he contrived to give him no offence, and seems very early to have conceived an abhorrence of systematic oppositions. What his opinions were on great constitutional questions, may be found in his writings, where, however, they are not laid down with much precision, and seem at no time of his life to have been steady. In his attendance at the board of trade, he was very assiduous, and bestowed much attention on the commercial interests of his country. He has not left any thing in print expressly on this subject, but his biographer has given some of his private opinions, which are liberal and manly.

, i. e. the son of Gorion, a Jewish historian, is sometimes confounded by the rabbins with the more celebrated historian Josephus. He lived about the end of the ninth, or beginning of the tenth century, and left a History of the Jews, in Hebrew, which Gagnier translated into Latin, Oxford, 1706, 4to. There is also an edition in Hebrew and Latin, Gotha, 1707, 4to. It is obvious from internal Evidence, that this work could not have been written earlier than the ninth century; and that the author was, according to all appearance, a Jew of Languedoc.

, the celebrated historian of the Jews, was born at Jerusalem, of parents who belonged to the illustrious Asmonean family, about the year 37. He soon discovered great acuteness and penetration, and made so quick a progress in the learning of the Jews, that he was occasionally consulted by the chief priests and rulers of the city, even at the age of sixteen. For the purpose of studying the history and tenets of the several Jewish sects, he became for three years a pupil of Banun, a hermit, who had acquired great fame for wisdom; and with him lived a recluse and abstemious life. After this he became of the sect of the Pharisees, of which he was a very great ornament. In the year 63, he went to Rome, where a Jew comedian, who happened to be in favour with Nero, served him much at court, by making him known to Poppaea, whose protection was very useful to him, and enabled him to procure liberty for some of his countrymen. Upon his return to his country, where he found all things in confusion, he had the command of some troops, and distinguished himself at the siege of Jotapata, which he defended seven weeks against Vespasian and Titus, but was taken prisoner. A short time after, Vespasian granted him his life, at the intercession of Titus, who had conceived a great esteem for him. He now visited Egypt, and took up his residence at Alexandria, where he doubtless studied the Grecian and Egyptian philosophy. His patron, Titus, carried him with him to the siege of Jerusalem, after the taking of which, he attended Titus to Rome, where Vespasian gave him the freedom of the city, and settled a pension upon him. At Rome he cultivated the Greek language, and began to write his History. He continued ta experience favour under Titus and Domitian, and lived beyond the 13th year of Domitian, when he was fifty-six for his books of “Antiquities” end there and after that period he composed his books against Apion. In what year he died is uncertain.

His “History of the Jewish War and the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in seven books, was composed at the command of Vespasian first in the Hebrew language, for the use of his own countrymen, and afterwards in the Greek. It is singularly interesting and affecting, as the historian was an eye-witness of all he relates. With the very strong colouring of an animated style and noble expression, he paints to the imagination, and affects the heart. National vanity and partiality, however, led him to imagine that all knowledge and wisdom had originated in Judea, and had flowed thence through all the nations of the earth; a notion which, says Brucker, gave rise to many errors and misrepresentations in his writings. The authenticity of the celebrated passage in Josephus, respecting our Saviour, is ably vindicated by our learned countryman Jacob Bryant, in his “Vindiciae Flavians.”

, or Paullo Giovio, an Italian historian, was a native of Como, and was born in 1483. Being early deprived of his father, he was educated under the care of his elder brother Benedict, who was also a historical writer. After having studied at Padua, Milan, and Pavia, he took the degree of M. D. and practised for some time; but an early propensity led him to the study and composition of history. Having completed a volume, he presented it to Leo X. at Rome, in 1516, who expressed a very high opinion of him, and gave him a pension and the rank of knighthood. Jovius now became intimate with the literati of Rome, and wrote several Latin poems, which appeared in the “Coryciana,” and other collections. After the death of Leo, Adrian VI. presented him to a canonry in the cathedral of Como, and Clement VII. appointed him one of his attendant courtiers, provided him with a handsome establishment in the Vatican, gave him the precentorship of Como, and lastly the bishopric of Nocera. During the sacking of the city of Rome, in 1527, Jovius was robbed of a considerable sum of money and of his manuscripts, but recovered the latter. Under the pontificate of Paul III. he wished to exchange his bishopric of Nocera for that of Como, and even carried his ambition to the place of cardinal, but was disappointed in both. His favourite residence was at a beautiful villa on the banks of the lake of Como, where he pursued his studies, and in his museum made a collection of portraits of eminent characters, to each of which he affixed an inscription, or brief memoir, some highly favourable, others sarcastically severe. These memoirs have been frequently printed under the title “Elogia doctorum Virorum,” and the portraits, engraved in wood, have been published under the title of “Musaei Jovian i Imagines,” Basil, 1577. About two years before his death, he quitted his retirement, and took up his residence in Florence, where he died in 1552, and was buried in the church of St. Laurence, in that city.

With these dispositions he came to the empire, and consequently with a determined purpose of subverting the Christian and restoring the pagan worship. His predecessors had left him the repeated experience of the inefficacy of downright force. The virtue of the past times then rendered this effort fruitless, the numbers of the present would have made it now dangerous: he found it necessary, therefore, to change his ground. His knowledge of human nature furnished him with arms; and his knowledge of the faith he had abandoned, enabled him to direct those arms to most advantage. He began with re-establishing paganism by law, and granting a full liberty of conscience to the Christians. On this principle, he restored those to their civil rights who had been banished on account of their religion, and even affected to reconcile to a mutual forbearance the various sects of Christianity. Yet he put on this mask of moderation for no other purpose than to inflame the dissensions in the church. He then fined and banished such of the more popular clergy as had abused their power, either in exciting the people to burn and destroy pagan temples, or to commit violence on an opposite sect: and it cannot be denied, but that in the turbulent and insolent manners of some of them, he found a plausible pretext for this severity. He proceeded to revoke and take away those immunities, honours, and revenues, which his uncle and cousin had granted to the clergy. Neither was his pretence for this altogether unreasonable. He judged the grants to be exorbitant; and, besides, as they were attendant on a national religion, when the establishment came to be transferred from Christianity to paganism, he concluded they must follow the religion of the state. But there was one immunity he took away, which no good policy, even under an establishment, should have granted them and this was an exemption from the civil tribunals. He went still farther he disqualified the Christian laity for bearing offices in the state and even this the security of the established religion may often require. But his most illiberal treatment of the Christians, was his forbidding, the professors of that religion to teach polite letters, and the sciences, in the public schools; and Amm. Marcellinus censures this part of his conduct as a breach in his general character of humanity, (lib. xx. c. 10.) His more immediate design, in this, was to hinder the youth from taking impressions to the disadvantage of paganism; his remoter view, to deprive Christianity of the support of human literature. Not content with this, he endeavoured even to destroy what was already written in defence of Christianity. With this view he wrote to the governor and treasurergeneral of Egypt, to send him the library of George bishop of Alexandria, who, for his cruelty and tyranny, had been ton) in pieces by the people: nay, to such a length did his aversion to the name of Christ carry him, as to decree, by a public edict, that his followers should be no longer called Christians, but Galileans; well knowing the efficacy of a nick-name to render a profession ridiculous. In the mean time, the animosities between the different sects of Christianity, furnished him with the means of carrying on these projects. Being, for example, well assured that the Arian church oi Edessa was very rich, he took advantage of their oppressing and persecuting the Valentinians to seize every tiling belonging to that church, and divided the plunder among his soldiers; scornfully telling the Edessians, he did this to ease them of their burthens, that they might proceed more lightly, and with less impediment, in their journey to heaven. He went farther still, if we may believe the historian Socrates, and, in order to raise money to defray the extraordinary expence of his Persian expedition, he imposed a tax or tribute on all who would not sacrifice to the pagan idols. The tax, it is true, was proportioned to every man’s circumstances, but was as truly an infringement upon his act of toleration. And though he forbore persecuting to death by law, which would have been a direct contradiction to that act, yet he connived at the fury of the people, and the brutality of the governors of provinces, who, during his short reign, brought many martyrs to the stake. He put such into governments, whose inhumanity and blind zeal for their country superstitions were most distinguished. And when the suffering churches presented their complaints to him, he dismissed them with cruel scoffs, telling them, their religion directed them to suffer without murmuring.

Before the death of Edward, he returned to his own country, and led a sedentary life, closely pursuing his studies; but, upon the accession of queen Mary, he returned thither; and, being a very good poet, he published, in 1554, an epithalamium on the marriage of Philip II. with that queen, entitled “Philippis.” This address could not fail of introducing him in a favourable light to that court, whence he would probably have made a considerable fortune, had not the turbulent state of those times driven him home again. He confined himself some time in Hoorn, but, after a while, settled at Haeriem; and repaired the disappointment he sustained respecting his finances in England, by marrying a young woman of fortune, which he knew how to improve by making the most of his dedications to his books, of which he published three at Haarlem in 1556. Some years after, he accepted an offer from the king of Denmark, to be his physician, with a considerable salary, and removed to Copenhagen; but neither liking the climate nor genius of the inhabitants, he left the country about 1564, very abruptly, without taking leave of the king. Returning to Haerlem, he practised physic, and was made principal of the college, or great school, in that town. He continued there till the place was besieged by the Spaniards in 1573, when he found means to escape, by obtaining leave to attend the prince of Orange, who desired his assistance as a physician; but lost his library, in which he had left a great many works which had cost him much pains and labour; and the loss was aggravated by this circumstance, that they were almost fit for the press. In this exigency he went to Middleburgh, where the prince had procured him a public salary to practise physic; but the air of the country did not agree with his constitution, and he fell into some disorders, which, with the grief he felt for the loss of his library, put an end to his life in 1575. There was a design to have given him a professorship at Leyden, which university was but just rising when he died. He had a prodigious memory, which enabled him to treasure up a vast stock of learning. Besides his skill in physic, which was his profession, he was an historian, poet, philosopher, and understood perfectly eight languages. His works make up 24 articles, among which are, “Lexicon Graeco-Latinum,” 1548; “Adagiorum ab Erasmo omissorum centuriae octo & dimidia,” 1558 which last was published after his death, as others of his pieces were.

, an ancient Latin historian, is known by his abridgment of the large work of Trogus Pompeius, which some think has occasioned the loss of the original; but it is much more probable that the neglect of the original occasioned the abridgment, as commonly happens in the decline of letters. Who Justin was, and when he lived, is altogether uncertain; but he is generally referred to the year 150, in the reign of Antoninus Pius. The abridgment comprises a history of the world from Ninus to Augustus Caesar; and is written with great purity and elegance, excepting here and there a word which savours of encroaching barbarism. It has long been employed as a school book, and is held in great estimation by foreign critics. La Mothe le Vayer thinks “his manner of writing so excellent as to be worthy the age of Augustus rather than that of the Antonines.” Justin has been illustrated by the best annotators, particularly Graevius; and there are numerous editions, of which the preference is given to those of Grsevius; of Hearne, 1705, 8vo of Gronovius, 1719, and 1760; of Fischer, 1757, &c.

, an Irish historian, was born in the province of Munster, of English ancestry, and flourished in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, He was educated with a view to the Roman catholic church, and having received at a foreign university the degree of D. D. he returned to his native country, and became a celebrated preacher. Being well versed in the ancient Irish language, he collected the remains of the early history and antiquities of the island, and formed them into a regular narrative This work, which he finished about the time of the accession of Charles I. commences from the first planting of Ireland, after the deluge, and goes on to the seventeenth year of king Henry II. giving an account of the lives and reigns of one hundred and seventy-four kings of the Milesian race, replete with fictitious personages and fabulous narratives, which, however, it has been said, he gives as such, and does not impose them on his readers as true history. The work remained in ms. in the original language, till it was translated into English by Dermot O'Connor, and published in London in 1723; but a better edition appeared in 1738, with plates of the arms of the principal Irish families, and an appendix, not in the former, respecting the ancient names of places. Keating died about the middle of the seventeenth century, or, as some think, much earlier, about 1625. He wrote some pieces of the religious cast, and two poems, one, an “Elegy on the Death of the Lord Decies,” the other a burlesque on his servant Simon, whom he compares with the ancient heroes.

Bishop Kennet took such an active part in the ecclesiastical and political controversies of his time, that whoever examines into the state of these must expect to find his character very differently represented. Upon a fair examination of his conduct, however, as well as his writings, it will probably be found that he did not fall much short of his contemporaries as an able divine and an honest politician. But it is as a historian and antiquary, that we feel most indebted to his labours, and could wish he had been enabled to devote more of his time to the illustration of literary history, to which he was early attached, and had every requisite to become a useful collector and biographer. As to his character in other respects, if we can rely on the rev. William Newton, the writer of his life, there was much that was exemplary. He was always indefatigable in the duties of his sacred function, had a great sense of the worth of souls, and was very solicitous to serve in the most effectual manner those committed to his care.

The deanery of St. Patrick’s becoming vacant at this time, Dr. King was elected to it; and appeared so active in supporting the Revolution, which had now taken place, that, after the landing of king James in Ireland in 1689, he was twice confined in Dublin-castle. He was attacked, not long after, in a weekly “paper called” The Abhorrence,“with an intent to render him more obnoxious; and was also assaulted in the street, where a musket with a lighted match was levelled at him. He was likewise disturbed in the performance of divine service at his church several times, particularly on Candlemas-day; when seven officers who were there swore aloud that they would cut his throat. All this did not discourage him; but he still persisted, and took his doctor’s degree this same year, 1689. Upon king James’s retreat to France, after the battle of the Boyne in 1690, he preached a thanksgiving-sermon on that occasion in November; and, January following, was promoted to the bishopric of Derry. In 169 1 he published at London in 4to,” The State of the Protestants in Ireland, under the late King James’s Government; in which their carriage towards him is justified; and the absolute necessity of their endeavouring to be freed from his government, and of submitting to their present majesties, is demonstrated.“The third edition, with additions, was printed at London the year after, in 8vo. Burnet speaks of this book in the following terms:” This copious history is so well received, and so universally acknowledged to be as truly as it is finely written, that I refer my readers to the account of those matters, which is fully and faithfully given by that learned and zealous prelate.“It was attacked, however, the same year, by Mr. Charles Lesley; who asserted, that” there is not one single fact he has inquired into, but he found it false in whole or in part, aggravated or misrepresented, so as to alter the whole face of the story, and give it perfectly another air and turn; insomuch that, though many things he says were true, yet he has hardly spoke a true word, that is, told truly and nakedly, without a warp." Though few 7 as we imagine, will form their judgment of King’s book from this account of it by Lesley yet all may allow, that there is a kind of colouring peculiar to, and characteristic of, each party and that the very same facts, when related by an historian of different political principles, shall have a very different appearance, and also make a very different impression upon a reader.

, the son of capt, Robert Knox, commander of the Anne frigate, in the East India service, was born about 1641, and probably brought up to the sea service. He went with his father to Fort George in 1657, and returning thence to England in 1659, put into Ceylon on account of a storm, where he, his father, and fourteen others were made prisoners, and his father died in this captivity, Feb. 9, 1660. After a servitude of nineteen years and a half, the subject of this memoir escaped from the inland parts of the island, where he was prisoner at large, to Areppa, a Dutch settlement on the north-west coast. Here he was hospitably received, and carried in one of their ships to Batavia, and thence, in an English ship, to England. Many of his companions whom he left at Ceylon, had become reconciled to their fate, married, and had families; but captain Knox, although often solicited, preserved his repugnance to such connexions, and his love of liberty. After his return he wrote “An historical relation of the Island of Ceylon, in the East Indies,” with an account of his captivity and escape; illustrated with plates and a map of the island, London, 1681, fol. The preface is by Dr, Robert Hooke, who probably had some share in the compilation. It was long esteemed a book of authority, It is uncertain when captain Knox died. He was cousin to Strype the historian.

, a famous historian of the fifteenth century, was a native of Hamburg, and had no sooner finished his classical studies, than he set out upon his travels, visiting several parts of Europe, during which he studiously cultivated the sciences, and became a man of general knowledge. His talents procured him the title and offices of doctor of divinity and of the canon law, and professor of philosophy and divinity in the university of Rostoch, of which also he was rector in 1482. He went from Rostoch to Hamburg, and was elected dean of the chapter in the cathedral there in 1498. He executed many important affairs for the church and city of Hamburg; and was so famed for his abilities and prudence, that, in 1500, John king of Denmark, and Frederick duke of Holstein, did not scruple to make him umpire, in a contest they had with the province of Dietmarsen. He died Dec. 7, 1517, after having written some very good works, which were afterwards published: as, 1. V Ghronica Regnorum Aquilorum, Danise, Sueciae, Norvegiae,“Argentorat. 1546, folio. 2.” Saxonia, sive de Saxonicse Gentis vetusta Origine, longinquis Expeditionibus susceptis, et Bellis Domi pro Libertate diu fortiterque gestis Historia, Libris 13 comprehensa, et ad Annum 1501 deducta,“Colon. 1520, folio. 3.” Vandalia, sive Historia de Vandalorum ver& Origine, variis Gentibus, crebris e Patria Migrationibus, Regnis item, quorum vel Autores fuerunt vel Eversores, Libris 14 a prim& eorum Origine ad A. C. 1500 deducta,“Colon. 1519, folio. 4.” Metropolis, sive Historia Ecciesiastica Saxoniae,“Basil, 1548, fol. 5.” Jnstitutiones Logicoe," Leipsic, 1517, 4to, &c.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born in 1623, at Montmorency, near Paris, of which city his father was bailiff. He had scarcely attained his 13th year, when he became known to the literary world by his “Recueil de Tombeaux,” or a collection of monuments of illustrious persons buried in the church of the Celestines at Paris, together with their eloges, genealogies, arms, and mottoes. This work appeared in 1642, 4to; and although disclaimed by the authoron account of its imperfection, yet was so well received by the public, that a second edition came out the following year. In 1644 he was at court in quality of a gentleman in waiting, when he was chosen to attend the marshal de Guebriant, charged with conducting the princess Mary de Gonzaga into Poland, in order to her marriage with Ladislaus IV. Our author returned with the ambassadress the following year, and printed in 1647, at his own expence, a relation of the journey, which was very entertaining.

, a diligent French miscellaneous historian, was born at Paris in 1724. Of his numerous works, which have been all well received, the following are the best: “Abrege chronologique de l'Histoire Ancienne,” 1757, 8vo. “De l'Histoire du Nord.” “De l‘Histoire D’Espagne et de Portugal.” “Dictionnaire portatif des Beaux Arts,” 1759, 8vi. “Le Salon,” 1753, 12mo. “Le Spectacle des Beaux Arts,” 1757, 12mo. <l Revolutions de PEmpire de la Russie,“1760, 12mo.” Histoire de Christine Reine de Suede," 1762, 12mo. This is his best work, and has merit; but the English translation of it, published at London, 1766, is said to be preferable to the original. The time of La Combe’s death is not mentioned.

, a Latin historian, flourished under the emperors Dioclesian and Constantine, in the fourth century. We have of his writing, the lives of four emperors, viz. Commodus, Antoninus, Diadumenus, and Heliogabalus; the two last of which he dedicated to Constantine the Great. The first edition of Lampridius, which was printed at Milan, ascribes to him the life of Alexander Severus; though the manuscript in the Palatine library, and Robert a Porta of Bologna, give it to Spartian. As they both had the same surname Ælius, some authors will have them to be one and the same person. Vopiscus says, that Lampridius is one of the writers whom he imitated in his “LifeofProbus.”

The character of this prelate, as given by Flete, the historian of the abbey, is, “that he was a man of great capacity, very wise, and very eloquent:” a character which, even allowing for the prejudice of monachism toward so eminent a benefactqr to the church, will not be disputed, if we consider also that he filled some of the highest departments of the state, under a monarch who is, by all historians, allowed to have been as eminent for his wisdom and discernment as he was for his courage and military glory.

During Churchill’s career, our author endeavoured to counteract the scurrility he had thrown out against Scotland in his “Prophecy of Famine,” by an elegant poem entitled “Genius and Valour.” This provoked Churchill to introduce his name once or twice with his usual epithets of contempt, which Langhorne disregarded, and disregarded his own interest at the same time, by dedicating this poem to lord Bute, a minister going out of place It produced him, however, a very flattering letter, in 1766, from Dr. Robertson, the celebrated historian, and principal of the university of Edinburgh, requesting him to accept a diploma for the degree of D. D. He was farther consoled by the approbation of every wise and loyal man, who contemplated the miseries of disunion, and the glaring absurdity of perpetuating national prejudices.

His reputation as a translator from the Greek being now acknowledged, some booksellers in Paris who were in possession of a manuscript translation of Herodotus left by the abbe“Bellanger without revision, applied to Larcher to prepare it for the press; and he, thinking he had only to correct a few slips of the pen, or at most to add a few notes, readily undertook the task, but before he had proceeded far, the many imperfections, and the style of Bellanger, appeared to be such, that he conceived it would be easier to make an entire new translation. He did not, however, consider this as a trifling undertaking, but prepared himself by profound consideration of the text of his author, which he collated with the ms copies in the royal library, and read with equal care every contemporary writer from whom he might derive information to illustrate Herodotus. While engaged in these studies, Paw published his” Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois,“and Larcher borrowed a little time to publish an acute review of that author’s paradoxes in the” Journal des Savans“for 1774. The year following, while interrupted by sickness from his inquiries into Herodotus, he published his very learned” Memoire sur Venus,“to which the academy of inscriptions awarded their prize. During another interruption of the Herodotus, incident to itself, he wrote and published his translation of Xenophon, which added much to the reputation he had already acquired, and although his style is not very happily adapted to transfuse the spirit of Xenophon, yet it produced the following high compliment from Wyttenbach (Bibl. Critica)” Larcherus is est quern non dubitemus omnium, qui nostra aetate veteres scrintores in linguas vertunt recentiores, antiquitatis linguaeque Grace* scientissimum vocare.“Larcher’s critical remarks in this translation are very valuable, particularly his observations on the pronunciation of the Greek. The reputation of his” Memoire sur Venus,“and his” Xenophon,“procured him to be elected into the Academy of inscriptions, on May 10, 1778. To the memoirs of this society he contributed many essays on classical antiquities, which are inserted in vols. 43, 45, 46, 47, and 48; and these probably, which he thought a duty to the academy, interrupted his labours on Herodotus, not did it issue from the press until 1786. The style of this translation is liable to some objections, but in other respects, his profound and learned researches into points of geography and chronology, and the general merit and importance of his comments, gratified the expectations of every scholar in Europe. It was translated into Latin by Borheck, into German by Degan, and his notes have appeared in all the principal languages of Europe. We may here conclude this part of our subject by noticing his new and very much improved edition of” Herodotus,“published in 1802, 9 vols. 8vo. The particulars which distinguish this edition are, a correction of those passages in which he was not satisfied with having expressed the exact sense; a greater degree of precision and more compression of style; a reformation of such notes as wanted exactness; with the addition of several that were judged necessary to illustrate various points of antiquity, and render the historian better understood. We have already hinted that Larcher was at one time not unfriendly to the infidel principles of some of the French encyclopedists. It is with the greater pleasure that we can now add what he says on this subject in his apology for further alterations.” At length,“he says,” being intimately convinced of all the truths taught by the Christian religion, I have retrenched or reformed all the notes that could offend it. From some of them conclusions have been drawn which I disapprove, and which were far from my thoughts; others of them contain things, which I must, to discharge my conscience, confess freely, that more mature examination and deeper researches have demonstrated to have been built on slight or absolutely false foundations. The truth cannot but be a gainer by this avowal: to it alone have I consecrated all my studies: I have been anxious to return to it from the moment I was persuaded I could seize it with advantage. May this homage, which I render it in all the sincerity of my heart, be the means of procuring me absolution for all the errors I have hazarded or sought to propagate." In this vast accumulation of ancient learning, the English reader will find many severe strictures on Bruce, which he may not think compatible with the general opinion now entertained both in France and England on the merits of that traveller.

, a French historian, was born September 7, 1638, at Montivilliers, of noble parents, who were Protestants. After having practised as an attorney some time in his native country, he went to Holland, was appointed historiographer to the States General, and settled afterwards at Berlin, where he had a pension from the elector of Brandenburg. He died March 17,1719, aged eighty. His principal works are, the “History of Augustus,” 1690, 12mo; “The History of Eleanor, queen of France, and afterwards of England,” 1691, 8vo; “A History of England,” 1697 to 1713, 4 vols. fol. the most valued of all Larrey’s works on account of the portraits, but its reputation has sunk in other respects since the publication of the history written by Rapin. He wrote also the history, or rather romance of “the Seven Sages,” the most complete edition of which is that of the Hague, 1721, 2 vols. 8vo; and “The History of France, under Louis XIV.” 3 vols. 4to, and 9 vols. 12mo, a work not in much estimation, but it was not entirely his. The third volume 4to was the production of la Martiniere.

, or, as he is called by the Italians, Orlando di Lasso, an eminent musician, was a native of Mons, in Hainault, born in 1520, and not only spent many years of his life in Italy, but had his musical education there, having been carried thither surreptitiously, when a child, on account of his fine voice. The historian Thuanus, who has given Orlando a place among the illustrious men of his time, tells us that it was a common practice for young singers to be forced away from their parents, and detained in the service of princes; and that Orlando was carried to Milan, Naples, and Sicily, by Ferdinand Gonzago. Afterwards, when he was grown up, and had probably lost his voice, he went to Rome, where he taught music during two years; at the expiration of which, he travelled through different parts of Italy and France with Julius Caesar Brancatius, and at length, returning to Flanders, resided many years at Antwerp, till being invited, by the duke of Bavaria, to Munich, he settled at that court, and married. He had afterwards an invitation, accompanied with the promise of great emoluments, from Charles IX. king of France, to take upon him the office of master and director of his band; an honour which he accepted, but was stopped on the road to Paris by the news of that monarach’s death. After this event he returned to Munich, whither he was recalled by William, the son and successor of his patron Albert, to the same office which he had held under his father. Orlando continued at this court till his death, in 1593, at upwards of seventy years of age. His reputation was so great, that it was said of him: “Hic ille Orlandus Lassus, qui recreat orbem.” As he lived to a considerable age, and never seems to have checked the fertility of his genius by indolence, his compositions exceed, in number, even those of Palestrina. There is a complete catalogue of them in Draudius, amounting to upwards of fifty different works, consisting of masses, magnificats, passiones, motets, and psalms: with Latin, Italian, German, and French songs, printed in Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. He excelled in modulation, of which he gave many new specimens, and was a great master of harmony.

But in the discharge of this duty a slander passed upon bim, which, being recorded by a low historian of those days, has found its way into ours. It is even recorded as credible by Milton, who suffered his zeal against episcopacy, in more instances than this, to bias his veracity, or at best to impose upon his understanding. It is said that after the lord high admiral’s attainder and execution, which happened about this time, he publicly defended his death in a sermon before the king; that he aspersed his character; and that he did it merely to pay a servile compliment to the protector. The first part of this charge is true; but the second and third are false. As to his aspersing the admiral’s character, his character was so bad, there was no room for aspersion; his treasonable practices too were notorious, and though the proceeding against him by a bill in parliament, according to the custom of these times, may be deemed inequitable, yet he paid no more than a due forfeit to the laxvs of his country. However, his death occasioned great clamour, and was made use of by the lords of the opposition (for he left a very dissatisfied party behind him), as an handle to raise a popular odium against the protector, for whom Latimer had always a high esteem. He was mortified therefore to see so invidious and base an opposition thwarting the schemes of so public-spirited a man; and endeavoured to lessen the odium, by shewing the admiral’s character in its true light, from some anecdotes not commonly known. This notice of lord Seymour, which was in Latimer' s fourth sermon before king Edward, is to be found only in the earlier editions.

, an eminent grammarian of Florence, in the thirteenth century, was of a noble family in that city, and during the party contests between the Guelphs and Ghibelins, took part with the former. When the Ghibelins had obtained assistance from Mainfroy, king of-Sicily, the Guelphs sent Bninetto to obtain similar aid from Alphonso king of Castillo; but on his return, hearing that the Ghibelins had defeated his party and got possession of Florence, he fled to France, where he resided several years. At length he was enabled to return to his own country, in which he was appointed to some honourable offices. He died in 1294. The historian Villani attributes to him the merit of having first introduced a degree of refinement among his countrymen, and of having reformed their language, and the general conduct of public affairs. The work which has contributed most to his celebrity, was one which he entitled “Tresor,” and wrote when in France, and in the French language, which he says he chose because it was the most agreeable language and the most common in Europe. This work is a kind of abridgment of the Bible, of Pliny the naturalist, Solinus, and other writers who have treated on different sciences, and may be called an Encyclopaedia of the knowledge of his time. It was translated into Italian about the same period, and this translation only was printed; but there are about a dozen transcripts of the original in the royal library at Paris, and there is a fine ms. of it in the Vatican, bound in crimson velvet, with manuscript notes, by Petrarch. After his return to Florence, Latini wrote his u Tesoretto,“or little treasure, which, however, is not as some have reported, an abridgment of the” Tresor,“but a collection of moral precepts in verse. He also translated into the Italian language part of Cicero” de Inventione.“His greatest honour seems to have been that he was the tutor of Dante, not however in poetry, for his” Tesoretto" affords no ground to consider him as a master of that art.

, the author of many pious works of great popularity, was born at KingVcliffe, in Northamptonshire, in 1686, and was the second son of Thomas Law, a grocer. It is supposed that he received his early education at Oakham or Uppingham, in Rutlandshire, whence on June 7, 1705, he entered of Emmanuel college, Cambridge. In 1708 he commenced B. A.; in 1711, was elected fellow of his college; and in 1712 took his degree of M. A. Soon after the accession of his majesty George I. being called upon to take the oaths prescribed by act of parliament, and to sign the declaration, he refused, and in consequence vacated his fellowship in 1716. He was after this considered as a nonjuror. It appears that he had for some time officiated as a curate in London, but had no ecclesiastical preferment. Soon after his resignation of his fellowship he went to reside at Putney, as tutor to Edward Gibbon, father to the eminent historian. When at home, notwithstanding his refusing the oaths, he continued to frequent his parish-church, and join in communion with his fellow parishioners. In 1727 he founded an alms-house at Cliffe, for the reception and maintenance of two old women, either unmarried and helpless, or widows; and a school for the instruction and clothing of fourteen girls. It is thought that the money thus applied was the gift of an unknown benefactor, and given to him in the following manner. While he was standing at the door of a shop in London, a person unknown to him asked whether his name was William Law, and whether he was of King’s-cliffe; and after having received a satisfactory answer, delivered a sealed paper, directed to the Rev. William Law, which contained a bank note for 1000l. But as tlifre is no proof that this was given to him in trust tor the purpose, he is fully entitled to the merit of having employed it in the service of the poor; and such beneficence was perfectly consistent with his general character.

We know not where a more just character of this singular man can be found than in the “Miscellaneous Works” of Gibbon, the historian, who has for once praised a churchman and a man of piety, not only without irony, but with affection. “In our family,” says Gibbon, “he left the reputation of a worthy and pious man, who believed all that he professed, and practised all that he enjoined. The character of a nonjuror, which he maintained to the last, is a sufficient evidence of his principles in church and state; and the sacrifice of interest to conscience will be always respectable. His theological writings, which our domestic connection has tempted me to peruse, preserve an imperfect sort of life, and I can pronounce with more confidence and knowledge on the merits of the author. His last compositions are darkly tinctured by the incomprehensible visions of Jacob Behmen; and his discourse? on the absolute unlawfulness of stage-entertainments is sometimes quoted for a ridiculous intemperance of sentiment and language. But these sallies of religious phrensy must not extinguish the praise which is due to Mr. William Law as a wit and a scholar. His argument on topics of less absurdity is specious and acute, his manner is lively, his style forcible and clear; and, had not his vigorous mind been clouded by enthusiasm, he might be ranked with the most agreeable and ingeniotfs writers of the times. While the Bangorian controversy was a fashionable theme, he entered the lists on the subject of Christ’s kingdom, and the authority of the priesthood; against the Plain account of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper‘ he resumed the combat with bishop Hoadly, the object of Whig idolatry and Tory abhorrence; and at every weapon of attack and defence, the nonjuror, on the ground which is common to both, approves himself at least equal to the prelate. On the appearance of the Fable of the Bees,’ he drew his pen against the licentious doctrine that private vices are public benefits, and morality as well as religion must join in his applause. Mr. Law’s masterwork, the ‘Serious Call,’ is still read as a popular and powerful book of devotion. His precepts are rigid, but they are founded on the gospel; his satire is sharp, but it is drawn from the knowledge of human life; and many of his portraits are not unworthy of the pen of La Bruyere *. If he finds a spark of piety in his reader’s mind, be will soon kindle it to a flame; and a philosopher must allow that he exposes, with equal severity and truth, the strange contradiction between the faith and practice of the Christian world.”

Lawes taught music to the family of the earl of Bridgewater: he was intimate with Milton, as may be conjectured from that sonnet of the latter, “Harry, whose tuneful and well-measured song.” Peck says, that Milton wrote his masque of “Comus” at the request of Lawes, who engaged to set it to music. Most of the songs of Waller are set by Lawes; and Waller has acknowledged his obligation to him for one in particular, which he had set in 1635, in a poem, wherein he celebrates his skill as a musician. Fenton, in a note on this poem, says, that the best poets of that age were ambitious of having their verses set by this incomparable artist; who introduced a softer mixture of Italian airs than before had been practised in our nation. Dr. Burney entertains another kind of suspicion. “Whether,” says this historian, “Milton chose Lawes, or Lawes Milton for a colleague in Comus, it equally manifests the high rank in which he stood with the greatest poets of his time. It would be illiberal to cherish such an idea; but it does sometimes seem as if the twin-sisters. Poetry and Music, were mutually jealous of each other’s glory: * the less interesting my sister’s offspring may be,‘ says Poetry, * the more admiration will my own obtain.’ Upon asking some years ago, why a certain great prince continued to honour with such peculiar marks of favour, an old performer on the flute, when he had so many musicians of superior abilities about him? We were answered, * because he plays worse than himself.' And who knows whether Milton and Waller were not secretly influenced by some such consideration? and were not more pleased with Lawes for not pretending to embellish or enforce the sentiments of their songs, but setting them to sounds less captivating than the sense.”

, physician and historian to the emperor Ferdinand L was born at Vienna in 1504, and there taught the belles lettres and physic for some years with great reputation. He died in 1555. His numerous works shew him to have been indefatigable in his researches, but not so judicious in digesting his materials. The principal are, 1. “Commentariorum Reipublicse Romanae in exteris Provinciis bello acquisitis constitutae,” Libri XII. 1598, fol. 2. “De Gentium migrationibus,” 1572, fol. in which he examines particularly the migrations of the northern people, which weakened and divided the Roman empire. 3. “Geographia Pannonise,” in Ortelius.“4.” De rebus Viennensibus,“1546. 5.” In Genealogiam Austriacam Commentarii," 1564, fol. &c. The greatest part of this author’s works were collected and printed at Francfort, 1698, 2 vols. fol.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born at Auxerre in 1687, and became a member of the academy of belles lettres and inscriptions of Paris in 1750. He died in 1760, aged 73. Among his productions are, 1. “Recueil de divers Merits servant a Pe‘claircissement de l’histoire fie France,” 1738, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Dissertations sur l'histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Paris;” to which are added several matters that elucidate the history of France; 3 vols. 12mo. 3. “Traité historique et pratique sur le chant ecciesiastique,” 1741, 8vo. This was dedicated to Vintimille, archbishop of Paris, who had employed him in composing a chant for his new breviary and missal. 4. “M6moires sur l‘Histoire d’Anxerre,” 1743, 2 vols. 4to. 5. “Histoire de la ville et de tout le diocese de Paris,” 15 vols. 12mo. 6. Several dissertations dispersed in the journals, and in the memoirs of the academy of which he was member. The learned are indebted to him likewise for the discovery of a number of original pieces, which he found in various libraries, where they had long remained unknown. He was a man of extensive learning and laborious research; and undertook several journeys through the different provinces of France for the purpose of investigating the remains of antiquity. In such matters he was an enthusiast, and so engaged in them, as to know very little of the world, being content with the very small competency on which he lived.

Gibbon has drawn the character of Leibnitz with great force and precision, as a man whose genius and studies have ranked his name with the first philosophic names of his age and country; but he thinks his reputation, perhaps, would have been more pure and permanent, if he had not ambitiously grasped the whole circle of human science. As a theologian, says Gibbon (who is not, perhaps, the most impartial judge of this subject), he successively contended with the sceptics, who believe too little, and with the papists who believe too much; and with the heretics, who believe otherwise than is inculcated by the Lutheran confession of Augsburgh. Yet the philosopher betrayed his love of union and toleration* his faith in revelation was accused, while he proved the Trinity by the principles of logic; and in the defence of the attributes and providence of the Deity, he was suspected of a secret correspondence with his adversary Bayle. The metaphysician expatiated in the fields of air; his pre-established harmony of the soul and body might have provoked the jealousy of Plato; and his optimism, the best of all possible worlds, seems an idea too vast for a mortal mind. He was a physician, in the large and genuine sense of the word like his brethren, he amused him with creating a globe and his Protogæa, or primitive earth, has not been useless to the last hypothesis of Buffon, which prefers the agency of fire to that of water. “I am not worthy,” adds Gibbon, “to praise the mathematician; but his name is mingled in all the problems and discoveries of the times; the masters of the art were his rivals or disciples; and if he borrowed from sir Isaac Newton, the sublime method of fluxions, Leibnitz was at least the Prometheus who imparted to mankind the sacred fire which he had stolen from the gods. His curiosity extended to every branch of chemistry, mechanics, and the arts; and the thirst of knowledge was always accompanied with the spirit of improvement. The vigour of his youth had been exercised in the schools of jurisprudence; and while he taught, he aspired to reform the laws of nature and nations, of Rome and Germany. The annals of Brunswick, and of the empire, of the ancient and modern world, were presented to the mind of the historian; and he could turn from the solution of a problem, to the dusty parchments and barbarous style of the records of the middle age. His genius was more nobly directed to investigate the origin of languages and nations; nor could he assume the character of a grammarian, without forming the project of an universal idiom and alphabet. These various studies were often interrupted by the occasional politics of the times; and his pen was always ready in the cause of the princes and patrons to whose service he was attached; many hours were consumed in a learned correspondence with all Europe; and the philosopher amused his leisure in the composition of French and Latin poetry. Such an example may display the exte^nt and powers of the human understanding, but even his powers were dissipated by the multiplicity of his pursuits. He attempted more than he could finish; he designed more than he could execute: his imagination was too easily satisfied with a bold and rapid glance on the subject, which he was impatient to leave; and Leibnitz may be compared to those heroes, whose empire has been lost in the ambition of universal conquest.”

In his “Apology for the Clergy of the Church of England,” published in 1711, he attacked the veracity of the historian of the nonconformists, by asserting, “that Mr. Calamy was too much biassed to have any thing he said concerning the party he espoused believed on his bare word.” This harsh opinion naturally provoked Calamy to make some very severe reflections on him, both in the preface to the second edition of “Baxter’s Life abridged,” in 1714, and in his “Continuation,” in 1727; against which Mr. Lewis had drawn up a vindication; but, Mr. Calamy’s death intervening, he would not war with the dead, and desisted from publishing it.

Scarcely any man was ever more honoured, both in his life-time and after his death, than this historian. Pliny the younger relates that a gentleman travelled from Cades, the extreme part of Spain, to see Livy; and, though Rome abounded with more stupendous and curious spectacles than any city in the world, immediately returned; because, after having seen Livy, he thought nothing worthy of his notice. To the following story, however, we cannot so easily give credit. A monument was erected to this historian in the temple of Juno, where the monastery of St. Justina was afterwards founded. There, in 1413, was discovered the following epitaph upon Livy: “Ossa Titi Livii Patavini, omnium mortalium judicio digni, cujus prope invicto Calamo invicti Populi Romani Res gestaa conscriberentur.” In 1451, we are told that Alphonsus, king of Arragon, sent his ambassador, Anthony Panormita, to desire of the citizens of Padua the bone of that arm with which this their famous countryman had written his history; and, obtaining it, caused it to be conveyed to Naples with the greatest ceremony, as a most invaluable relic. He is said to have been assisted in his recovery from an ill state of health, by the pleasure he found in reading this history; and therefore, out of gratitude, was induced to pay extraordinary honours to the memory of the writer."

This ridiculous story, which has been repeated in the former editions of this Dictionary, as well as in other accounts of Livy, took its rise from the ignorance or knavery of those who reported it; and having been refuted by Gudius, and more fully by Morhof (“De Livii Patav.” cap. iii.), ought long ago to have been displaced. The epitaph at Padua was, when written without the contractions, “Vivus fecit Titus Livius, Livice Titi filise quartae, libertus Halys, concordialis Patavi, sibi et suis omnibus;” i. e. This monument was erected by himself and his family by Titus Livius Halys, the freedman of Livia, a daughter of one Titus Livius, who probably lived many ages after the historian. Halys was his name, while he continued in servitude, and Titus Livius the name of his patron or master, which he assumed, as was usual in those cases, when he received his freedom. He had perhaps borne some office in the temple of Concordia at Padua, which might possibly have stood in the place where the epitaph was discovered, and hence the title Concordialis. But the monks of the fifteenth century, who valued themselves on having discovered the bones of the celebrated historian, attended only to the name of Titus Livius; never reflecting, that this was a common name, and might have belonged to twenty others; that in the Augustan age, dead bodies were usually burnt, and not buried within the walls of cities; and that, admitting Livy had been buried, it was very improbable that any of his bones should have remained unconsumed in the ground above 1400 years.

The encomiums bestowed upon Livy, by both ancients and moderns, are great and numerous. Quinctiliau speaks of him in the highest terms, and thinks that Herodotus need not take it ill to have Livy equalled with him. In general, probity, candour, and impartiality, are what have distinguished Livy above all historians. Neither complaisance to the times, nor his particular connexions with the emperor, could restrain him from speaking so well of Pompey, as to make Augustus call him a Pompeian. This we learn from Cremutius Cortlus, in Tacitus, who relates also, much to the emperor’s honour, that this gave no interruption to their friendship. Livy, however, has not escaped censure as a writer. In the age in which he lived, Asinius Pollio charged him with Patavinity, a word variously explained by writers, but generally supposed to relate to his style. The most common opinion is, that Pollio, accustomed to the delicacy of the language spoken in the court of Augustus, could not bear with certain provincial idioms, which Livy, as a Paduan, used in various places of his history. Pignorius is of a different opinion, and considers Patavinity as relating to the orthography of certain words, in which Livy used one letter for another, according to the custom of his country, writing “sibe” and “quase” for “sibi” and “quasi;” which he attempts to prove by several ancient inscriptions. Chevreau maintains, that it does not concern the style, but the principles of the historian: the Paduans, he says, preserved a long and constant inclination for a republic, and were therefore attached to Pompey; while Pollio, being of Caesar’s party, was naturally led to attribute to Livy the sentiments of his countrymen, on account of his speaking well of Pompey. It seems remarkable that there should exist such difference of opinion, when Quinctilian, who must be supposed to know the true import of this Patavinity, has referred it entirely to the language of our author. MorhofPs elaborate treatise, however, is highly creditable to his critical skill. The merit of Livy’s history is so well known, as to render it unnecessary to accumulate the encomiums which modern scholars have bestowed on him. With these the school -boy is soon made acquainted, and they meet the advanced scholar in all his researches. His history was first printed at Rome, about 1469, by Sweynheym and Pannartz, in folio. Of this rare edition, lord Spencer is in possession of a fine copy; but the exquisite copy on vellum, formerly in the imperial library at Vienna, now belongs to James Edwards, esq. of Harrow; and is perhaps the most magnificent volume of an ancient classic in the world. Of modern printing the best editions are, that of Gronovius, “cum Notis variorum & suis, Lugd. Bat. 1679,” 3 vols. 8vo; that of Le Clerc, at “Amsterdam, 1709,” 10 vols. 12mo that of Crevier, at “Paris, 1735,” 6 vols. <Ko of Prakenborch, Auist. 1738, 7 vols. 4to of Ruddiman, Edinburgh, 1751, 4 vols. 12mo; of Homer, Lond. 1794, 8 vols. 8vo and that of Oxford, 1800, 6 vols. 8vo. Livy has been translated into every language. The last English translation was that of George Baker, A. M. 6 vols. 8vo, published in 1797, which was preceded by that of Philemon Holland, in 1600; that of Bohun, in 1686; and a third, usually called Hay’s translation, though, no such name appears, printed in 1744, 6 vols. 8vo.

, a loyal biographer and historian of the seventeenth century, the son of Hugh Lloyd, was born at Pant Mawr, in the parish of Trawsvinydd, in Merionethshire, Sept. 28, 1625. He was educated in grammar learning at the free-school at Ruthen in Denbighshire, and in 1652 became a servitor of Oriel college, Oxford, at which time, and after, he performed the office of janitor. He took one degree in arts, and by the favour of the warden and society of Merton college, was presented to itie rectory of Ibston near Watlington in Oxfordshire, in May 1658. Next year be took his master’s degree, and after a short time, resigned Ibston, and went to London, where he was appointed reader of the Charter-house. Afterwards he retired to Wales, and became chaplain to Dr. Isaac Barrow, bishop of St. Asaph, who, besides several preferments in his diocese, gave him a canonry in the church of St. Asaph, in August 1670. On Aug. 14, 1671, he was made vicar of Abergeley, and on the same day, as is supposed, prebend of Vaynol in the church of St. Asaph, at which time he resigned his canonry. He afterwards exchanged Abergeley for the vicarage of Northop in Flintshire, where he settled and taught the free-school, until his health began to decay. He then returned, probably to try the effect of his native air, to Pant Mawr, where he died Feb. 16, 1691, and was buried there.

Bishop Lloyd lived to the age of ninety-one; but in the latter part of his life seems to have fallen into some imbecility of mind; as appears from the account given by Swift of the good old prelate’s going to queen Anne, “to prove to her majesty, out of Daniel, and the Revelations, that four years hence there would be a war of religion, that the king of France would be a protestant, and that the popedom should be destroyed.” He died at Hartlebury- castle, August 30, 1717, and was buried in the church of Fladbury, near Kvesham, in Worcestershire, of which his son was rector; where a monument is erected to his memory with a long inscription, setting him forth " as an excellent pattern of virtue and learning, of quick invention, firm memory, exquisite judgment, great candour, piety, and gravity; a faithful historian, accurate chronologer, and skilled in the holy scriptures to a miracle; very charitable, and diligent in a careful discharge of his episcopal

, an eminent French historian and bibliographer, was born at Paris, April 19, 1665. His mother dying while he was very young, his father married again, and entrusted his education to one of his relations, a priest, who was director of the religious at Estampes. After he had been taught grammar and Latin for two or three years under this ecclesiastic, his father sent him to Malta, with a view to procure him admission among the clerks of the order of St. John of Jerusalem. He had scarcely arrived here when the plague broke out, to which he incautiously exposed himself; but although he escaped the contagion, he fancied that the air of Malta did not agree with him, and obtained leave of his superiors to return to Paris, where he might prosecute his studies in the classics, philosophy, and divinity. As he had not taken the vows in the order of St. John, he had no sooner completed his studies at home, than he entered into the congregation of the oratory. His year of probation being passed, he was sent to the college of Jully, where he taught mathematics, and went afterwards to the seminary of Notre Dame des Vertus, where he employed his leisure time in study, particularly of philosophy, which brought him acquainted with father Malbranche. On his return to Paris he was appointed to the care of the library belonging to the fathers of the oratory, a place for which he was admirably qualified, as he was not only acquainted with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and the Chaldean, but with the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and English languages, and had a very extensive knowledge of literary history, of books, editions, and printing. The continual pains, however, which he bestowed on this library, and on his own publications, undermined his constitution, which was originally delicate, and brought on a complaint in the chest, which proved fatal, Aug. 13, 1721, in the fifty. sixth year of his life. His time for many years had been divided between devotion and study; he allowed very little to sleep, and less to the table. Although a man of extensive knowledge, and often consulted, he was equally modest and unaffected. In all his researches he shewed much acuteness and judgment, but the course of his studies had alienated him from works of taste and imagination, for which he had little relish. His principal object was the ascertaining of truth in matters of literary history; and the recovery of dates and other minutiae, on which he was frequently obliged to bestow the time that seemed disproportionate, was to him a matter of great importance, nor was he to be diverted from such accuracy by his friend Malbranche, who did not think philosophy concerned in such matters. “Truth,” said Le Long, “is so valuable, that we ought not to neglect it even in trifles.” His works are, 1. “Methode Hebraique du P. Renou,” 1708, 8vo. 2. “Bibliotheca Sacra, sive syllabus omnium ferme Sacrse Scripture eclitionum ac versionum,” Paris, 1709, 8vo, 2 vols. Of this a very much enlarged edition was published at Paris in 1723, 2 vols. fol. by Desmolets. Another edition was begun by Masch in 1778, and between that and 1790, 5 vols. 4to were published, but the plan is yet unfinished. 3. “Discours historique sur les principales Editions des Bibles Polyglottes,” Paris, 1713, 8vo, a very curious work. 4. “Histoire des demelez du pape Boniface VIII. avec Philippe Le Bel, roi de France,” 1718, 12mo, a posthumous work of M. Baillet, to which Le Long added some documents illustrating that period of French history. 5. “Bibliotheque Historique de France,” 1719, fol. a work of vast labour and research, and perhaps the greatest of all his undertakings. It has since been enlarged by Ferret de Fontette and others, to 5 vols. fol. 1768—78, and is the most comprehensive collection of the kind in any language. The only other publication of M. Le Long was a letter to M. Martin, minister of Utrecht, with whom he had a short controversy respecting the disputed text in 1 John, v. 7.

After becoming a fellow of his college, he was in 1505 chosen principal of Magdalen-hall, which he resigned in 1507. In 1510 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in the following year. In 1514 he was promoted to be dean of Salisbury, and in 1519 had the additional preferment of a canonry of Windsor. At this time he was in such favour with Henry VIII. as to be appointed his confessor, and upon the death of Atwater, bishop of Lincoln, he was by papal provision advanced to this see in 1520, and was consecrated May 3, 1521. In the same year (1520) we find him at Oxford assisting in drawing up the privileges for the new statutes of the university. In 1523 he was at the same place as one of those whom. Wolsey consulted in the establishment of his new college; and when the foundation was laid on July 15, 1525, Longland preached a sermon, which, with two others on the same occasion, he dedicated to archbishop Warham. He was afterwards employed at Oxford by the king, to gain over the learned men of the university fo sanction his memorable divorce. It is said, indeed, that when Henry’s scruples, or, as we agree with the catholic historian, his pretended scruples, began to be started, bishop Longland was the first that suggested the measure of a divorce. The excuse made for him is, that he was himself over-persuaded to what was not consistent with his usual character by Wolsey, who thought that Longland’s authority would add great weight to the cause; and it is said that he expressed to his chancellor, Dr. Draycot, his sorrow for being concerned in that affair. In 1533 he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford, to which he proved in many respects a liberal benefactor, and to poor students a generous patron. The libraries of Brazenose, Magdalen, and Oriel colleges, he enriched with many valuable books; and in 1540 he recovered the salary of the lady Margaret professorship, which had almost been lost, owing to the abbey from which it issued being dissolved. It must not be disguised, however, that he was inflexible in his pursuit and persecution of what he termed heresy. In 1531, we find him giving a commission to the infamous Dr. London, warden of New college, and others, to search for certain heretical books commonly sold at St. Frideswyde’s fair near Oxford. He died May 7, 1547, at Wooburn in Bedfordshire, where his bowels were interred; while his heart was carried to Lincoln cathedral, and his body deposited in Eton-college chapel, where it is thought he once had some preferment. He built a curious chapel in Lincoln cathedral in the east part, in imitation of bishop Russel’s chapel, with a tomb, &c. He also gave the second bell at Wooburn church, and built almshouses at Henley, his birth-place.

, a learned French ecclesiastical historian, was born at Santerre in Picardy in 1680, and was educated at Amiens and Paris. In 1699 he entered into the society of the Jesuits at Paris, and devoted himself with great ardour to writing a “History of the Gallican Church.” Of this he published the first eight volumes, and had nearly completed the ninth and tenth, when he died of an apoplexy, January 14, 1735, aged fifty-four. Besides this history, which is his principal work, and has been continued by the fathers Fontenai, Brumoy, and Berthier, to J 8 vols. 4to, he left a treatise “On Schism,” 1718, 12mo; a “Dissertation on Miracles,” 4to, and some other works, which all display great genius, and are written with much spirit, and in pure language. The first eight volumes of the “History of the Gallican Church,” contain learned remarks on the religion of the ancient Gauls, en the ancient geography of Gaul, on the religion of the French, and on many other important subjects.

, an able advocate in the seventeenth century, and master of requests to queen Margaret, was born at Reinville, a village two leagues from Beauvais. He died in 1646. His works are, I. “L'Histoire et les Antiqnités de Beauvuis,” vol. I. 1609, and 1631, 8vo vol. II. Rouen, 1614, 8vo. The first treats of the ecclesiastical affairs of Beauvais the second, of the civil affairs. 2. “Nomenclatura et Chronologia rerum Ecclesiasticarum Dioecesis Bellovacensis,” Paris, 1618, 8vo. 3. “Hist, des Antiquity’s du Diocese de Beauvais,” Beauvais, lh.3.5, 8vo. 4. “Anciennes Remarques sur la Noblesse Beaiuoisme, et de plusieurs Families de France,” 1631, and 1640, 8vo. This work is very scarce it is in alphabetical order, but has only been printed from A to M inclusively, with one leaf of N. Father Triboulet, prior of the Dominicans at Beauvais, and afterwards procurator- general of' his order, being authorised to establish a college in the Dominican convent of Beauvais, and to enforce the observance of the rules and statutes of reformation respecting studies there, was imprisoned by his brethren. On this occasion Louvet published, “Abrég6 d: s Constitutions et Reglemens pour les Etu;les et Reformes du Convent des Jacobins de Beauvais,” and addressed it to tht- king, in 1618, by an epistle dedicatory, in which he petitioned that Triboulet might be set at liberty. There was another French historian of the same names, who was born at Beauvais. His father was a native of Amiens, and not related to the preceding. He studied physic at Montpellier also the belles lettres and geography; taught rhetoric with reputation in Provence during a considerable time; and geography at Montpellier; and published several works from 1657 to 1680, respecting the history of Languedoc, Provence, &c. under the following titles: 1. “Remarques sur l'Histoire de Langnedoc,” 4to 2.“Abrégé de l‘Histoire d’Aquitaine, Guienne, et Gascogne, jusqu'à present,” foourdeaux, 1659, 4to. 3 “La France dans sa Splendeur,” 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Ahrege* de I'Histoire de Provence,” 2 vols. 12mo, with additions to the same history in 2 vols. folio. 5. “Projet de I'Histoire du Pays de beanjolots,” 8vo. 6. “Hist, des Troubles de Provence deputs 1481 jusqu'en 159S,” 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Le Mercure Hollandois. ou Ifs Conquetes du Roi, lepuisn7J, jusqira la fin de 1679,” 10 vols 12mo. This last may be useful, and is the best of Peter Louvet’s works; but Hoik of the rest are much esteemed.

, a clergyman of Scotland, and an ingenious natural historian, was born at Edzal in Forfarshire, in 1746. He was educated at the colleges of Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s, and afterwards was tutor in the family of Graham, at Stromness in Orkney. During his residence at this place, Mr. (now sir Joseph) Banks and Dr. Soiander arrived at the island on their return from the last voyage of discovery, in which capt. Cook lost his life; and Mr. Low, having early acquired a taste for natural history, was much noticed by those distinguished philosophers, and was requested to accompany them in their excursions through the Orkneys, and also to the Shetland islands, which he accordingly lid.

He understood twenty-five languages: Hebrew, and that of the Rabbins; the Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, learned, literal, and vulgar; Greek, learned and vulgar; Ethiopic, learned and vulgar, Called Amharic; Coptic, Persian, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Flemish, English, Polish, Sclavonic, and the ancient language of Sclavonia, and of the Finnes. He was equally esteemed for his manners as for his talents; and was very communicative; hardy and indefatigable in business, and so much inured to study, that he had always a book open before him at his ordinary repasts. He left a son, Christian Ludolph, who was the only child he had, and was counsellor and secretary to the duke of Saxe-Eysenach. ' His works are: 1. “Schola Latinitatis, &c.” Gothae, 1672, 8vo. 2. “Historia Kthiopica, &<.” Franc. 1681, folio. 3. “Epistola Ethiopice scripta,” 1685, in folio. This was the letter he wrote to persuade the Abyssinians to an alliance with the princes of Europe. 4. “De bello Turcico feliciter conficiendo, &c.” Franc. 1686. 4to. 5. “Remarque* sur les pensees enjouez & serieux, &c.”' Leipsic, 1689, 8vo. 6. “Epistolse Samaritans Sichetnitarum ad Jobum Ludolphum, &c.” Leipsic, 1688, 4to. 7, “Specimen commentarii in historian! Ethiopicam,” 1687. 8. “Comaientarins in historiam Ethiopicam, &c.” Franc. 1691, folio. 9. “Appendix ad hist. Ethiopicam illiusque commentarium, &c.” ibid. 1693, folio. 10. “Jugerrtent d‘un anonyme sur une lettre a un ami touchant une systeme d’etymologie Hebraique.” II. “Dissertatio de locustis, &c.” Franc. 1694, folio. 12. “Grammatica Amharicae liiifmse qua; est vernacula Habessinorum,” ibid. 1698, fojio. 13.“Lexicon Amharico-Latinnm, &c.” ibid. 1698, folio. J4. Lexicon Ethiopico-Latinum, ibid, editio secunda,“1699, folio. 15.” Gratnmatica linguae Ethiopian, secunda,“ibid. 1702, folio. 16.” Psalterium Davidis, Ethiopice & Latine, &c.“ibid. 1701, 4to. J7.” Theatre historique de ce que s’est passé en Europe, pendant le xvii siécle,“in German,” avec des figures de Remain de Hoog,“ibid. 2 vols. folio. 18.” Confessio fidei Claudii Regis Ethiopicse," &c. in 4to.

, a celebrated Lombard historian of the tenth century, was born at Pavia. He was bred in the court of Hugo king of Italy, and was afterwards secretary to Berengarius II. by whom, in the year 948, he was sent ambassador to Cpnstantine Porphyrogenitus. After having long served Berengarius, he was disgraced, merely, as it is said, because he censured some of the proceedings with which the latter years of that prince were dishonoured. His goods were confiscated, and he fled for refuge to Otho emperor of Germany. Otho amply avenged his cause by driving Berengarius from the throne; and in the year 963, advanced Luitprandus to the bishopric of Cremona. In the year 968 he sent him ambassador to the emperor Nicephorus Phocas. That emperor had taken great offence that Otho had assumed the style of Roman emperor, and Luitprandus, who undertook boldly to justify his master, irritated him so much, that he received very harsh treatment, and was even thrown for a time into prison, nor was he suffered to return into Italy till the expiration of the year. The precise time of his death is not known. He wrote the history of his own times in six books; the best edition of which is that of Antwerp, in folio, published in 1640. His style is harsh, but he throws great light on the history of the lower empire. He is among the “Scriptores return Italicarum,” published by Muratori. Luitprandus was one of the bishops who subscribed the condemnation of pope John XII.; and in the last six chapters of his book, he gives a distinct account of all ilie transactions of that synod, which was held at Rome by the bishops of Italy. The lives of the popes, and the chronicle of the Goths, have been falsely ascribed to him.

On the protestant side, the character given of Luther by Dr. Robertson, seems, on the whole, the most just and impartial that has yet appeared. “As he was raised by Providence,” says this excellent historian, " to be the author of one of the greatest and most interesting revolutions recorded in history, there is not any person, perhaps, whose character has been drawn with such opposite colours. In his own age, one party, struck with horror aud inflamed with rage, when they saw with what a daring hand he overturned everything which they held to be sacred, or valued as beneficial, imputed to him not only the defects and vices of a man, but the qualities of a demon. The other, warmed with the admiration and gratitude which they thought he merited, as the restorer of light and liberty to the Christian church, ascribed to hiui perfections above the condition of humanity, and viewed all his actions with a veneration bordering on that which should be paid only to those who are guided by the immediate inspiration of heaven. It is his own conduct, not the undistinguishing censure or the extravagant praise of his contemporaries, that ought to regulate the opinions of the present age concerning him. Zeal for what he regarded as truth; undaunted intrepidity to maintain his own system; abilities, both natural and acquired, to defend his principles; and unwearied industry in propagating them; are virtues which shine so conspicuously in every part of his behaviour, that even his enemies must allow him to have possessed them in an eminent degree. To these may be added, with equal justice, such purity and even austerity of manners, as became one who assumed the character of a reformer; such sanctity of life as suited the doctrine which he delivered; and such perfect disinterestedness, as affords no slight presumption of his sincerity. Superior to all selfish considerations, a stranger to the elegancies of life, and despising its pleasures, he left the honours and emoluments of the church to his disciples, remaining satisfied himself in his original state of professor in the university, and pastor of the town of Wittemberg, with the moderate appointments annexed to these offices. His extraordinary qualities were allayed by no inconsiderable mixture of human frailties and human passions. These, however, were of such a nature, that they cannot be imputed to malevolence or corruption of heart, but seem to have taken their rise from the same source with many of his virtues. His mind, forcible and vehement in all its operations, roused by great objects, or agitated by violent passions, broke out, on many occasions, with an impetuosity which astonishes men of feebler spirits, or such as are placed in a more tranquil situation. By carrying some praise-worthy dispositions to excess, he bordered sometimes on what was culpable, and was often betrayed into actions which exposed him to censure. His confidence that his own opinions were well-founded, appreached to arrogance; his courage in asserting them, to rashness; his firmness in adhering to them, to obstinacy; and his zeal in confuting his adversaries, to rage and scurrility. Accustomed himself to consider every thing as subordinate to truth, he expected the same deference for it from other men; and, without making any allowances for their timidity or prejudices, he poured forth against such as disappointed him in this particular, a torrent of invective mingled with contempt. Regardless of any distinction of rank or character when his doctrines were attacked, he chastised all his adversaries indiscriminately, with the same rough hand: neither the royal dignity of Henry VIII, nor the eminent learning and abilities of Erasmus, screened them from the same gross abuse with which he treated Tetzel or Eckius.

In 1797, Mr. Macfarlane published “An Address to the people of the British Empire, on the present posture and future prospect of public affairs,” by which it appears that he had got rid of most of his former political prejudices. He likewise formally disclaims the second and third volumes of the “History of George III.” and says, that even the first uas been so disfigured in a third edition, that he will no longer claim it as his own. In 1801, he published “George Buchanan’s Dialogue, concerning the rights of the crown of Scotland. Translated into English with two dissertations prefixed one archaeological, inquiring into the pretended identity of the Getes and Scythians, of the Getes and Goths, and of the Goths and Scots: and the other historical, vindicating the character of Buchanan as a historian: and containing some specimens of his poetry in English verse,” 8vo. In this work there is much curious discussion.

, a celebrated political writer and historian, was born of a good family, at Florence, in 1469. He first distinguished himself as a dramatic writer, but his comedies are not formed on the purest morals, nor are the verses by which he gained some reputation about the same time, entitled to much praise. Soon after he had entered public life, either from the love of liberty, or a spirit of faction, he displayed a restless and turbulent disposition, which not only diminished the respect due to his abilities, but frequently endangered his personal safety. He involved himself in the conspiracy of Capponi and Boscoli, in consequence of which he was put to the torture, but endured it without uttering any confession, and was set at liberty by Leo X. against whose house that conspiracy had been formed. Immediately after the death of Leo, he entered into another plot to expel the cardinal de Medici from Florence. Afterwards, however, he was raised to hitjh honours in the state, and became secretary to the republic of Florence, the 'duties of which office he performed with great fidelity. He was likewise employed in embassies to king Lewis XII. of France; to the emperor Maximilian; to the college of cardinals; to the pope, Julius II., and to other Italian princes. Notwithstanding the revenues which must have accrued to him in these important situations, it would appear that the love of money had no influence on his mind, as he died in extreme poverty in June 1527. Besides his plays, his chief works are, 1. “The Golden Ass,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius 2. “Discourses on the first Decade of Livy” 3. “A History of Florence” 4. “The Life of Castruccio Castracani;” 5. “A Treatise on the Military Art;” 6. “A Treatise on the Emigration of the Northern Nations;” 7. Another entitled “Del Principe,” the Prince. This famous treatise, which was first published in 1515, and intended as a sequel to his discourses on the first decade of Livy, has created very discordant opinions between critics of apparently equal skill and judgment, some having considered him as the friend of truth, liberty, and virtue, and others as the advocate of fraud and tyranny. Most generally “the Prince” has been viewed in the latter light, all its maxims and counsels being directed to the maintenance of power, however acquired, and by any means; and one reason for this opinion is perhaps natural enough, namely, its being dedicated to a nephew of pope Leo X. printed at Rome, re*published in other Italian cities, and long read with attention, and even applause, without censure or reply. On the other hand it has been thought impossible that Machiavel, who was born under a republic, who was employed as one of its secretaries, who performed so many important embassies, and who in his conversation always dwelt on the glorious actions of Brutus and Cassius, should have formed such a system against the liberty and happiness of mankind. Hence it has frequently been urged on his behalf, that it was not his intention to suggest wise and faithlul counsels, but to represent in the darkest colours the schemes of a tyrant, and thereby excite odium against him. Even lord Bacon seems to be of this opinion. The historian of Leo considers his conduct in a different point of view; and indeed all idea of his being ironical in this work is dissipated by the fact, mentioned by Mr. Roscoe, that “many of the most exceptionable doctrines in” The Prince,“are also to be found in his” Discourses,“where it cannot be pretended that he had any indirect purpose in view; and in the latter he has in some instances referred to the former for the further elucidation of his opinions. In popular opinion” The Prince“has affixed to his name a lasting stigma; and Machiavelism has long been a received appellation for perfidious and infamous politics. Of the historical writings of Machiavel, the” Life of Castruccio Castracani“is considered as partaking too much of the character of a romance; but his” History of Florence," comprising the events of that republic, between 1205 and 1494, which was written while the author sustained the office of historiographer of the republic, although not always accurate in point of fact, may upon the whole be read with both pleasure and advantage. It has been of late years discovered tnat the diary of the most important events in Italy from 1492 to 1512, published by the Giunti in 1568, under the name of Biagio Buonaccorsi, is in fact a part of the notes of Machiavel, which he had intended for a continuation of his history; but which, after his death, remained in the hands of his friend Buonaccorsi. - This is a circumstance of which we were not aware when we drew up the account of this author under the name Esperiente.

, a scholastic divine and historian, was born, not at Haddington, as is usually said, but at Gleghorn, a village near North Berwick, in 1469. From some passages in his writings, it appears that he resided for a time both at Oxford and at Cambridge. At the former particularly, we learn from the dedication of one of his works to cardinal Wolsey, he resided, not three months, as Wood says, but a year. The cardinal, whom he styles “your majesty,” received him “after the old manner of Christian hospitality, and invited him with a splendid salary to Oxford, where he had lately founded his college, which Major did not accept, on account of the love he bore to his mother university of Paris.” It appears that he went in 1493 to Paris, and studied in the college of St. Barbe, under the famous John Boulac. Thence he removed to the college of Montacute, where he began the study of divinity, under the celebrated Standouk. In 1498 he was entered of the college of Navarre in 1505 he was created D. D. returned to Scotland in 1519, and taught theology for several years in the university of St. Andrew’s. At length, disgusted with the quarrels of his countrymen, he returned to Paris, and resumed his lectures in the college of Montacute, where he had several pupils, afterwards men of eminence. About 1530, he removed once more to Scotland, was chosen professor of divinity at St. Andrew’s, and afterwards became provost. It is usually supposed that he died in 1547, but it is certain that he was alive in 1549; for in that year he subscribed (by proxy, on account of his great age) the national constitutions of the church of Scotland. He died soon after, probably in 1550, which must have been in his eighty-second year. Du Pin says, that of all the divines who had written on the works of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard), Major was the most learned and comprehensive. His History of Scotland is written with much commendable freedom; but in a barbarous style, and not always correct as to facts. Hs was the instructor, but not, as some have said, the patron of the famous George Buchanan. He also had the celebrated John Knox as one of his pupils. Baker in a ms note on the “Athenae,” adds to the mention of this fact, that “a man would hardly believe he ha.d been taught by him.” Baker, however, was not sufficiently acquainted with Major’s character to be able to solve this doubt. Major, according to the very acute biographer of Knox (Dr. M‘Crie) had acquired a habit of thinking and expressing himself on certain subjects, more liberal than was adopted in his native country and other parts of Europe. He had imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson, Peter D’Ailly, and others, who defended the decrees of the council of Constance, and liberties of the Gallican church, against those who asserted the incontroulable authority of the sovereign pontiff. He thought that a general council was superior to the pope, might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes; maintained that ecclesiastical censures and even papal excommunications had no force, it* pronounced on invalid or irrelevant grounds; he held that tithes were merely of human appointment, not divine right; censured the avarice, ambition, and secular pomp of the court of Rome and the episcopal order; was no warm friend of the regular clergy, and advised the reduction of monasteries and holidays. His opinions respecting civil government were analogous to those which he held as to ecclesiastical policy. He taught that the authority of kings and princes was originally derived from the people that the former are not superior to the latter, collectively considered that if rulers become tyrannical, or employ their power for the destruction of their subjects, they may lawfully be controuled by them; and proving incorrigible, may be deposed by the community as the superior power; and that tyrants may be judicially proceeded against, even to capital punishment. The affinity between these and the political principles afterwards avowed by Knox, and defended by the classic pen of Buchanan, is too striking to require illustration. But although Major had ventured to think for himself on these topics, in all other respects be was completely subservient to the opinions of his age; and with a mind deeply tinctured with superstition, defended some of the absurdest tenets of popery by the most ridiculous and puerile arguments. We cannot, therefore, greatly blame Buchanan, who called him in ridicule, what he affected to call himself in humility, “Joannes, solo cognomine, Major.” His works are, 1. “Libri duo fallaciarum,” Lugd. 1516, comprising his “Opera Logicalia.” 2. “In quatuor sententiarum commentarius,” Paris, 1516. 3. “Commentarius in physica Aristotelis,” Paris, 1526. 4. “In primum et secundum sententiarum commentarii,” Paris, 1510. 5. “Commentarius in tertium sententiarum,” Paris, 1517. 6. “Literalis in Matthaeum expositio,” Paris, 1518. From these two last may be collected his sentiments on ecclesiastical polity, mentioned above. 7. “De historia gentis Scotorum, sen historia majoris Britanniae,” Paris, 1521, 4to. Of this a new edition was printed at Edinburgh, 17+0, 4to. 8. “Luculenta in 4 Evangelia expositiones,” &c. Paris, 1529, folio. 9. “Placita theologica.” 10. “Catalogus episcoporum Lucionensium.” He also translated Caxton’s Chronicle into Latin.

Upon the Restoration he was made secretary of state for Scotland, and persuaded the king to demolish the forts and citadels built by Cromwell in Scotland; by which means he became very popular. He was likewise very importunate vfith his majesty for his supporting presbyterv in that kingdom; though his zeal, in that respect, did not continue long. In 1669, he was appointed lord commissioner for the king in Scotland, whither he was sent with great pomp and splendour to bring about some extraordinary points, and particularly the union of the two kingdoms. For this purpose he made a speech at the opening of the parliament at Edinburgh on the 19th of October that year, in which he likewise recommended the preservation of the church as established by law, and expressed a vast zeal for episcopal government. And now the extending of the king’s power and grandeur in that kingdom. was greatly owing to the management of his lordship although he had formerly been as much for depressing the prerogative; and from the time of his commission the Scots had reason to date all the mischiefs and internal commotions of that and the succeeding reign. Having undertaken to make his majesty absolute and arbitrary, he stretched the power of the crown to every kind of excess, and assumed to himself a sort of lawless administration, the exercise of which was supposed to be granted to him in consequence of the large promises he had made. In the prosecution of this design, being more apprehensive of other men’s officious interfering, than distrustful of his own abilities, he took care to make himself his majesty’s sole informer, as well as his sole secretary; and by this means, not only the affairs of Scotland were determined in the court of England, without any notice taken of the king’s council in Scotland, but a strict watch was kept on all Scotchmen, who came to the English court; and to attempt any access to his majesty, otherwise than by his lordship’s mediation, was to hazard his perpetual resentment. By these arrogant measures, he gradually made himself almost the only important person of the whole Scotch nation; and in Scotland itself assumed so much sovereign authority, as to name the privy-counsellors, to place and remove the lords of the session and exchequer, to grant gifts and pensions, to levy and disband forces, to appoint general officers, and to transact all matters belonging to the prerogative. Besides which, he was one of the five lords, who had the management of affairs in England, and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the garter. But these honours did not protect him from the indignation of the House of Commons; by whom, in November the year following, he was voted a *' grievance, and not fit to be trusted or employed in any office or place of trust.“And though his majesty thought proper on the 25th of June, 1674, to create him a baron of England by the title of Baron of Petersham in Surrey, and earl of Guildford, yet the House of Commons the next year presented an address to the king to remove him from all his employments, and from his majesty’s presence and counsels for ever; which address was followed by another of the same kind in May 1678, and by a third in May the year following. He died at Tunbridge Wells, August 24, 1682, leaving a character which no historian has been hardy enough to vindicate. In Clarendon, Burnet, Kennet, Hume, Smollet, &c. we find a near conformity of sentiment respecting his inconsistency, his ambition, and his tyranny . Mr. Laing observes, that” during a long imprisonment, his mind had been carefully improved by study, and impressed with a. sense of religion, which was soon effaced on his return to the world. His learning was extensive and accurate; in public affairs his experience was considerable, and his elocution copious, though unpolished and indistinct. But his temper was dark and vindictive, incapable of friendship, mean and abject to his superiors, haughty and tyrannical to his inferiors; and his judgment, seldom correct or just, was obstinate in error, and irreclaimable by advice. His passions were furious and ungovernable, unless when his interest or ambition interposed; his violence was ever prepared to suggest or to execute the most desperate counsels; and his ready compliance preserved his credit with the king, till his faculties were visibly impaired with age." The duke died without male issue, but his brother succeeded to the title of Earl, whose son Richard was the author of a translation of Virgil, which is rather literal than poetical, yet Dryden adopted many of the lines into his own translation.

, of Antioch, a sophist, who was a teacher of rhetoric, and a member of the church of Antioch, is supposed to have lived about the year 900, though some authors have been inclined to place him earlier. He is a writer of little value, and abounds in words of a barbarous Greek. He must not be confounded with John of Antioch, another historian of the same place, who was a monk. We have a chronicle written by Malelas, which extends from the creation to the reign of Justinian, but is imperfect. His history was published by Edward Chilmead at Oxford, in 1691, in 8vo, from a manuscript in the Bodleian library; and republished among the Byzantine historians, as a kind of appendix, at Venice, in 1733. The Oxford edition contains an interpretation and notes by Chilmead, with three indexes, one of events, a second of authors, a third of barbarous words. Prefixed is a discourse concerning the author, by Humphrey Hody; and an epistle is subjoined from Bentley to Mill, with an index of authors who are there amended.

, Sieur of St. Lazare, a French historian, more known for the number, than esteemed for the value of his books, was a native of Sens. In spite of every artifice to sell his histories, publishing the same under different titles, filling them with flatteries to the reigning princes, and other arts, it was with great difficulty that he could force any of them into circulation. It was not only that his style was low and flat, but that his representation of facts was equally incorrect. Latterly his name was sufficient to condemn a book, and he only put his initials, and those transposed. He died in 1655. His best work is said to be, “Histoire des dignités honoraires de France,” 8vo, on which some dependence is placed, because there he cites his authorities. He wrote also, 2. “L'histoire generate des derniers troubles” comprising the times of Henry III. and Louis XIII. in 4to. 3. “Histoire de Louis XIII.” 4to, a miserable collection of facts disguised by flattery, and extending only from 1610 to 1614. 4. “Histoire de la naissance et des progres de l'Heresie de ce siecle,” 3 vols. 4to, the first of which is by father Richeome. 5. “A Continuation of the Roman History from Constantino to Ferdinand the Third,” 2 vols. folio; a compilation which ought to contain the substance of Gibbon’s History, but offers little that is worthy of attention. 6. “The Annals and Antiquities of Paris,” 2 vols. folio. There is another work of this kind by a P. du Breul, which is much more esteemed; this, however, is consulted sometimes as a testimony of the state of Paris in the time of the author.

, a learned historian and antiquary, first professor of history in his native city, was born at Geneva in 1730, became afterwards professor royal of the belles lettres at Copenhagen, a member of the academies of Upsal, Lyons, Cassel, and of the Celtique academy of Paris. Of his life no account has yet appeared. He joined an extensive acquaintance with history and general literature to great natural talents. The amenity of his disposition caused his company to be much sought, while his solid qualities procured him friends who deeply regretted his loss. The troubles of Geneva during the first revolutionary war deprived him of the greatest part of his fortune; and he was indebted, for the moderate competence he retained, to pensions from the duke of Brunswick and the landgrave of Hesse; but the events of the late war deprived him of both those pensions. The French government is said to have designed him a recompense, but this was prevented by his death, at Geneva, Feb. 8, 1807. His works were: 1. “Histoire de Danernarck,” to the eighteenth century, the best edition of which is that of 1787. 2. A translation of Coxe’s “Travels,” with remarks and additions, and a relation of his own Travels in Sweden, 2 vols. 4to. 3. Translation of the Acts and form of the Swedish government, 12mo. 4. “Histoire de Hesse,” to the seventeenth century, 3 vols. 8vo. 5. “Histoire de la rnaison de Brunswick,” to its accession to the throne of Great Britain, 3 vols. 8vo. 6. “Histoire des Suisses,” from the earliest times to the commencement of the late revolution, Geneva, 1803, 4 vols. 8vo. 7. “Histoire de la Ligne Anseatique,” from its origin to its decline, 1805, 2 vols. 8vo. He had discovered at Rome the chronological series of Icelandic bishops, which had been lost in Denmark. It is published in the third volume of Langebeck’s collection of Danish writers. The late Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, has made us acquainted with professor Mallet’s merit as an antiquary by his excellent translation entitled “Northern Antiquities; or a Description of the manners, customs, religion, and laws, of the ancient Danes, and other northern nations including those of our own Saxon ancestors. With a translation of the Edda, or system of Runic mythology, and other pieces from the ancient Islandic Tongue. Translated from M. Mallet’s Introduction a l'Histoire de Danemarck,” &c. 1770, 2 vols, 8vo. To this Dr. Percy has added many valuable and curious notes, and Goranson’s Latin version of the “Edda.” It was very justly said, at the time, by the Monthly Reviewer, that Dr. Percy had, in this instance, given a translation more valuable than the original.

, an ancient English historian, who flourished in the twelfth century, was born in Somersetshire, and, on that account, as Bale and Pits inform us, was called Somersetanus. When a child, he himself says, he discovered a fondness for learning, which was encouraged by his parents, and increased with his years. Some have supposed Oxford to have been the place of his education. He became, however, a monk of Malmsbury, and it reflects no small honour on his fraternity, that they elected him their librarian. He had studied several sciences, as they could then be acquired, logic, physic, and ethics, but history appears to have been his favourite pursuit. After studying that of countries abroad, he began to inquire into the memorable transactions of his own nation but not finding any satisfactory history already written, he resolved, as he says, to write one, not to display his learning, “which is no great matter, but to bring to light things that are covered with the rubbish of antiquity.” This resolution produced his valuable work “De regibus Anglorum,” a general history of England in five books, from the arrival of the Saxons, in the year 449 to the 26 Henry I. in 1126; and a modern history, in two books, from that year to the escape of the empress Maud out of Oxford in 1143 with a church history of England in four books, published in sir H. Savile’s collection, 1596. His merits as a historian have been justly displayed and recommended by lord Lyttelton in his “History of Henry II.” In all his works (the Latin style of which is more pure than that of any of his contemporaries), he discovers great diligence, much good sense, and a sacred regard to truth, accompanied with uncommon modesty. He says that he can scarcely expect the applause of his contemporaries, but he hopes that when both favour and malevolence are dead, he shall obtain from posterity the character of an industrious, though not of an eloquent historian. Besides what we have mentioned, Gale has printed his “Antiquities of Glastonbury,” and Wharton his “Life of St. Adhelm.” But his abilities were not confined to prose. He wrote many pieces of Latin poetry; and it is remarkable, says Warton, that almost all the professed prose writers of this age made experiments in verse. William of Malmsbury died in that abbey in 1143.

, a schoolmaster of considerable learning, but chiefly known as the antagonist of the celebrated Ruddiman, was born about the beginning of the last century, at Whitewreatb, in the parish of Elgin, and county of Murray, and was educated, first at the parish school of Longbride, and afterwards at King’s college, Aberdeen, where he took his degree of master of arts in 1721. He was afterwards appointed schoolmaster of the parish school of Touch, in the county of Aberdeen; and at length, in 1742, master of the poor’s hospital, in the city of Aberdeen. While in this station, his zeal for the character of the very celebrated Scotch historian and poet, Buchanan, led him to join the party of Scotch scholars, politicians, and writers, who were dissatisfied with Ruddiman’s edition of Buchanan’s worfcs, published in 1715, 2 vols. folio, and Jie determined himself to give a new edition more agreeable to the views he entertained of Buchanan as a historian, which, he being a staunch presbyterian, were of course adverse to Ruddiman’s well known sentiments. In the mean time he thought it necessary to show the errors and defects of Ruddiman’s edition, and accordingly published a work, the title of which will give the reader some idea of its contents: “A censure and examination of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s philological notes on the works of the great Buchanan, more particularly on the history of Scotland; in which also, most of the chronological and geographical, and many of the historical and political notes, are taken into consideration. In a letter to a friend. Necessary for restoring the true readings, the graces and beauties, and for understanding the true meaning of a vast number of passages of Buchanan’s writings, which have been so foully corrupted, so miserably defaced, so grossly perverted and misunderstood: Containing many curious particulars of his life, and a vindication of his character from many gross calumnies,” Aberdeen, 1751. This work, which extends to 574 pages small octavo, forms a very elaborate examination of Ruddiman’s edition, not only as referring to classical points, but matters of history, and is distinguished throughout by an unjustifiable contempt for Ruddiman’s knowledge and talents. Blameable as this was, and as his style generally is, he evidently proves that he was no mean verbal critic, and that his researches into the history of Buchanan and his works had been very extensive. With a better temper he might have proved an antagonist more worthy of Rnddiman’s serious attention. The latter, however, replied in 1754, in a pamphlet entitled “Anticrisis, or a Discussion of the scurrilous and malicious libel published by one James Man of Aberdeen,” 8vo, which was followed by “Audi alteram partem; or a further vindication of Mr. Thomas Ruddiman’s edition of the great Buchanan’s works,” 1756, 8vo. Both these contain an able vindication of the author; but the latter is particularly valuable, on account of the critical remarks Ruddiman offers on Burman’s philological notes on Buchanan.

, an ancient Egyptian historian, who pretends to take all his accounts from the sacred inscriptions on the pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, to whom the Egyptians ascribed the first invention of their learning, and all excellent arts, and from whom they derived their history. Manethos, as Eusebius tells us, translated the whole Egyptian history into Greek, beginning from their gods, and continuing his history down to near the time of Darius Codomannus, whom Alexander conquered; for in Eusebius’s <k Chronica,“mention is made of Manethos’s history, ending in the sixteenth year of Artaxerxes Ochus, which, says Vossius, was in the second year of the third olympiad. Manethos, called from his country Sebennyta, was highpriest of Heliopolis in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, at whose request he wrote his history, and digested it into three tomes; the first containing the eleven dynasties of the gods and heroes, the second eight dynasties, the third twelve, and altogether, according to his fabulous computation, the sum oft 53, 53 5 years. These dynasties are yet preserved, being first epitomized by Julius Africanus, from him transcribed by Eusebius, and inserted in his” Chronica;“from Eusebius by Georgius Syncellus, out of whom they are produced by Joseph Scaliger, and may be seen both in his Eusebius and his” Canones Isagogici.“Manethos, as appears by Eusebius, vouches this as the principal testimony of the credibility of his history, that he took his relations” from some pillars in the land of Seriad, on which they were inscribed in the sacred dialect by the first Mercury Thoth, and after the flood were translated out of the sacred dialect into the Greek tongue in hieroglyphic characters, and are laid up in books among the reveries of the Egyptian temples by Agathodsemon, the second Mercury, the father of Tat.“” Certainly,“says bishop Stillingfleet, in his” Origines Sacroe,“” this fabulous author could not in fewer words have more manifested his own impostures, or blasted his own credit, than he hath done in these."

, a learned physician and laborious historian of that science, was horn June 19, 1652, at Geneva, where his father was an eminent merchant. His father’s brother, author of a work on fevers, was physician to the king of Poland. Manger, having finished his classical studies at the age of fourteen, bestowed two years on philosophy, and then studied theology for five years, when, changing his destination, he entered on a course of medical reading (for he says he had no teacher but his books), and made such proficiency, that in 1678, he received his doctor’s degree at Valence, along with the celebrated Hartman. On his return home he entered upon practice, to which he joined the laborious perusal of many medical works, which served as the foundation of his own publications. In 1699, the elector of Brandenburgh appointed him, by letters patent, his first physician, and the kings of Prussia continued this title to him during his life. He was dean of the faculty at Geneva at the time of his death, Aug. 15, 1742, in the ninetieth year of his age. His works are: l.“Messis Medico-spagyrica, &c.” Geneva, 1683, folio, which contains a most abundant collection of pharmaceutical preparations, arranged in a very complex order. 2. In the same year he edited, “Pauli Barbetti Opera omnia Medica et Chirurgica,” with additional cases and illustralions. 3. “Bibliotheca Anatomica,” 1685, two vols, folio a work which was executed in conjunction with Daniel le Clerc. He afterwards edited, 4. The “Compendium Medicinae Practicum,” of J. And. Sehmitz. 5. The “Pharmcopeia Schrodero-Hoffmanniana.” 6. The “Tractatus de Febribus,” of Franc. Pieus; and, 7. The “Sepulchretum” of Bonetus, to which he added several remarks and histories. 8. In 1695, he published his “Bibliotheca Medico-Practica,” four vqls. folio; a vast collection of practical matter relative to all the diseases of the human body, arranged in alphabetical order. 9. “Bibliotheca Chemica curiosa,” 1702, two vols. folio. 10 “Bibliotheca Pharmaceutico Medica,” 1711, two vols. folio; and 11. “Bibliotheca Chirurgica,” 1721, four vols. in two, folio. 12. “Theatrum Anatomicum, cum Eustachii Tabulis Anatomicis,” 1716, two vols. folio, a description of all the parts of the body, abridged from various authors. On the appearance of the plague at Marseilles, he published a collection of facts and opinions on that disease, under the title of “Traite de la Peste recueilli des meilleurs Auteurs,” 1721, two vols. 12mo; and in the following year, 14. “Nouvelles Reflexions sur l'Origine, la Cause, la Propagation, les Preservatifs, et la Cure de la Peste,” 12mo. 15. His “Observations sur la Maladie qui a commence depuis quelques annees a attaquer le gros Betail,” was a collection of the opinions of the Genevese physicians concerning the distemper of horned cattle. The last work of Manget was his “Bibliotheca Scriptorum Medicorum veterum et recentiorum,” at which he laboured when at least eighty years of age, and published it in 1731, in four vols. folio. It is the most important of his productions, being an useful collection of medical lives, and catalogues of writings. It has not been so much thought of since the appearance of Haller’s Bibliotheca, and particularly of Eloy’s; but the plans are different, and Manget’s, as well as the rest of his voluminous compilations, may be yet consulted with advantage. Although he was so intent on accumulating information, and reprinting scarce works and tracts, that he did not employ his judgment always, either in selection or arrangement, yet those, who, like himself, wish to trace the progress of medical knowledge, will find his works of great use. They contain, indeed, the substance of many libraries, and a variety of treatises which it would not be easy to procure in their separate form.

, a Spanish historian, was born at Talavera, in Castille, in 1537; and entered into the order of Jesuits when he was seventeen. He was one of the most learned men of his age, an able divine, a considerable master of polite literature, admirably skilled in sacred and profane history, and a good linguist. In 1561 he was sent by his superiors to Rome, where he taught divinity, and received the order of priesthood; and at the end of four years weut to Sicily, where he continued the same profession two years more. He came to Paris in 1569, and read lectures publicly upon Thomas Aquinas for five years; then returned into Spain, and passed the remainder of his life at Toledo. He wrote many books in Latin. His piece “De rnonetse mutatione,” gave great offence to the court of Spurn; for Philip III. having altered and emr based the coin by the advice of the duke of Lerma, Mariana shewed, with great freedom, the injustice and disadvantage of this project; for which he was put into prison, and kept there about a year by that minister. But what made more noise still, was his tract De rege & regis institutione,“consisting of three books, which he published to justify James Clement, a young monk, for assassinating Henry III. of France. In this he argues against passive obedience and non-resistance; asserts the lawfulness of resisting” the powers that be,“where the administration is tyrannical; and founds his whole argument upon this principle,” that the authority of the people is superior to that of kings." This book of Mariana, though it passed without censure in Spain and Italy, was burnt at Paris, by an arret of parliament.

But the tiiost considerable by far of all his performances, is his “History of Spain,” divided into thirty books. This he wrote at first in Latin; but, fearing lest some unskilful pen should sully the reputation of his work by a bad translation of it into Spanish, he undertook that task himself, not as a translator, but as an author, who might assume the liberty of adding and altering, as he found it requisite, upon further inquiry into records and ancient writers. Vet neither the Latin nor the Spanish came lower down than the end of the reign of king Ferdinand, grandfather to the emperor Charles V. where Mariana concluded his thirty books; not caring to venture nearer his own times, because he could not speak with the freedom and impartiality of a just historian, of persons who were either alive themselves, or whose immediate descendants were. At the instigation of friends, however, he afterwards drew up a short supplement, in which he brought his history down to 1621, when king Philip 111. died, and Philip IV. came to the crown. After his death, F. Ferdinand Camargory Salcedo, of the order of St. Augustin, carried on another supplement from 1621, where Mariana left off, to 1649$ inclusive; where F. Basil Voren de Soto, of the regular clergy took it up, and went on to 1669, being the fifth year of the reign of Charles II. king of Spain. Gibbon says that in this work he almost forgets that he is a Jesuit, to assume the style and spirit of a Roman classic. It is a work of great research and spirit, although not free from the prejudices which may be supposed to arise from his education and profession. The first edition was entitled “Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, lib.iginti,” Toleti, 1592, folio. To some copies were afterwards added five more books, and a new title, with the date 1595, or in some 1592. The remaining five books were printed as “Histories Hispanic<E Appendix, libri scilicet XXI XXX, cum indice,” Francfort, 1616, fol. There is an edition printed at the Hague, with the continuations, 1733, 4 vols. in 2, fol. The best editions in the Spanish are, that of Madrid, 1780, 2 vols. folio, and that with Mariana’s continuation, ibid. 1794, 10 vols. 8vo. The French have various translations, and the English an indifferent one by capt. Stevens, 1699, fol.

Besides those already mentioned, he published several other pieces in Latin, theological and historical; among the rest, one entitled “Notes upon the Old Testament;” which father Simon, in his “Critical History,” says, and Dupin agrees with him, are very useful for understanding the literal sense of the Scripture, because he chiefly applies himself to find out the proper signification of the Hebrew words. It is, however, as the historian of Spain only that he now deserves to be remembered. He died at Toledo, in 1624, aged eighty-seven. After his death, was published in Italian, Latin, and French, another treatise of his, wherein he discovers the faults in the government of his society; but the Jesuits have thrown doubts on the authenticity of this work, which have not been altogether removed.

, a French historian of some credit, was born at Paris in 16*7. He took the habit of a canon regular of St. Gdnevieve, and was sent to regulate the chapter of Usez, where he was made provost. This office he resigned in favour of the abbe Poncet, who was afterwards bishop of Angers. Some time after, he was made archdeacon of Usez, and died in that city Aug. 30, 1724, at the age of 78. Marsollier published several histories, which are still read by his countrymen with some pleasure: the style, though occasionally debased by low and familiar expressions, being in general rather lively and flowing. There are extant by him, 1. “A History of Cardinal Ximenes,” in 1693, 2 vols. 12mo, and since frequently reprinted. The only fault found with this work is, that the author gives up his attention to the public man so much, as almost to forget his private character. 2. “A History of Henry VII. King of England,” reprinted in 1727, in 2 vols. 12mo. Some consider this as the master-piece of the author. 3. “The History of the Inquisition and its origin,” 1693, 12mo. A curious work, and in some respects a bold one. 4. “Life of St. Francis de Sales,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “The Life of Madame de Chantal,” 2 vols. 12mo. 6. “The Life of Dom Ranqe, abbe and reformer of La Trappe,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo. Some objections have been made to the veracity of this history, but the journalists de Trevoux seem disposed to prefer it upon the whole to Maupeou’s life of Ranee. 7. “Dialogues on many Duties of Life,” 1715, 12mo. This is rather verbose than instructive, and is copied in a great degree from Erasmus. 8. “The History of Henry de la Tour d'Auvergne, duke of Bouillon,” 3 vols. 12mo. Not much esteemed. 9. “An Apology for Erasmus,” 12mo; whose catholic orthodoxy the author undertakes to prove from passages in his works. 10. “A History of Tenths, and other temporal Goods of the Church,” Paris, 1689, 12mo. This is the most scarce, and at the same time the most curious, of all the works of Marsollier.

, an English dramatic author, who lived in the time of James I. and wrote eight plays. Wood says, “that he was a student in Corpus-Christi college, Oxford; but where he was born, or from what family descended, is not known.” When he left Oxford, he was entered of the Middle Temple, of which society he was chosen lecturer in the 34th of Elizabeth; but much more of his personal history is not known. He lived in friendship with Ben Jonson, as appears by his addressing to him his “Malecontent,” a tragi-comedy, in 1604; yet we find him afterwards glancing with some severity at Jonson, on account of his “Catiline and Sejanus,” in his “Epistle” prefixed to “Sophonisba,” another tragedy. “Know,” says he, “that I have not laboured an this poem, to relate any thing as an historian, but to enlarge every thing as a poet. To transcribe authors, quote authorities, and to translate Latin prose orations into English blank verse, hath in this subject been the least aim of my studies.” Langbaine observes, and with good reason, “that none, who are acquainted with the works of Ben Jonson, can doubt that he is meant here, if they will compare the orations in Sallust with those in his Cataline.” Jonson appears to have quarrelled with him and Decker, and is supposed to have ridiculed both in his “Poetaster.”

, an eminent optician, was born at Worplesdon, in Surrey, in 1704, and began life as a plough-boy at Broad-street, a hamlet belonging to that parish. By some means, however, he contrived to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, so as to be soon enabled to teach them to others. For some time he continued to assist in the farming business, but, as our authority states, “finding that he became a poor husbandman in proportion as he grew a learned one, he prudently forsook what indeed he had no great inclination for,” and having a strong inclination to mathematics and philosophical speculations, now entered upon such a course of reading and study as in some measure supplied the want of a learned education. The historian of Surrey says that he first taught reading and writing at Guildford. It was probably some time after this that a legacy of five hundred pounds bequeathed to him by a relation encouraged his laudable ambition, and after purchasing books, instruments, &c. and acquiring some knowledge of the languages, we find him, in 1735, settled at Chichester, where he taught mathematics, and performed courses of experimental philosophy. At this time he published his first work, “The Philosophical Grammar; being a view of the present state of experimental physiology, or naturaf philosophy, &c.” London, 8vo. When he came up to London we have not been able to discover, but after settling there he read lectures on experimental philosophy for many years, and carried on a very extensive trade as an optician and globe-maker in Fleet-street, till the growing infirmities of old age compelled him to withdraw from the active part of business. Trusting too fatally to what he thought the integrity of others, he unfortunately, though with a capital more than sufficient to pay all his debts, became a bankrupt. The unhappy old man, in a moment of desperation from this unexpected stroke, attempted to destroy himself; and the wound, though not immediately mortal, hastened his death, which happened Feb. 9th, 1782, at seventy-eight years of age.

, or perhaps Masters (Thomas), a poet and historian, was the son of the rev. William Master, rector of Cote near Cirencester in Gloucestershire. He was first educated at the grammar-school of Cirencester, and afterwards at Winchester-school, from which he entered New college, Oxford, as a probationer fellow in 1622, and was admitted perpetual fellow in 1624. He took his degrees in arts, that of M. A. in 1629, and being in orders, was in 1640 admitted to the reading of the sentences. At this time he was considered as a man of great learning, well-versed in the languages, and a good poet and preacher. There are no other circumstances recorded of his life, except his connection with lord Herbert of Cherbury, whom he assisted in some of his writings. He died of a putrid fever in 1643, and was buried in the outer chapel of New-college. Lord Herbert honoured his memory with a Latin epitaph, which is among his lordship’s poems, but was not inscribed on the place of his burial. His poems were in Latin and Greek: 1. “Mensa Lubrica,” Oxon. 1658, 4to, second edition. This is a poem in Lat. and English, describing the game of shovel-board. 2. “Movorfotpnta ei$ mv TsXfi<r7s alavgutriv,” a Greek poem on the passion of Christ, which was translated into Latin by Mr. Jacob of Merton-college, and into English by Cowley, and published at Oxford, 1658, 4to. His other Latin productions were, an oration delivered in New-college; “Iter Boreale,” “Carolus Redux,” “Ad regem Carolum,” &c. We have termed him a historian from his having given lord Herbert great assistance in his “Life of Henry VIII.” He also had a share in the Latin translation of his lordship’s book “De Veritate.” He had accumulated a great mass of historical information and authorities from the public records; Wood speaks of having four thick volumes in folio of these, “lying by him,” but does not mention whether his own property or borrowed. Dr. Fiddes, however, informs us, in the introduction to his “Life of Wolsey,' 7 that in his time Mr. Master’s” diligent and faithful collections“were in the library of Jesus-college, Oxford. He adds that” Lord Herbert appears to be indebted for good part of his history to those collections."

, an English historian, who flourished, according to some, in 1377; while Nicolson thinks he did not outlive 1307, was a Benedictine of the abbey at Westminster, and thence has taken his name. From the title of his history, “Flores historiarum,” he has often been called Florilegus. His history commences from the foundation of the world, but the chief object of which is the English part. It is entitled, “Flores Historiarum, per Matthoeum Wesmonasteriensem collecti, prsecipue de Rebus Britannicis, ab exordio mundi, usque ad annum 1307,” published at London in 1567, and at Franckfort in 1601, both in folio. It is divided into six ages, butis comprised in three books. The first extends from the creation to the Christian aera; the second, from the birth of Christ to the Norman conquest; the third, from that period to the beginning of Edward the Second’s reign. Seventy years more were afterwards added, which carried it down to the death of Edward III. in 1377. He formed his work very much upon the model and plan of Matthew Paris, whom he imitated with great care. He wrote with so scrupulous a veracity/ that he is never found to wander a tittle from the truth; and with such diligence, that he omitted nothing worthy of remark. He is commended also for his acuteness in tracing, and his judgment in selecting facts, his regularity in the method or his plan, and his skill in chronological computations. He is, on the whole, except by bishop Nicolson, very highly esteemed, as one of the most venerable fathers of English history.

, a French historian, was born at Porentrui, in the diocese of Basle, Dec. 10, 1583, and was first principal of the college of Verceil, and afterwards an advocate at Lyons. He was a zealous partizan of the league, and much attached to the Guises. When he went to Paris, he quitted poetry, which he had followed hitherto, for history, to which he attached himself from that time. He acquired the esteem of Henry IV. who manifested it by giving him the title of historiographer of France, and furnishing him with all the memoirs necessary to make him so effectually. He attended Louis Xiji. to the siege of Montauhan; but, falling sick, was removed to Toulouse, where he died October 12, 1621, at the age of fifty-eight. Matthieu was only a moderate author: he wrote easily, but in an undignified style. He produced, l.“A History of the memorable Events which happened in the reign of Henry the Great,” 1624, 8vo. This contains some curious anecdotes communicated to the author by Henry himself; but the flatness of the style destroys, in a great measure, the interest of the work. 2. “The History of the deplorable Death of Henry the Great,” 1611 folio; 1612, 8vo. 3, “The History of St. Louis,” 1618, 8vo. 4. “The History of Louis XI.” in folio. This work is esteemed. 5, “The History of France,” from Francis I. to Louis XIII. inclusive, Paris, 1631, 2 vols, folio, published by his son, who added the reign of Louis XIII. 6. “Quatrains on Life and Death;” very languid and fatiguing, but often printed after those of Pibrac. 7. “La Guisiade,” the Guisiad, a tragedy, was published at Lyons, 1589, in 8vo. He was also the writer of some other tragedies, published in the same year in 2 vols. 12mo and of some other historical pieees of less note than what we have mentioned.

, a person of some celebrity in his time, as a writer of political pamphlets, was the son of Isaac Mauduit, a dissenting minister at Bermondsey, and was horn there in 1708, and was himself educated for the ministry among the diss.enters. After some time, however, he quitted his clerical employment, and became a partner with his brother Jasper Mauduit, as a merchant; and, when that brother died, carried on the business with equal credit and advantage. His first appearance as aw author was in 1760, when he published anonymously a pamphlet entitled “Considerations on the present German war.” It was intended to shew the impropriety of involving this nation in continental wars, and obtained some attention from the public; which the author supported by publishing soon after, “Occasional thoughts oo the present German War.” When Mr. Wilkes published in 1762, “Observations on the Spanish Paper,” the credit of Mr. Mauduit was so far established by the former pamphlets, that many persons ascribed this also to him. In 1763 he was appointed customer of Southampton, and some time after agent for the province of Massachuset’s, which led him to take an active part in the disputes between the American colonies and the mother country. In consequence of this he published, in 1769, his “Short view of the History of the New- England Colonies.” In 1774, he voluntarily took up the cause of the dissenting clergy, in a pamphlet entitled “The Case of the Dissenting Ministers; addressed to the lords spiritual and temporal.” In the same year he published “Letters of governor Hutchinson,” &c. In 1778 and 1779, he produced several severe tracts against sir William and lord Howe; as, “Remarks upon general Howe’s Account of his Proceedings on Long Island,” &c. Also “Strictures on the Philadelphia Mischianza,” &c. And, “Observations upon the conduct of sir William Howe at the White Plains,” &c. In 1781 he again attacked the same brothers, in “Three Letters addressed to lieut-gen. sir William Howe,” &c. and “Three Letters to lord viscount Howe.” In May 1787, he appointed governor of the society among the dissenters for propagating the gospel in foreign parts, but died on the 14th of the ensuing month, at the age of seventy-nine, in Clement’s-lane, Lombard-street, a bachelor, and possessed of an ample fortune. He is said by some to have been the author of a letter to lord Blakeney, on the defence of Minorca in 1757; and some other tracts on political and temporary subjects, which, whatever effect they might have produced at the time, are now sinking fast into oblivion. The historian of Surrey says ofhim, that “his love of liberty, civil <fnd religious, was tempered with that moderation which Christianity inculcates in every branch of conduct. His acquaintance with mankind taught him that impartiality was the best rule of conduct. In the contests for civil liberty he distinguished the intemperate zeal of the Americans, and soon saw the propriety of withdrawing from such as had separated themselves from their allegiance to Great Britain a fund for propagating the gospel among the subjects of this crown, in which he was supported by the opinions of no less lawyers than Scott and Hill. In like manner he tempered the application of his brethren in England for toleration.”

, a French historian of the seventeenth century, was a protestant, and passed the chief part of his life in the courts of Germany. He died September 22, 1681. He calls himself in the titles of his works Seigneur de Sallettes, chevalier of the order of St. Michael, counsellor secretary to the elector of Mentz, and counsellor to the duke of Wirtemberg, titles which, Marchand remarks, do not very well agree with that of “teacher of the French language in the college of Tubingen.” His writings are now considered as feebly written, and are little known or consulted, but they had a degree of reputation in their day. The principal of them are, 1. “Etat de l'Empire,” State of the Empire, or an abridgment of the public law of Germany, 12 mo. 2. “Science des Princes,” which is an edition of the political considerations of Gabriel Naudee; with reflections added by du May, 1683, 8vo. 3. “The prudent Voyager,” 1681, 12mo.

, esq. an English poet and historian, was descended of an ancient, but somewhat declining family, in Sussex; and born at Mayfield in that county, as it is supposed, in 1594. His father purchased Mayfield in 1597, and was knighted at Whitehall, July 3, 1603. His son Thomas was instructed in classical literature in the neighbourhood, and Sept. 11, 1609, entered a fellow-commoner of Sidney college, in Cambridge, where, in 1612, he took a bachelor of arts degree, but never proceeded farther in academical advancement. He removed afterwards to London, and was admitted a member of Gray’s Inn, Aug. 6, 1615; but his genius leading him to pursue the belles-lettres, and especially the muses, he concerned himself very little with the law. In 1616 he succeeded to the estate of Mayfield, which he sold next year. He gained an acquaintance with several eminent courtiers and wits of those times, as sir Kenelm Digby, sir Richard Fanshaw, sir John Suckling, sir Ashton Cockaine, Thomas Carew, Endymion Porter, Ben Jonson, and others: and his reputation was such, that he obtained the countenance of Charles I. and his royal consort; at whose particular recommendation and desire he undertook and published several of his poetical works. In particular, while he resided at court, he wrote the five following plays 1 “The Heir, a comedy, acted in 1620,” and printed in 1633. 2. “Cleopatra, a tragedy,” acted in 1626, printed in 1639. 3. “Antigone, the Theban princess, a tragedy,” printed in 1631. 4. “Agrippina, empress of Rome, a tragedy,” printed in 1639. 5. “The Old Couple, a comedy,” 1651. The second and last of these are reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection. Two other plays have been ascribed to May, namely, “The old Wives Tale,” and “Orlando Furioso;” but Langbaine says he “never saw the first;” and for the latter he assures the reader, “it was. printed long before Mr. May was born, at least before he was able to guide a pen.”

A few months after the publication of “The Breviary,” the 13th of Nov. 1650, May died, at the age of fifty-five years. He went well to rest over night, after a chearful bottle as usual, and died in his sleep before morning: upon which his death was imputed to his tying his night-cap too close under his cheeks and chin, which caused his suffocation; but the facetious Andrew Marvell has written a long poem of an hundred lines, to make him a martyr of Bacchus, and die by the force of good wine. He was interred near Camden, in Westminster-abbey, which caused Fuller to say that “if he were a biassed and partial writer, yet he lieth buried near a good and true historian indeed.” Soon after the restoration, his body, with those of several others, was dug up, and buried in a pit in St. Margaret’s church-yard; and his monument, which was erected by the appointment of parliament, was taken down and thrown aside.

, a nobleman of Brescia, in the territory of Venice, and celebrated as a philologer and historian, was born in 1707, and educated principally at Bononia; but after his marriage, he appears to have devoted himself to his private studies, which turned chiefly on subjects of antiquity and biography. He accumulated a very curious collection of medals of learned men, an account of which was published in Latin and Italian by a writer who styles himself Petrus Antonius de Comitibus Gaetanis, Brixianus Presbyter, & Patricius Romanus. This work is in 2 vols. folio, printed in 1761 and 1763. Mazzuchelli died in November 1765. His principal writings are, 1. “Notizie Historiche e Critiche, intorno alia vita, alle inventione, ed agli Scritti di Archimede Siracusano,” Brescia, 1737, 4to; that is, Historical and critical notices of the life, inventions, and writings of Archimedes. 2. “La vita di Pietro Aretino,” Padua, 1741, 8vo. He published also separately the lives of Aba.no, Arisio, Alamanni, Bonfadius, &c. and began a vast biographical work on all the writers of Italy, which he carried no further than to four parts of the second volume; being then in the letter B. The title was “Gli Scrittori d'ltalia, cioe Notitie Storiche e Critiche intorno alle vite, e agli Scritti dei Letterati Italiahi,” 1753 1763, 6 vols. folio. The continuation of this work was promised by a writer named Giambattista Rodella, but no part of it has appeared.

Busied as Dr. Mead was in the duties of his profession, he never lost sight of the interests of literature, and was most liberal in the promotion of it. Mr. Carte, the historian, who, on account of political suspicions, had retired to France in 1722, having employed himself there in collecting materials for an English translation of Thuanus, Dr. Mead quickly perceived that this plan might be enlarged. He looked on this country as too disinterested to desire to possess this foreign treasure alone, and was willing England might do for Thuanus more than France itself, by procuring for all Europe the first complete edition of this excellent history. He therefore remunerated Carte for the pains he had taken, and employed Mr. Buckley, as an editor equal to the task, whose three letters written in English to Dr. Mead, contain many curious particulars concerning the history itself, and the plan of this new edition. These letters were translated into Latin by professor Ward, and prefixed to the splendid edition of Thuanus, published in 1733, in 7 vols. folio.

, a French historian, of Irish extraction, as his name sufficiently denotes, was born in 1721 at Salle in the Cevennes. He addicted himself very early to letters, and the' history of his life is only the history of his publications. He produced in 1752, 1. “The origin of the Guebres, or natural religion put int;o action.” This book has too much of the cast uf modern philosophy to deserve recommendation, and has now become very scarce. 2. In 1755 he published “Considerations on the Revolutions of Arts,” a work more easily to be found; and, 3. A small volume of “Fugitive Pieces” in verse, far inferior to his prose. In the ensuing year appeared, 4. His “Memoirs of the Marchioness de Terville, with the Letters of Aspasia,” 12rno. The style of these memoirs is considered as affected, which, indeed, is the general fault prevalent in his works. In his person also he is said to have been affected and finical; with very ready elocution, but a mode of choosing both his thoughts and expressions that was rather brilliant than natural. His style, however, improved as he advanced in life. In 1759 he gave the world a treatise on, 5. “The origin, progress, and decline of Idolatry,” 12mo; a production in which this improvement in his mode of writing is very evident. It is still more so in his, 6. “Picture of modern History,” “Tableau de THistoire moderne,” which was published in 1766, in 3 vols. 12mo. Hts chief faults are those of ill- regulated genius, which is very stronglyapparent in this work it is eloquent, full of those graces of elocution, and richness of imagination, which are said to have made his conversation so peculiar but it becomes fatiguing from an excessive ambition to paint every thing in brilliant colours. He speaks of every thing in the present tense, and he embellishes every subject with images and allusions. He died Jan. 23, 1766, before this most considerable of his works was quite ready for publication. He was married, and his wife is said to have been a woman who in all respects did honour to the elegance of his taste. All his writings are in French.

, called Melozzo of Foiii, flourished about 1471, and was probably the scholar of Ansovino da Forli, a pupil of Squarcione. The memory of Melozzo is venerated by artists as the inventor of perspective representation and true foreshortening on arched roofs and ceilings, of what the Italians style “di Sotto in Sti;” the most difficult and most rigorous branch of execution. A tolerable progress had been made in perspective after Paolo Uccelio, by means of Piero della Francesca, an eminent geometrician, and some Lombards; but the praise of painting roofs with that charming illusion which we witness, belongs to Melozzo. Scannelli and Orlandi relate, that, to learn the art, he studied the best antiques; and, though“born to affluence, let himself as servant and colour-grinder to the masters of his time. Some make him a scholar of Piero della Francesco: it is at least not improbable that Melozzo knew him and Agostino di Bramantino, when they painted in Rome for Nicolas V. towards 1455. Whatever be the fact, Melozzo painted on the vault of the largest chapel in Ss. Apostoli, an Ascension, in which, says Vasari, the figure of Christ is so well foreshortened, that it seems to pierce the roof. That picture was painted for cardinal Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV. about 1472 and at the rebuilding of that chapel, was cut out and placed in the palace of the Quirinal, 1711, where it is still seen with this epigraphe” Opus Melotii Foroliviensis, qui summos fornices pingendi artem vel primus invenit vel illustravit.“Some heads of the apostles were likewise sawed out and placed in the Vatican. His taste on the whole resembles that of Mantegna and the Padouati schools more than any other. The heads are well formed, well coloured, well turned, and almost always foreshortened; the lights duly toned and opportunely relieved by shadows which give ambience and almost motion to his figures on that space; there is grandeur and dignity in the principal figure, and the lightsome drapery that surrounds him; with finish of pencil, diligence, and grace in every part. It is to be lamented, that so uncommon a genius has not met with an exact historian, of whom we might have learned his travels and labours previous to this great work painted for Riario. At Forli, they shew, as his work, the front of an apothecary’s shop, painted in arabesque, of exquisite style, with a half-length figure over the door pounding drugs, very well executed. We are informed by Vasari, that Francesco di Mirozzo da Forli painted before Dosso, in the villa of the dukes of Urbino, called L'lmperiale; we ought probably to read Melozzo, and to correct the word in the text, as one of that writer’s usual negligences, of which Vasari gives another instance in Marco Palmegiani, of Forli, whom he transforms to Parmegiano; a good and almost unknown artist, though many of his works survive, and he himself seems to have taken every precaution not to be forgotten by posterit3 T inscribing most of his altar-pieces and oil-pictures with Marcus pictor Foroliviensis, or, Marcus Palmasanus P. Foroliviensis pinsebat. Seldom he adds the year, as in two belonging to prince Ercolani, 1513 and 1537. In those, and in his works at Forli, we recognise two styles. The first differs little from the common one of Quattrocentist’s, in the extreme simplicity of attitude, in the gilding, in minute attention, and even in anatomy, which extended its researches at that time seldom beyond a S. Sebastian, or a S. Jerome. Of his second style the groups are more artificial, the outline larger, the proportions grander, but the heads perhaps less varied and more mannered. He used to admit into his principal subject others that do not belong to it thus in the crucifix at St. Agostino, in Forli, he placed two or three groups in different spots in one of which is S. Paul visited by S. Anthony in another, S. Augustine convinced, by an angel, of the absurdity of his attempt to fathom the mystery of the Trinity; and in those small figures he is finished and graceful beyond belief. Nor is his landscape or his architecture destitute of charms. His works abound in Romsagna, and are met with even in Venetian galleries: at Vicenza there is, in the palace Vicentini, a Christ of his between Nicodemus and Joseph; an exquisite performance, in which, to speak with Dante,” il morto par morto e vivi i vivi.

, a statesman and historian, was descended from an honourable family in Scotland, and born at Halhill in Fifeshire, in 1530. At fourteen, he was sent by the queen regent of Scotland, to be page to her daughter Mary, who was then married to the dauphin of France: but by her leave he entered into the service of the duke of Montmorenci, great constable and chief minister of France, who earnestly desired him of her majesty, having a high opinion of his promising talents. He was nine years employed by him, and had a pension settled on him by the king. Then, obtaining leave to travel, he went into Germany; where being detained by the elector palatine, he resided at his court three years, and was employed by him on several embassies. After this, prosecuting his intentions to travel, he visited Venice, Rome, and the most famous cities of Italy, and returned through Switzerland to the elector’s court; where, finding a summons from queen Mary, who had taken possession of the crown of Scotland, after the death of her husband Francis II. he set out to attend her. The queen-mother of France at the same time offered him a large pension to reside at her court; for she found it her interest, at that juncture, to keep up a good understanding with the protestant princes of Germany; and she knew sir James Melvil to be the properest person to negociate her affairs, being most acceptable to them all; but this he declined.

, a Greek historian, who is thought to have flourished in the time of Augustus, wrote a history of the affairs of Heraclea in Pontus, sixteen books of which were abridged by Photius. They come down to the death of an Heraclean ambassador to Julius Caesar, then emperor. A Latin translation of his history was published at Oxford in 1597, under the title “Memnonis historicorum, quae supersunt omnia, e Gr. in Lat. traducta per R. Brett,” 16mo. Richard Brett was a fellow of Lincoln, of whom we have given some account in vol. VI.

a protestant historian, was born at Antwerp July 9, 1535. His father, Jacob de Meteren, was of Balda; his mother, Ortelia, was the daughter of William Ortelis, or Ortelius, of Augsburgh, grandfather of the celebrated geographer, Abraham Ortelins. He was carefully educated in the languages and sciences, and when a youth, is reported to have attempted to translate the Bible into English, which, says Bullart, made his religious principles to be suspected. His father, who had embraced the protestant religion, being obliged to take refuge in England, took this son with him, and gave him the choice of continuing his studies, or embarking in commerce. Emanuel, having preferred the latter, was sent to Antwerp, and engaged with a merchant in that city, where he continued about ten years, but his father had not the happiness to witness his progress, as he and his wife were drowned in their passage from Antwerp to London. Emanuel, during his residence at Antwerp, after this disaster, employed his leisure hours in collecting information respecting the history of the Netherlands; and having acquired the confidence of various persons of eminence in the government, he succeeded in obtaining much secret history of the times, which he published under the title of “Historia rerum potissimum in Belgio gestarum,” &c. It appears that he had sent some copies of this work in German to a friend, who was to procure engravings for it, but who caused it to be printed for his own benefit in Latin and German, yet with the name of the author, whose reputation he did not value so much as the profits of the work. Meteren, on hearing this, procured an order from the States to suppress this edition, which is dated 1599, and afterwards published it himself. He was enabled to revisit London again in the reign of James I. as consul for the Flemings. In this office he acquitted himself with spirit and ability, and wrote an ample volume of the treaties of commerce which formerly subsisted betwixt the English nation, the house of Burgundy, and the states of Holland. He died at London, April 8, 1612, and was interred in the church of St. Dionis Back-Church, Fenchurch-street, where his relict erected a monument to his memory, which was destroyed in the great fire.

, a historian of some note in Spain, when history was mere compilation, was a native of Seville, of a family of some rank, and liberally educated. His inclination being principally for historical studies, he was made chronographer, perhaps what we should call, historiographer to Charles V. He is also said to have been a poet. Antonio has collected from various authors, his contemporaries, opinions highly favourable to his learning and knowledge. The only fault imputable seems to be that of mixing Latin words too frequently with his Spanish. He died about 1552. His principal work, for which he is known in this country, is entitled “Silvade varia Leccion,” which with the additions of the Italian and French translators, was published at London under the title of the “Treasury of ancient and modern Times,” fol. The original was first printed at Seville, in black-letter, in 1542, fol. often reprinted, and translated into most European languages, with additions. His other writings were, a “History of the Caesars,” Seville, 1545, fol. likewise translated by W. T. and enlarged by Edward Grimeston, Lond. 1623. foL 2. “Colloquies o Dialogos,” or “Laus Asini,” in imitation of Lucian and Apuleius, Seville 1547, 8vo, often reprinted and translated into Italian. 3. “Parenesis de Isocrates.” He left some Mss. and an unfinished life of Charles V.

, a Flemish historian of some note, was born near Bailieul in Flanders, Jan. 7, 14yi, whence he is sometimes called Baliolanus. He became an ecclesiastic, and finally rector of Blackenbergh, but had undertaken the education of youth as an additional source of support. He died Feb. 5, 1552. His principal productions are, 1. “Annales rerum Flandricarum,” folio, published at Antwerp, in 1561. These annals are carried as far as 1477, and have been esteemed, not only for their matter, but for ease and purity of style. 2. “Flandricarum rerutn decas,” printed at Bruges, in 1531, 4to.

, an eminent French historian, was born at Ry, near Argentau in Lower Normandy, in 1610. He was educated in the university of Caen, where he discovered an early inclination for poetry; and had himself so high an opinion of his talent in that art, that he thought he should be able to raise both a character and a fortune by it. But, upon going to Paris, he was dissuaded from pursuing poetry, by Vauquelin des Yveteaux, who had been the preceptor of Louis XIII. and advised to apply himself earnestly to history and politics, as the surest means of succeeding in life. In the mean time, that gentleman procured him the place of commissary of war, which he held for two or three campaigns, and then quitted it. Upon his return to Paris, he resolved to spend the remainder of his life there; and, changing the name of his family as being an obscure one, he took the name of Mezerai, which is a cottage in the parish of Ry. But his little stock of money made him apprehensive that he should not be able to continue long at Paris; and therefore, to support himself, he had recourse to writing satires against the ministry, articles which were then extremely well received, and for which he had naturally a turn. M. Larroque, in his Life of Mezerai, assures us, that he was author of all the pieces published against the government under the name of Sandricourt. They are written in a low and burlesque style, and adapted merely to please the populace. Larroque has given us the titles of nineteen of these pieces, but would not give those of others which Mezerai wrote, either during the minority of Louis XIV. or against cardinal Richelieu; “because,” he says, “they ought to be forgotten, out of reverence to the persons whom they attacked.”

In 1649, he was admitted a member of the French academy, in the room of Voiture; and, in 1675, chosen perpetual secretary of that academy. Besides the works abovementioned, he wrote a “Continuation of the general history of the Turks,” in which he is thought not to have succeeded “L'Origine des Francois,” printed at Amsterdam, in 1682 “Les Vanites de la Cour,” translated from the Latin of Johannes Sarisburiensis, in 1640; andaFrench translation of “Grotius de Veritate Christianse Religionis,” in 1644. He died July 10, 1633, aged seventy-three. He was, according to Larroque, a man who was subject to strange humours. He was extremely negligent in his person, and so careless in his dress, that he had more the appearance of a beggar than a gentleman. He was actually seized one morning by the archers des pauvres, or parish officers; with which mistake he was highly diverted, and told them, that “he was not able to walk on foot, but that, as soon as a new wheel was put to his chariot, he would attend them wherever they thought proper.” He used to study and write by candle-light, even at noon-day in summer; and always waited upon his company to the door with a candle in his hand. He had a brother, father Eudes, a man of great simplicity and piety, whom he insidiously drew in to treat of very delicate points before the queen ­mother, regent of the kingdom, who was of the Medici family; and to lay down some things relating to government and the finances, which could not fail of displeasing that princess; and must have occasioned great trouble to father Eudes, if the goodness of the queen had not excused the indiscretion of the preacher. But of all his humours, none lessened him more in the opinion of the public, than the unaccountable fondness he conceived for a man who kept a public house at Chapellein, called Le Faucheur. He was so taken with this man’s frankness and pleasantry, that he used to spend whole days with him, notwithstanding the admonition of his friends to the contrary; and not only kept up an intimate friendship with him during his life, but made him sole legatee at his death. With regard to religion, he affected Pyrrhonism; which, however, was not, it seems, so much in his heart as in his mouth. This appeared from his last sickness; for, having sent for those friends who had been the most usual witnesses of his licentious talk about religion, he made a sort of recantation, which he concluded by desiring them “to forget what he might formerly have said-upon the subject of religion, and to remember, that Mezerai dying, was a better believer than Mezerai in health.” These particulars are to be found in his life by M. Larroque: but the abbe Olivet tells us, that he “was surprised, upon reading this life, to find Mezerai’s character drawn in such disadvantageous colours.” Mezerai was certainly a man of many singularities, and though agreeable when he pleased in his conversation, yejfc full of whim, and not without ill-nature. It was a constant way with him, when candidates offered themselves for vacant places in the academy, to throw in a black ball instead of a white one: and when his friends asked him the reason of this unkind procedure, he answered, “that it was to leave to posterity a monument of the liberty of the elections in the academy.” As an historian, he is valued very highly and deservedly for his integrity and faithfulness, in relating facts as he found them; but for this solely: for as to his style, it is neither accurate nor elegant, although he had been a member of the French academy long before he wrote his “Abridgment.”

Although there is no species of poetry of which he had not afforded favourable specimens, and many striking images and animated descriptions are discoverable in his original pieces, and while we allow that his imagination is considerably fertile, his language copious, and his versification rich and various, yet it cannot be denied that there are too- many marks of imitation in all his lesser poems, and that his fame must rest principally, where it is more than probable he intended it should, on his translation of the Lusiad. This work, which is now rising in reputation, is inferior only to Pope’s Iliad, according to the general opinion, which perhaps may be controverted. Pope has given an English poem of unquestionable beauty, but, we may say with Bentley, it is not Homer. Mickle has not only transfused the spirit, but has raised the character of his original. By preserving the energy, elegance, and fire of Camoens, he has given an “English Lusiad,” a work which, although confessedly borrowed from the Portuguese, Has all the appearance of having been invented- in the language in which we find it. In executing this, indeed, it must be confessed that Mickle has taken more liberties with his original than the laws of translation will allow; but they are of a kind not usually taken by translators, for he has often introduced beauties of his own equal to any that come from the pen of Camoens. In acknowledging that he has taken such freedoms, however, he has not specified the individual passages; a neglect for which some have praised his humility, and others have blamed his injustice. But with this exception, he has successfully executed what he purposed, not only to make Camoens be understood and relished, but “to give a poem that might live in the English language.” Nor ought it to be omitted in this general character of the Lusiad, that in his preliminary dissertations, he has distinguished himself as a scholar, a critic, and a historian.

, a late French historian, was born at Besanc,on, in March 1726, and belonged, for some time, to the order of Jesuits. He was one of those who were appointed to preach, and continued so to do after he had quitted that society. But the weakness of his voice, his timidity, and the embarrassed manner of his delivery, obliged him to relinquish that duty. The marquis of Felino, minister of the duke of Parma, founded a professorship of history, and Millot, through the interest ef the duke of Nivernois, was appointed to it. A revolt having arisen among the people of Parma, while he was there, in consequence of some innovations of the minister, Millot very honourably refused to quit him. It was represented that by so doing he risked his place. “My place,” he replied, “is to attend a virtuous man who is my benefactor, and that office I am determined not to lose.” After having held this professorship, with great reputation for some time, he returned into France, and was appointed preceptor to the duke D‘Enghien. He was still employed in this duty in 1785, when he was removed by death, at the age of fifty-nine. Millot was not a man who shone in conversation; his manner was dry and reserved, but his remarks were generally able and judicious. D’Alembert said of him, that he never knew a man of so few prejudices, and so few pretensions. His works are carefully drawn up, in a pure, natural, and elegant style. They are these: 1. “Elements of the History of France, from Clovis to Louis XV.” 3 vols. 12mo; an abridgment made with remarkable judgment in the selection of facts, and great clearness in the divisions and order. 2. “Elements of the History of England, from the time of the Romans to George II.” This work has the same characteristic merits as the former. 3. “Elements of Universal History,” 9 vols. 12mo. It has been unjustly said, that this is pirated from the general history of Voltaire. The accusation is without foundation; the ancient part is perfectly original, and the modern is equally remarkable for the selection of facts, and the judicious and impartial manner in which they are related. 4. “History of the Troubadours,” 3 vols. 12mo. This work was drawn up from a vast collection of materials made by M. de St. Palaye, and, notwithstanding the talents of the selector, has still been considered as uninteresting. 5. “Political and military Memoirs towards the History of Louis XIV. and XV. composed of original documents collected by Adrian Maurice, duke of Noailles, mareschal of France,” 6 vols. 12mo There are extant also, by Millot, “Discourses on Academical Subjects,” and, “Translations of some select ancient Orations, from the Latin Historians.” All these are written in French. Notwithstanding a few objections that have been made to him, as being occasionally declamatory, there is no doubt that Millot is a valuable historian, and his elements of French and English history have been well received in this country in their translations.

, a pious and learned divine and ecclesiastical historian, was born in the neighbourhood of Leeds in Yorkshire, Jan. 2, 1744, and was educated at the grammar school of his native place, where he made great proficiency in Greek and Latin, in which he was assisted by a memory of such uncommon powers, that his biographer, the present dean of Carlisle, says that he never saw his equal, among the numerous persons of science and literature with whom he has been acquainted. This faculty which Mr. Milner possessed, without any visible decay, during the whole of his life, gained him no little reputation at school, where his master, the rev. Mr. Moore, often availed himself of his memory in cases of history and mythology, and used to say, “Milner is more easily consulted than the Dictionaries or the Pantheon, and he is quite as much to be relied on.” Moore, indeed, told so many and almost incredible stories of his memory, that the rev. Mr. Murgatroyd, a very respectable clergyman, at that time minister of St. John’s church in Leeds, expressed some suspicion of exaggeration. Mr. Moore was a man of the strictest veracity, but of a warm temper. He instantly offered to give satisfactory proof of his assertions. “Milner,” said he, “shall go to church next Sunday, and without taking a single note at the time, shall write down your sermon afterward. Will you permit us to compare what he writes with what you preach” Mr. Murgatroyd accepted the proposal with pleasure, and was often heard to express his astonishment at the event of this trial of memory. The lad,“said he,” has not omitted a single thought or sentiment in the whole sermon; and frequently he has got the very words for a long way together."

Mr. Milner’s labours as a preacher were not confined to the town of Hull. He was curate for upwards of seventeen years, of North Ferriby, about nine miles from Hull, and afterwards vicar of the place. At both he became a highly popular and successful preacher, but for some years, met with considerable opposition from the upper classes, for his supposed tendency towards methodism. His sentiments and mode of preaching had in fact undergone a change, which produced this suspicion, for the causes and consequences of which we must refer to his biographer. It may be sufficient here to notice, that he at length regained his credit by a steady, upright, preseveriog, and disinterested conduct, and just before his death, the mayor and corporation of Hull, almost unanimously, chose him vicar of the Holy Trinity church, on the decease of the rev. T. Clarke. Mr. Milner died Nov. 15, 1797, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and perhaps the loss of no man in that place has ever been lamented with more general or unfeigned regret. His scholars, almost without exception, loved and revered him. Several gentlemen, who had been his pupils many years before, shewed a sincere regard for their instructor, by erecting at their own expence, an elegant monument (by Bacon) to his memory in the high church of Hull. Mr. Milner’s principal publications are, 1. “Some passages in the Life of William Howard,” which has gone through several editions; 2. An Answer to Gibbon’s Attack on Christianity;“3.” Essays on the Influence of the Holy Spirit.“But his principal work is his ecclesiastical history, under the title of a” History of the Church of Christ,“of which he lived to complete three volumes, which reach to the thirteenth century. A fourth volume, in two parts, has since been edited from his Mss. by his brother Dr. Isaac Milner, reaching to the sixteenth century, and a farther continuation may be expected from the same pen. Since his death also, two volumes of his practical sermons have been published, with a life of the author by his brother, from which we have selected the above particulars. To his” History of the Church," we have often referred in these volumes, as it appears to us of more authority in many respects than that of Mosheim; and whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the view Mr. Milner takes of the progress of religion, he appears to have read more and penetrated deeper into the history, principles, and writings of the fathers and reformers, than any preceding English historian.

, a learned monk and historian of the order of the Camaldoli, was born at Venice Sept. 10, 1708, and after a course of study, during which he distinguished himself by arduous application, and acquired the fame of great learning, he became, in 1732, professor of philosophy and theology in the monastery of St. Michael at Venice. Being also appointed master of the novices, he remained in that office until 1747, when he removed to Faenza, as chancellor of his order. Here he first began to form the plan and collect materials for his celebrated work, the “Annales Camaldulenses,” in which he had the assistance of father Anselm Costadoni. In 1756 he was chosen abbe of his order in the state of Venice, and became, of course, head of the monastery of St. Michael. In 1764 he was appointed general of his order, and went to Rome, where he was received with every mark of respect by pope Clement XIII. He died at St. Michael’s Aug. 14, 1777. His annals were published in 1773, under the title of “Arinales Camaldulenses ordinis S. Benedicti ab anno 907 ad annum 1764, &c.” Venice, 9 vols fol. His other works were,. “Memorie del monistero della santissima Trinita irr Fv.erza,” Faenza, 1749. 2. “Ad scriptores rerum Itahcarum Cl. Mnratorii accessiones historicge Faventinae,” &c. Venice, 1771. 5. “De litteratura Faventinorum, sive de viris dociis, et scriptoribus urbis Faventinae (Faenza), appendix ad accessiones hist. Faventinas,” Venice, 1775. 6. “Bibliotheca codicum manuscriptorum monasterii S. Michaeiis Venetiaruhi, cum appendice librorum impressorum seculi XV.” ibid. 1779, fol.

, an eminent French historian, was descended of a noble family, but the names of his parents, and the period of his birth have not been discovered. The place of his birth was probably Picardy, and the time, prior to the close of the fourteenth century. No particulars of his 'early years are known, except that he evinced, when young, a love for application, and a dislike to indolence. The quotations also from Sallust, Livy, Vegetius, and other ancient authors, that occur in his Chronicles, shew that he must have made some progress in Latin literature. He appears to have been resident in Cambray when he composed his history, and passed there the remainder of his life. In 1436 he was nominated to the office of lieutenant du Gavenier of the Cambresis; the gavenier was the collector or receiver of the annual dues payable to the duke of Burgundy, by the subjects of the church in the Cambresis, for the protection of them as earl of Flanders. Monstrelet also held the office of bailiff to the chapter of Cambray from 1436 to 1440, when another was appointed. The respect and consideration which he had now acquired, gained him the dignity of governor of Cambray in 1444, and in the following year he was nominated bailiff of Wallaincourt. He retained both of those places until his death, which happened about the middle of July, in 1453. His character in the register of the Cordeliers, and by the abbot of St. Aubert, was that of “a very honourable and peaceable man;” expressions, says his biographer, that appear simple at first sight, but which contain a real eulogium, if we consider the troublesome times in which Monstrelet lived, the places he held, the interest he must have had sometimes to betray the truth in favour of one of the factions which then divided France, and caused the revolutions the history of which he has published during the life of the principal actors.

, a Scotch historian, was born at Salmonet, between Airth and Grange, on the suuch-side of the Firth-of-Forth, whence he was called abroad Salmonettus Scoto-Britannus. Of his life we fcave been able to discover very few particulars. The tradition is, that he was obliged to leave Scotland upon his being suspected of adultery with the wife of sir James Hamilton of Preston-field. Monteith appears to have been a chaplain of cardinal de Retz, who also made him a canon of Notre Dame, and encouraged him in writing his history. See Joli, Memoires, torn. Ij. page 86, where he is called “homme scavant & de merite.” Cardinal de Retz also mentions him, vol. III. p. 323. His brother was lieutenant-colonel of Douglas’s regiment (the royal), and killed in Alsace. In the privilege for printing Monteith’s History, granted the 13th of September 1660, to Jaques St. Clair. de Roselin, he is styled “le defunct St. Montet” In the title-page he is called Messire. This work embraces the period of Scotch history from the coronation of Charles I. to the conclusion of the rebellion. In his preface he professes the utmost impartiality, and as far as we have been able to look into the work, he appears to have treated the history of those tumultuous times with much candour. His leaning is of course to the regal side of the question. In 17.35 a translation of this work, which was originally published in French, and was become very rare, was executed at London in one vol. fol. by J. Ogilvie, under the title of a “History of the Troubles of Great Britain.” The author was held in high esteem by Menage, who wrote two Latin epigrams in his praise. The time of his death we have not been able to discover. He must be distinguished from a Robert Monteith, the compiler of a scarce and valuable collection of all the epitaphs of Scotland, published in 1704, 8vo, under the title of “An Theater of Mortality.”

, a pious and learned Spanish priest, born in 1513 at Cordova, was one of those who greatly contributed to restore a taste for the belles lettres in Spain. He taught with reputation in the university of Alcala, was appointed historiographer to Philip II. king of Spain, and died 1590, at Alcala, aged 77, leaving several works relative to Spanish antiquities besides other valuable books. The principal are, “The general Chronicle of Spain,” which had been begun by Florian Ocampo, 1574, and 1588, 2 vols. folio, in Spanish. “The Antiquities of Spain,” folio, in the same language, a curious and very valuable work “Scholia,” in Latin, on the works of Eulogius the “Genealogy of St. Dominick,” &c. He was originally a Dominican, but obliged to quit that order in consequence of having been induced, by a mistaken piety, to follow Origen’s example. He was unquestionably a man of learning, and had many of the best qualities of a historian, but he scarcely rose above the grossest superstitions of his age and religion. A complete edition of his works was published at Madrid in 1791—92.

, a senator of Venice, descended from James Morosini, of a very illustrious family, was born in the year 1558. He received an excellent education, and rose through the different degrees of nobility to a place in the council of ten. He was accomplished in every branch of polite literature, and in 1598 succeeded to the office of historian of the republic, and was employed in continuing Paruta’s History of Venice, which he brought down to 1615. He died in 1618, but as he had not quite finished his work, it was not published until 1623. It has been ranked among the best performances of that age. He also published, in Latin, a volume of “Opuscula and Epistles” and a narrative in Italian of “Expeditions to the Holy Land, and the Acquisition of Constantinople by the Venetian Republic.” His brother Paul, likewise a Venetian senator, was appointed to the same post of public historian, and gave an entire history of the republic from its origin to the year 1487, in 1637, which was published in the Italian language.

, an English dramatic writer, but in much greater eminence as an actor, was born in 1659, in Staffordshire. It is probable, that he went early upon the stage, as it is certain that he died young; and Jacob informs us, that, after his attaining a degree of excellence in his profession, he was entertained for some time in the family of the lord-chancellor JerTeries, “who,” says sir John Reresby, “at an entertainment of the lordmayor and court of aldermen, in the year 1685, called for Mr. Mountfort to divert the company (as his lordship was pleased to term it): he being an excellent mimic, my lord made him plead before him in a feigned cause, in which he aped all the great lawyers of the age in their tone of voice, and in their action and gesture of body, to the very great ridicule not only of the lawyers, but of the law itself; which, to me (says the historian) did not seem altogether prudent in a man of his lofty station in the law: diverting it certainly was; but prudent in the lord high-chancellor I shall never think it. 7 ' After the fall of Jefferies, our author again returned to the stage, in which profession he continued till his death, in 1,692. Gibber, in his” Apology,“says that he was tall, well made, fair, and of an agreeable aspect; his voice clear, full, and melodious; a most affecting lover in tragedy, and in comedy gave the truest life to the real character of a fine gentleman. In scenes of gaiety, he never broke into that respect that was due to the presence of equal or superior characters, though inferior actors played them, nor sought to acquire any advantage over other performers by finesse, or stage-tricks, but only by surpassing them in true and masterly touches of nature. He might perhaps have attained a higher degree of excellence and fame, had he not been untimely cut off, by the hands of an assassin, in the thirty-third year of his age. His death is tlius related. Lord Mohun, a man of loose morals, and of a turbulent and rancorous spirit, had, from a kind of sympathy of disposition, contracted the closest, intimacy with one captain Hill, a still more worthless character, who had long entertained a passion for that celebrated actress Mrs. Bracegirdle. This lady, however, had rejected him, with the contemptuous disdain which his character justly deserved; and this treatment, Hill’s vanity would not suffer him to attribute to any other cause than a pre-engagement in favour of some other lover. Mountfort’s agreeable person, his frequently performing the counter-parts in love scenes with Mrs. Bracegirdle, and the respect which he used always to pay her, induced captain Hill to fix on him, though a married man, as the supposed bar to his own success. Grown desperate then of succeeding by fair means, he determined to attempt force: and, communicating his design to lord Mohun, whose attachment to him was so great as to render him the accomplice in all his schemes, and the promoter even of his most criminal pleasures, they determined on a plan for carrying her away from the play-house; but, not finding her there, they got intelligence where she was to sup, and, having hired a number of soldiers and a coach for the purpose, waited near the door for her coming out; and, on her so doing, the ruffians actually seized her, and were going to force her into the coach; but her mother, and the gentleman whose house she came out of, interposing till farther assistance could come up, she was rescued from them, and safely escorted to her own house. Lord Mohun and captain Hill, however, enraged at their disappointment in this attempt, immediately resolved on one of another kind, and, with violent imprecations, openly vowed revenge on Mr. Mountfort. Mrs. Bracegirdle’s mother, and a gentleman, who were earwitnesses to their threats, immediately sent to inform Mrs. Mountfort of her husband’s danger, with their opinion that she should warn him of it, and advise him not to come home that night; but, unfortunately, no messenger Mrs. Mountfort sent was able to find him. In the mean time, his lordship and the captain paraded the streets with their swords drawn, till about midnight, when Mr. Mountfort, on his return home, was met and saluted in a friendly manner by lord Mohun; but, while that scandal to the rank and title which he bore was treacherously holding him in a conversation, the assassin Hill, being at his back, first gave him a desperate blow on the head with his left hand, and immediately afterwards, before Mr Mountfort had time to draw and stand on his defence, he, with the sword he held ready in his right, ran him through the body. This last circumstance Mr. Mountfort declared, as a dying man, to Mr. Bancroft, the surgeon who attended him. Hill immediately made his escape; but lord Mohun was seized, and stood his trial: but as it did not appear that he immediately assisted Hill in the perpetrating this assassination, and that, although lord Mohun had joined with the captain in his threats of revenge, yet the actual mention of murder could not be proved, his lordship was acquitted by his peers. He afterwards, however, himself lost his life in a duel with duke Hamilton, in which it has been hinted that some of the same kind of treachery, which he had been an abettor of in the above-mentioned affair, was put in practice against himself. Mr. Mountfort’s death happened in Norfolk-street in the Strand, in the winter of 1692. His body was interred in the churchyard of St. Clement Danes. He left behind him six dramatic pieces, which are enumerated in the” Biographia Dramatica."

, a Spanish historian, was born in 1745 at Museros, a village near Valentia, and studied in the university of Madrid. From his earliest years he discovered a taste superior to what was inculcated in the usual course of academic studies, and made uncommon progress in the sciences and in polite literature. At the age of twenty-two, he wrote prefaces to the Rhetoric of Louis of Grenada, and the Logic of Vernei, in both which he displayed great erudition. He was afterwards, doubtless from having turned his thoughts to that branch, appointed by government cosmographer of the Indies, and filled this office with distinguished ability, until the prime minister Galvez, by order of the king, employed him on a history of America. This undertaking he commenced in 1779, and obtained access, not only to all the papers and documents preserved in the archives of the India department at Madrid, and in the Escurial, but likewise, on a farther recommendation of his Catholic majesty, to all the public and private libraries at Simancas, Seville, Salamanca, Valladolid, Grenada, &c. &c. and even in the Torre di tombo at Lisbon, and other places to which preceding writers had not obtained access. This research occupied above five years, in the course of which he collected a vast mass, in one hundred and thirty volumes, of original and hitherto undescribed documents, letters of Columbus, Pizarro, Ximenes, &c. from which he composed his “Historia del nuovo Mondo,” published at Madrid, 1795, in fol. and which is known in this country by a translation published in 1797, in one vol. 8vo. This volume is divided into six books; in the first two the author describes the imperfect state of geographical knowledge among the ancients the accessions which it received in the middle ages the voyages of discovery made by the French, Portuguese, and Spaniards, previously to the time of Columbus, with the circumstances that produced his conjectures respecting the existence of a new continent, &c. The third and remaining books commence and continue the history of his discoveries to 1500. More of this work, however, has not appeared. The author, we are told, had finished nearly three books of the second volume, at the time of his death, July 19, 1799, and we do not find that he has had a successor, for which perhaps the subsequent political state of his country may account. Before this he acquired great reputation by his other works; namely, 1. “De recto philosophies recentis in theologia 'usu, dissertatio,” Valent. 1767. 2. “De scriptorum gentilium lectione, et profanarum disciplinarum studiis ad Christianaepietatisnormam exigendis,” ibid. 1768. 3. “Institutiones philosophies,” ibid. 1768. 4. “A Treatise on the Philosophy of Aristotle,” &c. 1768, &C.

, an Italian historian and poet, was born at Padua in 1261. When young he lost his father, and was left with a numerous family of brothers and sisters, whom he at first endeavoured to maintain by copying books for the scholars of the university. He was also permitted to attend the lectures there, and made very considerable progress in belles lettres and the law. Theiatterhe chose as the profession most likely to enable him to maintain his family, nor was he disappointed; and the very great ability he displayed at other times occasioned his being employed in political affairs. His talents in this respect were first called forth when Henry VII. made a descent on Italy; on which event he was five times se nt by the Paduans to that prince, who conceived a very high opinion of him. In his history we find the speeches he ma ie to Henry, and those he addressed to the senate of Padua. He also distinguished himself in the war which the Paduans carried on against Can Grande de la Scala, and when wounded and taken prisoner in 1314, Can Grande paid him the attention due to his merit, and restored him to liberty. The war raging more furiously, Mussato went first to Tuscany to negociate an alliance with the Tuscans and Paduans against Can Grande, but not succeeding, went next to Austria and Carint*hia, where he partially achieved his purpose, and at last, in 1324, had the honour of concluding a peace between Can Grande and his country.

, a French historian, who flourished in the fourteenth century, was a Benedictine monk of the abbey of St. Denis, and supposed to have taken his name from the place where he was born. He wrote the lives of St. Lewis, and of Philip le Hardi, and two chronicles; the first from the creation to 1300, the second a chronicle generally of the kings of France. The lives were printed, for the first time, in Pithou’s collection in 1596, and the chronicle from 1113, in the “Spicilegium” of D. Luc d' Archery. The life of St. Lewis was again reprinted along with Joinville’s history of the same prince, with a glossary, &c. by J. B. Mellot, Ch. Sallier, and J. Capperonier, at Paris in 1761, fol.

, an Italian historian, was born of a noble family of Florence, in 1476. Having espoused the cause of the liberties of his country, when the Medici family gained the ascendancy, he was banished, and his property confiscated. He then went to Venice, where he passed the rest of his days in composing his various works, particularly his history of Florence, “L'Istorie de Firenze, dal 1494 sino al 1531,” &c. 1532, 4to, which bears a great character for style; but, from his being the decided enemy of the house of Medici, must probably be read with some caution; nor was it published until fifty years after his death. He acquired great reputation also by his translation of Livy, which is considered as one of the best versions of the ancient authors in the Italian language. It was first printed in 1547; but the best editions are those of 1554 and 1575, in which last there is a supplement to the second decade by Turchi. Apostolo Zeno laments, that after Nardi had been banished his country, his works should also be banished from the vocabulary della Crusca. These academicians quote him but once, under the word pronunziare. He certainly deserved not such contempt, if it was out of contempt they neglected him. Nardi, in his youth, had distinguished himself as a soldier, and shows great knowledge and experience in military affairs, in a Life of the celebrated commander Malespini, printed at Florence, 1597, 4to. He was the author of several other works, both in prose and verse, and is supposed to have given the first example of the versi sciolti, or Italian blank verse. He is thought to have died about 1555, far advanced in age.

The late historian of Worcestershire, Dr. Treadway-Russel Nash, appears to have been a descendant, or somehow related to Thomas Nash, but of himself few memorials have been given to the public. His “History of Worcestershire” was published in 2 vols. fol. 1781 and 1784 and his edition of “Hudibras,” in 1793, 3 vols. 4to. He was of Worcester college, Oxford, M. A. 1746, and B. and D. D. 1758. He died at his seat at Bevere, near Worcester, Jan. 26, 1811, in his eighty-sixth year.

, an eminent dissenting divine, and the historian of the Puritans, was born in London, Dec. 14, 1678, and educated at Merchant-Taylors’ school, of which he was head scholar in 1697. He appears to have then declined proceeding to St. John’s, Oxford, and determined to enter as a student in a dissenting academy, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe. Three years after he removed, for the farther prosecution of his studies, to Holland, where he heard the lectures of Graevius and Burman, during two years, and afterwards passed a year at Leyden. Soon after his return to London, in 1703, he began to officiate as a preacher, and in 1706 succeeded Dr. Singleton as minister to a congregation at Loriners’ Hall. Of this congregation, which, for want of room, rmoved afterwards to a more commodious meeting in Jewinstreet, he remained pastor for thirty-six years, and was esteemed one of the most useful, laborious, and learned divines of his communion.

, an ancient British historian, abbot of Bangor, is generally said to have flourished about the year 620, and to have taken refuge at Chester, at the time of the massacre of the monks at that monastery. This, however, has been controverted by Lloyd, who says that he flourished about the beginning of the ninth century; and bishop Nicolson says, that from his own book he appears to have written in that century. He was author of several works, but the only one remaining is his “Historia Britonum,” or “Eulogium Britanniæ,” which has been printed in Gale’s Hist. Brit. Scrip. Oxon. 1691. Great part of this work is supposed to have been compiled, or perhaps transcribed, from the history of one Elborus or Elvodugus. There, is a ms. of it in the Cottonian library, in the British Museum.

, a Latin historian, flourished in the time of Julius Caesar, and lived, according to St. Jerome, to the sixth year of Augustus, about the year of Rome 716. He was an Italian, if we may credit Catullus, and born at Hostilia, a small town in the territory of Verona, in Cisalpine Gaul. Ausonius, however, will have it that he was born in the Gauls; and they may both be in. the right, provided that, under the name of Gaul, is comprehended Gallia Cisalpina, which is in Italy. Leander Alberti thinks Nepos’s country was Verona; and he is sure that he was born either in that city or neighbourhood. He was the intimate friend of Cicero and Atticus, and wrote the lives of the Greek historians, as he himself attests in that of Dion, speaking of Philistus. What he says in the lives of Cato and Hannibal, proves, that he had also written the lives of the Latin captains and historians. He wrote some other excellent works, which are lost.

, a celebrated historian, was born at Florence in 1485, of one of the most conspicuous families of that city, mentioned by Dante, in the fifteenth canto ic Del Paradiso," where, speaking of the parsimony of the Florentines, he gives two instances of it in two of the most illustrious families of his days, the Nerli and the Vecchi:

, commonly known by his Latin name of Gul. Neubrigensis, an early English historian, was born at Bridlington in Yorkshire, in the first year of king Stephen’s reign, 1136, and educated in the abbey of Newborough, of which he became a member. Besides the name of Neubrigensis, which he derived from his abbey, we find him called Parvus, or “Little;” but whether this was a surname or nickname, is somewhat dubious. Tanner notices him under the name of Petyt; and Nicolson says, that his true surname was Little; and that he calls himself Petit, or Parvus. Hearne allows that others called him so but does not remember where he styles himself so. Mr. Denne thinks it remarkable, that with allusion to himself, he twice uses the word “Parvitas,” thereby insinuating how little qualified he was to discharge the office of a historiographer, or to hastily form a judgment of the actions of so great a man as Becket.

, a Greek historian, was born about the close of the thirteenth century, and flourished in the fourteenth, under the emperors Andronicus, John Palacologus, and John Cantacuzenus. He was a great favourite of the elder Andronicus, who made him librarian of the church of Constantinople, and sent him ambassador to the prince of Servia. He accompanied Andronicus in his misfortunes, and attended at his death; after which he repaired to the court of the younger Andronicus, where he appears to have been well received; and it is certain, that, by his influence over the Greeks, that church was prevailed on to reject any conference with the legates of pope John XXII. But, in the dispute which arose between Barlaam and Palamos, happening to take the part of the former, he maintained it so zealously in the council that was held at Constantinople in 1351, that he was cast into prison, and continued there till the return of John Palseologus, who released him; after which he held a disputation with Palamos, in the presence of that emperor. He compiled the Byzantine history in a barbarous style, and very inaccurately, from 1204, when Constantinople was taken by the French, to the death of Andronicus the younger, in 1341. Besides this work, he is the author of some others. His history, with a Latin translation by Jerome Wolf, was printed at Basil in 1562, and again at Geneva in 1615. We have also a new version of it, and a new edition more correct than any of the preceding, printed at the Louvre in 1702, by Boivin the younger, the French king’s librarian, 2 vols. fol. This edition contains, in the first volume, the thirty-eight books of Gregoras, which end with the year 1341; and in the second are the thirteen following, which contain a history of ten years. There are still fourteen remaining to be published; as also fourteen other pieces of Gregoras. Gregoras also wrote Scholia upon “Synesius de Insomniis,” published by Turnebus in 1553; the version of which, by John Pichon, is printed among the works of the same Synesius.

, a Greek historian, was born at Chone, or Colossus, a town in Phrygia. He flourished in the thirteenth century, and was employed in several considerable affairs at the court of the emperors of Constantinople. When that city was taken by the French in 1204, he withdrew, together with a young French captive, whom he afterwards married at Nice in Bithynia, and died there in 1206.

, a Greek historian, a native, as some relate, of Paphlagonia, flourished about the end of the ninth century. He wrote the “Life of St. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,” translated into Latin by Frederic Mutius, bishop of Termoli, and made use of by cardinal Baronius: but we have another version, by father Matthew Raderi, printed at Ingoldstadt, in 1604. This Nicetas composed also several panegyrics, in honour of the apostles and other saints, which are inserted in the last continuation of the “Bibliotheca Patrum,” by Combesis. There are several authors of this name mentioned by Gesner and Leo Allatius.

, an eminent Russian prelate, was born in a village under the government of Nishnei Novogorod, in 1613. His parents were so obscure that neither their names nor stations are known. He was educated under the care of a monk in the convent of St. Macarius, and here he imbibed a strong and increasing prejudice in fa*­vour of the monastic life. In compliance, however, with the wishes of his family, he married, and was ordained a secular priest. The loss of his children by death disgusted him with the world, and he persuaded his wife to take the veil, whilst he became a monk. He retired into an island in the White Sea, and instituted a society in this solitude remarkable for its great austerities. He had not been in this place many years before he was made, after a series of ecclesiastical dignities, archbishop of Novogorod; and, finally, patriarch of Russia. He was not only eminent as a priest, but discovered the great and energetic talents of a statesman; and to them he fell a victim. In 1658 he was compelled to abdicate his dignity of patriarch, on which he returned to his cell, and lived over his former austerities; but his degradation did not satisfy the malice of his enemies, who procured his imprisonment. He obtained, after a number of years, his release, with permission to return to his favourite cell; but, whilst on the road to this spot, he expired in his 66th year, in 1681. Nicon did not spend his whole time in the performance of useless austerities, but occasionally employed himself in compiling a regular series of Russian annalists from Nestor, the earliest historian of that country, to the reign of Alexey Michaelovitch. This collection is sometimes called, from its author, “The Chronicle of Nicon,” and sometimes, from the place where it was begun and deposited, “The Chronicle of the Convent of Jerusalem.” It is considered as a work of authority.

, a French historian of the ninth century, the son of Angilbert, abbot of St. Riquier, and of Bertha, daughter of Charlemagne, was born before the year 790, and was probably educated at the court of his grandfather. He appears to have been distinguished both as a soldier and politician, and was occasionally employed by Charles the Bald, king of France, as a negociator. His history contains an account of the divisions between the sons of Louis le Debonnaire, in four books, of which the first three were written in the year 842, and the fourth is lost. It was published in 1594, by M. Pithou, in his “Annalium et Historiæ Francorum Scriptores,” &c. and has since been translated by Duchesne and Bouquet, in their collection of French Historians, and by Cousin in his “History of the Western Empire.”

During the troubles in Mary’s days he was concealed for some time in the house of sir John Perrot, at Carewcastle in Pembrokeshire; but before the queen died, he went to his brother Alexander and the exiles in Germany. On his return he was made archdeacon of Derby and dean of Lichfield, in April 1559; had the prebend of Ferring in the cathedral of Chichester in August 1563, and of Ampleford in York in 1566, and the rectory of Haughton and Drayton Basset, in the county of Stafford. He died in or about the month of October, 1576. He was, as Wood justly observes, “a most diligent searcher into venerable antiquity.” He bad also this peculiar merit, that he revived and encouraged the neglected study of the Saxon language, so essential to the accurate knowledge of our legal antiquities, as well as to the elucidation of ecclesiastical and civil history. In these studies, while he resided, as is said, in the chambers of his brother Robert Nowell (the queen’s attorney- general of the court of wards), he had the celebrated William Lambarde for his pupil, who availed himself of his notes and assistance in composing his learned work on the ancient laws of England. He wrote a Saxon vocabulary or dictionary, still extant in manuscript, which he gave to his pupil Lambarde, from whom it passed to Somner, the learned antiquary of Canterbury, who made use of it in compiling his Saxon dictionary. It then came into the hands of Mr. Selden, and is now, with other books of that great man, printed and manuscript, reposited in the Bodleian library at Oxford. Mr. Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, had a quarto ms. entitled “Polychronicon,” a miscellaneous collection, as it seems, containing perambulations of forests and other matters, in the hand-writing of Lawrence Nowell, 1565. There are also “Collectanea” by him, relating chietiy to ecclesiastical affairs, in the Cotton library. He appears to have been in learning, piety, and meekness of spirit, the worthy brother of the dean of St. Paul’s.

, attorney-general in the reign of Charles I. the son of William Noy, of St. Burian, in Cornwall, gent, was born in 1577. In 1593 he was entered of Exeter-college, where he continued three years in close application to his studies. Thence he was removed to Lincoln’s- inn, to study the common law, in the knowledge of which he became very eminent. He was chosen to represent the borough of Helston in his own country, towards the end of James’s reign, in two parliaments; in both of which he shewed himself a professed enemy to the king’s prerogative. In 1625 he was elected a burgess for St. Ives, in which parliament, and another following, he continued in the same sentiments, until he was made attorney-general in 1631, which produced a total change in his views, and he became not only a supporter of the prerogative where it ought to be supported, but carried his notions of this power so far as to advise the measure of ship-money, a tax levied without consent of parliament. He was unquestionably a man of great abilities, but flattered so much upon that account, that Clarendon says he thought “he could not give a clearer testimony that his knowledge in the law was greater than all other men’s, than by making that law, which all other men believed not to” be so. So he moulded, framed, and pursued the odious and crying project of soap; and with his own hand drew and prepared the writ for ship-money; both which will be the lasting monuments of his fame. In a word,“adds this excellent historian,” he was an unanswerable instance, how necessary a good education and knowledge of men is to make a wise man, at least a man fit for business.“Noy, however, did not live to see the full effect of his measures. In 1634 his health was much impaired by the fatigue arising from his professional duties, and he retired to Tunbridge Wells, where he died in August, and was buried at New Brentford. His will, which is dated June 3, about a month or six weeks before his death, contains the following singular clause:” All the rest of my estate I leave to my son Edward (who is executor to this my will), to be squandered as he shall think fit I leave it him for that purpose, and I hope no better from him.“Steele, in the Tatler, No. 9, observes that this” generous disdain, and reflection upon how little he deserved from so excellent a father, reformed the young man, and made Edward from an arrant rake become a fine gentleman." No such effect however followed; and within two years he was killed in a duel.

Nyssenus, Gregory. See Gregory. Oates (Titus), a very singular character, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was born about 1619. He was the son of Samuel Gates, a popular preacher among the baptists, and a fierce bigot. His son was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, from whence he removed to Cambridge. When he left the university, he obtained orders in the church of England, though in his youth he had been a member of a baptist church in Virginia-street, Ratcliffe Highway, and even officiated some time as assistant to his father; he afterwards officiated as a curate in Kent and Sussex. In 1677, after residing some time in the duke of Norfolk’s family, he became a convert to the church of Rome, and entered himself a member of the society of Jesuits, with a view, as he professed, to betray them. Accordingly, he appeared as the chief informer in what was called the popish plot, or a plot, as he pretended to prove, that was promoted for the destruction of the protestant religion in England, by pope Innocent XL; cardinal Howard; John Paul de Oliva, general of the Jesuits at Rome; De Corduba, provincial of the Jesuits in New Castille; by the Jesuits and seminary priests in England; the lords Petre, Powis, Bellasis, Arundel of Wardour, Stafford, and other persons of quality, several of whom were tried and executed, chiefly on this man’s evidence; while public opinion was for a time very strongly in his favour. For this service he received a pension of 1200l. per annum, was lodged in Whitehall, and protected by the guards; but scarcely had king James ascended the throne, when he took ample revenge of the sufferings which his information had occasioned to the monarch’s friends: he was thrown into prison, and tried for perjury with respect to what he had asserted as to that plot. Being convicted, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory five times a year during his life, to be whipt from Aldgate to Newgate, and from thence to Tyburn; which sentence, says Neal, was exercised with a severity unknown to the English nation. “The impudence of the man,” says the historian Hume, “supported itself under the conviction; and his courage under the punishment. He made solemn appeals to heaven, and protestations of the veracity of his testimony. Though the whipping was so cruel that it was evidently the intention of the court to put him to death by that punishment, yet he was enabled by the care of his friends to recover, and he lived to king William’s reign, when a pension of 400l. a year was settled upon him. A considerable number of persons adhered to him in his distresses, and regarded him as a martyr to the protestant cause.” He was unquestionably a very infamous character, and those who regard the pretended popish plot as a mere fiction, say that he contrived it out of revenge to the Jesuits, who had expelled him from their body. After having left the whole body of dissenters for thirty years, he applied to be admitted again into the communion of the baptists, having first returned to the church of England, and continued a member of it sixteen years. In 1698, or 1699, he was restored to his place among the baptists, from whence he was excluded in a few months as a disorderly person and a hypocrite: he died in 1705. He is described by Granger as a man “of cunning, mere effrontery, and the most consummate falsehood.” And Hume describes him as “the most infamous of mankind that in early life he had been chaplain to colonel Pride was afterwards chaplain on board the fleet, whence he had been ignominiously dismissed on complaint of some unnatural practices; that he then became a convert to the Catholics; but that he afterwards boasted that his conversion was a mere pretence, in order to get into their secrets and to betray them.” It is certain that his character appears to have been always such as ought to have made his evidence be received with great caution; yet the success of his discoveries, and the credit given to him by the nation, by the parliament, by the courts of law, &c. and the favour to which he was restored after the revolution, are circumstances which require to be carefully weighed before we can pronounce the whole of his evidence a fiction, and all whom he accused innocent.

, ridiculed in the Taller by the name of Mr. Omicron, “the Unborn Poet,” descended from an ancient family of the name, originally seated at Oldmixon, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, and was born in 1673. Where he was educated is not known. He appears to have been early a writer for the stage; his first production was “Amyntas,” a pastoral, and his second, in 1700, an opera, neither of much merit or success. He Soon, however, became a violent party-writer, and a severe and malevolent critic. In the former light he was a strong opponent of the Stuart family, whom he has, on every occasion, endeavoured to vilify without any regard to that impartiality which ought ever to be the essential characteristic of an historian. As a critic he was perpetually attacking, with evident tokens of envy and malevolence, his several contemporaries; particularly Addison, Eusden, and Pope. The last of these, however, whom he had attacked in different letters which he wrote in “The Flying Post,” and repeatedly reflected on in his “Prose essays on Criticism,” and in his “Art of Logic and Rhetoric,” written in imitation of Bouhours, has introduced him into his “Dunciad,” with some very distinguishing marks of eminence among the devotees of dulness. In the second book of that severe poem, where the dunces are contending for the prize of dulness, by diving in the mud of Fleet-ditch, he represents our author as mounting the sides of a lighter, in order to enable him to take a more efficacious plunge. Oldmixon’s malevolence of abuse entitled him to the above-mentioned honour; and, to the disgrace of the statesmen of that time, his zeal as a virulent party-writer procured him the place of collector of the customs at the port of Bridgewater, but he died at his house in Great Pulteney-street, aged sixty-nine, July 9, 1742. He left a daughter, who died in 1789, at Newiand in Gloucestershire, aged eighty-four. Another of his daughters sung at Hickford’s rooms in 1746. He lies buried in Ealing church.

Captain Grose, who was acquainted with him, says he was a man of great good-nature, honour, and integrity, particularly in his character of an historian. “Nothing,” adds he, “I firmly believe, would ever have biassed him to insert any fact in his writings he did not believe, or tcv suppress any he did. Of this delicacy he gave an instance at a time when he was in great distress, After his publication of the Life of sir Walter Raleigh, some booksellers, thinking his name would sell a piece they were publishing, offered him a considerable sum to father it, which he rejected with the greatest indignation.” From the same authority we learn, that Mr. Oldys, if$ the latter part of his life, abandoned himself to drinking, and was almost continually in a state of intoxication. At the funeral of the princess Caroline he was in such a situation as to be scarcely able to walk, and actually reeled about with a crown on a cushion, to the great scandal of his brethren . He is said also to have been much addicted to low company.

, a Jesuit who acquired a considerable reputation in his own country as a historian, was born at Bourges in 1644. He was a teacher of the belles lettres in different colleges for several years, and became a celebrated preacher. Some separate lives which he published, in an agreeable style, and with judicious reflections, first attracted the public attention, but his reputation chiefly arose from his historical writings. Voltaire says that father D'Orleans was the first who chose revolutions for his subject, and adds, that the idea was not more happy than the execution. His “History of the Revolutions of England” met with the universal approbation of the French critics, and would have been, says Palissot, a perfect model, had the author concluded with the reign of Henry V11I, but after that he was no longer allowed to be impartial. English critics, however, have a less favourable opinion of his qualifications for writing such a history; and Echard, who translated part of the work, “History of the Revolutions in England under the family of the Stuarts, from 1603 to 1690,” 1711, 8vo, has very properly cautioned his readers against the author’s prejudices. Father D'Orleans, whose private character is represented as very amiable, died in the prime of life iti 1698. His works are, l.the history already mentioned, “Histoire des Revolutions d'Angleterre,” Paris, 1693, 3 vols. 4to, afterwards reprinted in 4 vols. 12ino, with heads. Francis Turpin published a continuation in 1786, in 2 vols. 8vo. 2. “Histoire des Revolutions d' Espagne,” ibid. 1734, 3 vols 4to. This, left incomplete by the author, was finished by Brumoy and Rouille, but it had not the same success as his revolutions of England, which his countrymen are willing to impute to the subject being less interesting. 3. “Histoire de M. Constance, premier minister du roi de Siam, et de la derniere revolution de cet etat,” ibid. 1692, 12mo. 4. “Histoire des deux conquerants Tartares Chimchi et Camhi, qui ont subjugue la Chine,” ibid. 1689, 8vo. 5. The lives, published separately, of Spinola, 1693, 12mo; of P. Cotton, 1688, 4to of Ricci, 1693, 12mo; of Mary of Savoy and the infanta Isabella, 1696, 12mo, and of Stanislaus Kostka, 1712, reprinted in 1727, with the life of Louis de Gonzaga. 6. “Sermons et instructions Chretiennes sur diverses matieres,” 1696, 2 vols. 12mo.

, an eminent historian, the son of Dr. Alexander Orme, a physician and surgeon in the service of the East India company, was born at Anjengo, in the Travancore country, in 1728. He was sent to England for hi education, and was entered at Harrow-school when he was only six years of age. After he left school, he was a year in the office of the accomptant-general of the African company, to be initiated in commercial transactions, and then embarked for Calcutta, where he arrived in 1742. As soon as he engaged in the company’s service, he acquired the highest reputation for the zeal with which he entered into their interests, and at the same time acquired such knowledge of the institutions, manners, and customs of the natives of India, that, in 1752, when some regulations were thought necessary in the police of Calcutta, he was desired to give his opinion on the subject. He accordingly drew up the greater part of “A general idea of the Government and People of Indostan.” In 1753 he returned to England, and was frequently consulted by men in power on Indian affairs, and respecting plans, at that time in agitation, for supporting the British interest in Hindoostan. Mr. Orme revisited India in 1754, on being appointed by the court of directors a member of the council at Fort St. George, and contributed much to those measures which finally gave to the English the superiority in India which they have ever since possessed. Mr. Orme held the office of commissary and accomptant-general during the years 1757-8, but in the latter year his health obliged him to embark for England, where he arrived in the autumn of 1760, and settling in London, employed himself in preparing “The History' of the Military Transactions of the British nation in Itidostan, from the year 1745,” the first volume of which, bringing down the history to 1756, was published in 1763, and extremely well received by the public. The East India company, duly sensible of his merits, and of the importance of his historical researches, not only gave him free access to all their records, but appointed him to be their historiographer, with a salary of 400l. per annum. To obtain the most accurate information respecting the war which was to be the subject of the second volume, he went over to France in 1773, where he was furnished liberally with various authentic documents, but it was not till 1778 that the work was brought to its completion. This contained all the events which took place in the English settlements in India from 1756 to 1763, with an investigation of the rise and progress of the English commerce in Bengal, and an account of the Mahommedan government from its establishment in 1200. In 1782 Mr. Orme published a work entitled “Historical Fragments of the Mogul empire of the Marattoes, and of the English concerns in Indostau from the year 1659.” This, which was an octavo volume, was his last publication, for though his literary pursuits were unremitted, yet his health was unequal to the exertions required for the composition. In 1792 he left the metropolis to enjoy in retirement the society of. his friends, and the recreation afforded by a well- assorted library. The place of his retirement was Ealing, where he was often visited by his friends, who appear to have loved him with great affection. Amongst these may be mentioned general Richard Smith, Mr. Robarts, one of the court of directors, Mr. Dairy mple, sir George Baker, and the late Mr. Owen Cambridge. But his books were his chief companions; and such was the active curiosity of his mind, that at the age of seventy he found in them a constant source of amusement. He continued his studies to the last month of his life, and a great many of his books bear interesting evidence of the strict attention with which he perused them; for their margins are filled with observations in his own hand writing. In the beginning of January 1801, he fell into a state of weakness and languor that prognosticated his speedy dissolution; and he expired on the 14th of that month, in the seventy-third year of his age.

, or Ursatus, a celebrated antiquary, historian, grammarian, and poet, was born February 1, 1617, at Padua, of one of the most illustrious families in that city. He applied diligently to the study of antiquities and ancient inscriptions, which occasioned his taking several journies into different parts of Italy. When advanced in life, he was appointed to teach natural philosophy in the university of Padua, and acquitted himself with great success in that office. He died at Venice July 3, 1678. He was a member of the academy of the Ricovrati, and has left a great number of valuable works, some in Latin, others in Italian: the principal among the former are, “Sertum Philosophicum ex variis scientise naturaiis floribus consertum,” Padua, 1635, 4to. 2. “Monumenta Patavina,” Padua,“1652, folio. 3.” Commentarius de Dotis Romanorum,“Padua, 1672, folio, a useful work, and much esteemed. It has been inserted in torn. XI. of the” Thesaurus“of Groevius, and is printed separately, Paris, 1723, 12mo, and at the Hague, 1736. The following are his principal Italian works 4.” A Hist, of Padua, in two parts,“1678, folio. 5.” I Marmi eruditi,“1669, and 1719, 2 vols. 4to; a curious work, in two parts also. 6.” Chronologia di Reggimenti di Padoua;“revised, with notes, 1666, 4to. 7. Several” Lyric Poems,“1637, 12mo;” Comedies," andother poetical pieces, &c.

With Rochester she had already carried on a criminal intercourse, which, instead of satiating their desires, made them lament their unhappy fate, and long for an union that should be indissoluble. So momentous an affair, however, could not be concluded without consulting Overbury, with whom Rochester was accustomed to share all his secrets, and who, in fact, had been privy to his connection with lady Essex, and had even promoted it by dictating to Rochester those ingenious and passionate letters by which, in a great measure, the lady was won. Like an experienced courtier, says Hume, he thought that a conquest of this nature would throw a lustre on the young favourite, and would tend still farther to endear him to James, who was charmed to hear of the amours of his court. But when Rochester hinted his design of obtaining a divorce and marrying the countess, Overbury used every method to dissuade him from the attempt, representing how difficult it would be to procure a divorce, and how disgraceful to marry the woman whose mind these two friends had combined to debauch! And, in what the historian calls the “zeal of friendship,” he went so far as to threaten Rochester, that he would separate himself for ever from him, if he could so far forget his honour and his interest as to prosecute the intended marriage.

, in Spanish Gonçalo Hermandez de Oviedo Y Valdes, a Spanish historian, was born at Madrid, about the year 1478. He was educated among the pages in the court of Ferdinand king of Arragon, and Isabella queen of Castile, and happened to be at Barcelona in 1493, when Columbus returned from his first voyage to the island Haiti, which he called Hispaniola, and which now is known by the name of St. Domingo. Curiosity led him to obtain from Columbus and his companions an account of what was most remarkable in their voyages; and the information he obtained, and the services he rendered Spain during the war of Naples, induced Ferdinand to send him to the Island of Haiti, as intendant and inspector-general of the trade of the new world. The ravages which the syphilis had made during that war, led him to inquire into the most efficacious remedies for this malady, which was supposed to have come from the West Indies. His inquiries were also extended to every thing which regards the natural history of these regions and on his return to Spain, he published “Summario de la Historia general y natural de les Indias Occidentales,” Toledo, 1526, which he dedicated to Charles V. He afterwards made some additions to this work, which he published under the tide of “La Historia general y natural de las Indias Occidentales,” Salamanca, 1535, fol. It was translated into Italian, and afterwards into French, Paris, 1556, fol. It is in this work that he attempts to prove that the syphilis is endemic in the island of Haiti, and that it was imported thence to Spain, and afterwards to Naples, which opinion Astruc advances in support of his own; but this, however, has been called in question. Oviedo is thought to have been the first who recommended the use of the wood of guiacum in the disorder, a remedy not now in any great estimation.

, a famous Cordelier, and one of the ablest critics of his time, was born at Rognes, a small town in Provence, March 31, 1624. He took the monk’s habit in the convent of the Cordeliers at Aries, and professed himself there in 1641. After he had finished the usual course of studies in philosophy and divinity, he preached some time, and was at length made four times provincial of his order. These occupations did not hinder him from applying to chronology and ecclesiastical history, in which he excelled. He printed in the Journal des Savans, Nov. 11, 1686, a learned “Dissertation upon the Consular Office,” in which he pretends to have discovered the rules, according to which the Roman emperors took the dignity of consul at some certain times more than others, but in this he is not thought to have been successful. His most considerable work is “A Critique upon the Annals of Baronius;” in which he has rectified an infinite number of mistakes, both in chronology and in facts. He published the first volume of this work, containing the first four centuries, at Paris, in 1689; with a dedication to the clergy of France, who allowed him a pension. The whole work was printed after his death, in four volumes, folio, at Geneva, in 1705, by the care of his nephew, father Francis Pagi, of the same order. It is carried to the year 1198, where Baronius ends. Pagi was greatly assisted in it by the abbe* Longuerue, who also wrote the eloge of our author, which is prefixed to the Geneva edition. Another edition was published at Geneva in 1727. It is a work of great utility, but the author’s chronology of the popes of the first three centuries is not approved by the learned. He has also prefixed a piece concerning a new chronological period, which he calls “Graeco-Romana,” and uses for adjusting all the different epochas, which is not without its inconveniences. Our author wrote some other works of inferior note before his death, at Aix, in Provence, June 7, 1699. His character is that of 'a very able historian, and a learned and candid critic. His style has all the simplicity and plainness which suits a chronological narration. He held a correspondence with several learned men, as Stillingfleet, Spanheim, Cuper, Dodwell, the cardinal Noris, &c.

, a learned physician and historian, was born at Basil June 13, 1522. In his early education he made very considerable proficiency, but it ap pears that his friends differed in their opinions as to his profession, some intending him for a learned profession, and some for a printer, which they conceived to be connected with it. At length after a due course of the languages and polite literature, he studied divinity according to the principles of the reformed religion, but changing that design, he taught dialectics and natural philosophy at Basil for about forty years. He then, at an advanced age, studied medicine, took the degree of doctor in that faculty, and practised with much reputation until his death, March 3, 1595, in the seventy-third year of his age. He composed various works both in medicine and history, some in Latin and some in German, and translated certain authors into the latter language. His most useful work, nowscarce, was an account of the eminent men of Germany, published at Basil in 1565, fol. under the title of “Posographia heroum et illustrium virorum Germanise,” dedicated to the emperor Maximilian II. who honoured him with the title of Count Palatin. He published also a Latin history of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, 1581, folio. ' Historia Militaris ordinis Johannitarum, Rhodiorum aut Melitensium Equitum;“” Chronographia Ecclesiae Christi,“ibid, 1568;” Diarium Historicum,“1572; and, in his youth,” Comoedia de Zaccheo publicanorum principe," 1546, 8vo.

, a French historian, and laborious writer of the sixteenth century, was still living in 1581, and was then turned fourscore. He was the author of many works, among which the following are remarkable: 1. “The History of Aristseus, respecting the version of the Pentateuch,” 4 to. 2. “Historia sui temporis,” written in Latin, but best known by a French version which was published in 1558. 3. “Annales de Bourgogne,” 1566, folio. This history, by no means well digested, begins at the year 378, and ends in 1482. 4. “De moribus Gallic, Historia,” 4to. 5. “Memoires de l'Histoire de Lyon,” 1625, folio. 6. “De rehus in Beigio, anno 1543 gestis,”l:>4:i, 8vo. 7. “LaChroniquede Savoie,” 1602, fol. 8. “Histuna Galliae, a Fraiu isci I. coronatione ad annum 1550.” 9. “Historia Ecclesiae Gallicanae.” 10. “Memoralia insignium Francis Famiiiarum.” He was an ecclesias.ic, and became dean of Beaujeu.

, an English historian, was a Benedictine monk of the congregation of Clugny, in the monastery of St. Alban’s, the habit of which order he took in 1217. He was an universal scholar; understood, and had a good taste both in painting and architecture. He was also a mathematician, a poet, an orator, a divine, an historian, and a man of distinguished probity. Such rare accomplishments and qualities as these, did not fail to place him very high in the esteem of his contemporaries; and he was frequently employed in reforming some monasteries, visiting others, and establishing the monastic discipline in all. He reproved vice without distinction of persons, and did not even spare the English court itself; at the same time he shewed a hearty affection for his country in maintaining its privileges against the encroachments of the pope. Of this we have a clear, though unwilling, evidence in Baronius, who observes, that this author remonstrated with too sharp and bitter a spirit against the court of Rome; and that, except in this particular only, his history was an incomparable work. He died at St. Alban’s in 1259. His principal work, entitled “Historia Major,” consists of two parts: The first, from the creation of the world to William the Conqueror; the second, from that king’s reign to 1250. He carried on this history afterwards to the year of his death in 1259. Rishanger, a monk of the monastery of St. Alban’s, continued it to 1272 or 1273, the year of the death of Henry III. It was first printed at London in 1571, and reprinted 1640, 1684, fol. besides several foreign editions. There are various ms copies in our public libraries, particularly one which he presented to Henry III. and which is now in the British Museum. From Jiis Mss. have also been published “Vitas duorum Offarum, Merciae regum, S, Albani fundatorum” <c Gesta viginti duo abbatum S. Albani“”Additamenta chronicorum ad historian) majorern,“all which accompany the editions of his” Historia Major“printed in 1640 -and 1684. Among his unpublished Mss. are an epitome of his” Historia Major," and a history from Adam to the conquest, principally from Matthew of Westminster. This is in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge. The titles of some other works, but of doubtful authority, may be seen in Bale and Pits.

, an ancient Roman historian, who flourished in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, was born in the year of Rome 735. His ancestors were illustrious for their merit and their offices. His grandfather espoused the party of Tiberius Nero, the emperor’s father; but being old and infirm, and not able to accompany Nero when he retired from Naples, he ran himself through with his sword. His father was a soldier of rank, and Paterculus was a military tribune, when Caius Caesar, a grandson of Augustus, had an interview with the king of the Parthians, in an island of the river Euphrates, in the year 753. He commanded the cavalry in Germany under Tiberius, and accompanied that prince for nine years successively in all his expeditions. He received honourable rewards from him but we do not find that he was preferred to any higher dignity than the proctorship. The praises he bestows upon Sejanus give some probability to the conjecture, that he was looked upon as a friend of this favourite; and, consequently, that he was involved in his ruin. His death is placed by Dodwell in the year 784, when he was in his fiftieth year.

The first person who attempted to give a sketch of universal bibliography and literary history was the learned and laborious Christopher-Augustus Hermann, professor in the university of Gottingen, in the year 1718, when, ie published his well known work, ‘ Conspectus Reipublicae Literarioe, sive Via ad Historian! Literariam*’ which gradually went through seven editions, the last of which was published at Hanover, 1763. Numberless other works, analogous to this, were published in the same interval, in Germany. About the period alluded to, many detailed, descriptive, and rational catalogues of books appeared in the several countries of Europe; the art and the taste of constructing libraries became more general than in any preceding age; and the only thing which appears worthy of remark, and rather unaccountable, is that, even after the progress of philosophy or bibliography, the Germans, in this department, have excelled every other people in Europe. It is universally acknowledged, that the best work of the kind that ever appeared, about that time, was the catalogue of the celebrated library of the count of Bunau, better known under the name of “Bibliotheca Bunaviana,” so remarkable, indeed, for number, selection, order, connexion, references, and universal interest. The only historical system of national literature exhibited in Europe was that of the Italian, by Tiraboschi. IVlr. Paterson supplied some important materials towards one among ourselves, in his “Bibliotheca Anglica Curiosa, 1771.” He was an enemy to those systems of bibliography which are now generally practised on the continent; and he set no importance even on the newly-established classification of the “Universal Repertory of Literature,” published at Jena. We hope, indeed, that those among the readers themselves, who have happened to look at the above-mentioned catalogue, will not only coincide with our bibliographer’s opinion, but will perhaps smile at seeing all the branches of human knowledge confined in sixteen classes, and the last of them entitled “Miscellaneous Works;” the proper meaning of which words has a tendency to destroy the whole classification! Mr. Paterson acted consistently with these ideas in all his bibliographical performances; and it is owing to the merit of an appropriate, circumstantial, and judicious classification, that his catalogues are unrivaled, and some of them are justly regarded as models. We refer the readers to the catalogues themselves, and especially to the Bibliotheca Fleetwoodiana, Beauclerktana, Croftsiana, Pinelliana, published from time to time, as well as to those of the Strange, Fagel, and Tyssen libraries, which he performed within the last two years of his life; and they will perceive in each of them an admirable spirit of order, exhibited in different ways, and suggested by those superior abilities which alone can discover and appreciate these variable combinations of the several circumstances.

, an Italian historian and antiquary, was born in 1598, at Capua, and educated at the Jesuits’ school at Naples. He entered into the clerical order, but appears to have passed his whole time in the researches of an historian and antiquary, which, produced, I. “L'Apparato alle Antichita di Capua,” printed in 1651, in which he minutely describes all the parts of Campagna Felice, and relates its history and revolutions. 2. “Historia Principurn Longobardorum,” containing several historical pieces not yet published, illustrated with learned annotations and dissertations. This was republished in the collections of Burmann and Muratori, and with various additions, at Naples, 1749, by Sig. Fr. Moria Pratilli. PeU legrini died at Naples in 1660, at the age of sixty-five.

In 1773, he published the 8vo edition of “Genera of Birds,” and performed a tour through the north of England, where his companion Mr. Griffith made a great many drawings of antiquities, &c. several of which were afterwards used by Mr. Grose, in his “Antiquities of England.” In this tour he contracted an acquaintance with Mr. Hutchinson, the historian of Durham, in a singular manner, which we shall give in his own words: “I was mounted on the famous stones in the ciiurch-yard of Penrith, to take a nearer view of them, and see whether the drawing I had procured, done by the rev. Dr. Tod, had the least foundation in truth.” Thus engaged, a person of good appearance, looking up at me, observed “what fine work Mr. Pennant had made with those stones.” I saw he had got into a horrible scrape; so, unwilling to make bad worse, I descended, laid hold of his button, and told him, “I am the man” After his confusion was over, I made a short defence, shook him by the hand, and we became from that moment fast friends." An account of part of this journey, Mr. Pennant left in manuscript, illustrated with drawings by Mr. Griffith. Mr. Pennant performed all his journeys on horseback, and to that he attributed his healthy old age. He considered the absolute resignation of one’s person to the luxury of a carriage, to forebode a very short interval between that, and the vehicle which is to convey us to our last stage.

, one of the most excellent of the Italian composers, was born at Casoria in the kingdom of Naples, in 1701; and was educated at Naples under Gaetuno Greco, a very famous musician of that time. The prince of San-Agliano, or Stigiiano, becoming acquainted with the talents of yonng Pergolesi, took him under his protection, and, from 1730 to 1734, procured him employment in the new theatre at Naples, where his operas had prodigious success. He then visited Rome, for which place his “Olympiade” was composed, and there performed, but was by no means applauded as it deserved; after which he returned to Naples, and falling into a consumptive disorder, died in 1737, at the premature age of thirty-three. It is not true, as some authors have asserted, that he was poisoned by some of his rivals, nor indeed was thesuccess of his productions sufficiently great to render him an object of envy. His fame was posthumous. From the style of his composition, the Italians have called him the Domenichino of music. Ease, united with deep knowledge of harmony, and great richness of melody, forms the characteristic of his music. It expresses the passions with the very voice of nature, and speaks to the soul by the natural force of its effects. It has been thought, by some, of too melancholy a cast, which might arise, perhaps, from the depression produced by infirmity of constitution. His principal works are, 1. The “Stabat Mater,” usually considered as his most perfect work, and much better known than any other, in this country. 2. Another famous mass, beginning, “Dixit et laudate,” first heard with rapture at Naples, soon after his return from Rome. 3. The mass called “Salve Regina,” the last of his productions, composed at Torre del Greco, a very short time before his death, but as much admired as any of his compositions. 4. His opera of “Olympiade,” set to the words of Metastasio. 5. “La serva Padrona,” a comic opera. 6. His famous cantata of “Orfeo e Euridice.” The greater part of his other compositions were formed for pieces written in the Neapolitan dialect, and unintelligible to the rest of Italy. Pergolesi’s first and principal instrument was the violin. Dr. Burney says, that “he had, perhaps, more energy of genius, and a finer tact, than any of his predecessors; for though no labour appears in his productions, even for the church, where the parts are thin, and frequently in unison, yet greater and more beautiful effects are often produced in the performance than are promised in the score.” “The church-music of Pergolesi has been censured by his countryman, Padre Martini, as well as by some English musical critics, for too much levity of movement, aud a dramatic cast, even in some of his slow airs; while, on the contrary, Eximeno says, that he never heard, and perhaps never shall hear, sacred music accompanied with instruments, so learned and so divine, as the Stabat Mater.” Dr. Burney thinks it very doubtful whether the sonatas ascribed to this author are genuine; but observes, that the progress since made in instrumental music, ought not, at all events, to diminish the reputation of Pergolesi, “which,” he adds, “was not built on productions of that kind, but on vocal compositions, in which the clearness, simplicity, truth, and sweetness of expression, justly entitle him to supremacy over all his predecessors, and contemporary rivals; and to a niche in the temple of fame, among the great improvers of the art; as, if not the founder, the principal polisher of a style of composition both for the church and stage, which has been constantly cultivated by his successors; and which, at the distance of half a century from the short period in which he flourished, still reigns throughout Europe.” The learned historian, for this reason, justly considers the works of Pergolesi as forming a great sera in modern music.

He was a man of great acuteness, imagination, judgment, and learning, and thought equal to the production of any work; yet we have no original pieces of his, excepting the “Preface” above mentioned, “A Discourse upon the Tmjnortality of the Soul,” and a few letters to Patru. But he made French translations of many ancient writers, which were once admired for their elegance, purity, and chasteness of style. Among these are Tacitus, Lucian, Caesar, Thucydides, and Arrian; but he took too great liberties with the sense of his author, for the sake of imitating his manner, and producing something like an original. He is said to have succeeded best while he profited by the advice of Patru, Conrart, and Chapelain; and it is certain that those translations written in his latter days, vv^ien he had not that advantage, are inferior to the others. When he was asked, why he chose to be a translator, rather than an author, he answered, that “he was neither a divine nor lawyer, and consequently not qualified to compose pleadings or sermons that the world was filled withtreatises on politics that all discourses on morality were only so many repetitions of Plutarch and Seneca; and that, to serve one’s country, a man ought rather to translate valuable authors, than to write new books, which seldom contain any thing new.” The minister Colbert, judging him very capable of writing the “History of Louis XIV.” recommended him to that monarch; who however, upon being informed that Perrot was a protestant, said, that “he would not have an historian of a religion different from his own.” Perrot was a man of great talents in conversation, and said so many good things that Pelisson regretted there was not some one present to write down all he spoke.

The catalogue of the works of Petau affords an uncommon proof of diligence; for we are assured, that besides the labour of composing, compiling, &c. he transcribed every thing with his own hand for the press, and employed no amanuensis or reader to assist him. Among his works are: 1. “Synesii Dio, vel de ipsius vitae institute,” mentioned already as published in Morel’s edition of St. Chrysostom. 2. “Panegyricus Ludovico XIII. Francix et Navarrx regi, &c. in natalem diem,” &c. 1610, 12mo. 3. “De laudibus Henrici magni carmen,” &c. 1&10, 4. “Oratio de laudibus Henrici magni,” Rheims, 1611, 4to. 5. “Synesii Opera,” Paris, 1612 1633, 3 vols. folio. 6. “Julian! imperatoris orationes tres panrgyricaD,” Flexise (La Fieche), 1613, 8vo. 7. “Themistii Orationes septemdecim. Gr. Lat.” ibid. 1613, 8vo. 8. “Tragce iia, Carthaginienses,” ibid. 1614, 8vo, a tragedy in the manner of Seneca, which it was then the fashion to imitate. 9. “Pompa regia Ludovici XIII” &c. a collection of the complimentary verses on the royal visit to La Fieche, mentioned before, 1614, 4to. 10 “Nicephori Breviariuin Historicum,” Gr. et Lat.“Paris, 1616, 8vo. 11.” Themistii, cognomento Suadae, orationes novemdecim, Gr et Lat.“ibid. 1618, 4to. 12.” Soteria ad S. Genov-fam,“ibid. 1619, 4to, his votive poem to St. Genevieve. 13. Another, in praise of the same saint,” Panegyricus in S Genevefam,“ibid. 1619, 4to. 14.” D. Petavii Orationes,“ibid. 1620, 1622, 1624, 8vo. 15.” D. Petavii Opera Poetica,“ibid. 1621, 8vo, reprinted at least three times. 16.” Office de S. Genevieve,“ibid. 1621, 16mo. 17. Epiphanii Opera omnia,” ibid. 1622, 2 vols. folio, reprinted at Cologn 1682. In April following the publication of this work, Salmasius took occasion to attack Petau, in his edition of the “Pallio” of Tertullian, and certainly not in very respectful language. Petau’s biographer says he ought to have taken no notice of such an attack, as in that case his silence would have completely disconcerted Salmasius, a man who could not exist without a quarrel with some contemporary; or, at all events, Petau should have been content with a short answer to such an opponent. Perhaps Petau might have been pf this opinion, if he had not considered that Salmasius was a Protestant, and regarded by Protestants as the man who would one day supply the loss of Joseph Scaliger; and he was not therefore sorry to have this opportunity, not only to defend himself against Salmasius, but to attack him in his turn. He published, accordingly, 18. “Animadversionum liber,” under the fictitious name of Antonius Kerkoetius Aremoricus, and die fictitious place of “Rhedonis apud Yvonem Halecium,” i.e. “Parisiis, apud Sebast. Cramoisy,” 1622, 8vo. This brought on an angry controversy, in which Salmasius certainly had some advantages, from his superior knowledge of the manner of handling the weapons of controversy; and perhaps we may be permitted to say, from his having the, better cause to support. Petau’s pamphlets, on this casion, were entitled “Mastigophores,” and consisted of three, and a supplement, published in 162:5 and 1624. But we hasten to his more important chronological works, uhich, of all others, preserve his memory in our times: 19. “Opus de doctrina Temporum,” Paris, 1627, 2 vols. folio, reprinted, with additions from his own copy, Amst. 170:3, folio. 20. “Uranologion, sive systema variorum authorum, qui de sphaera ac sideribus, eorumque motibus Grasce commentati sunt,” ibid. 163O, folio,“intended as a supplement to his” Doctrina temporum“to which an additional volume was published, with dissertations from the Mss. of Petau and Sirmond, in 1703, folio. 21.” Tabulue Chronologicae Regum, Dynastarum, Urbium, &c. a mundo coridito, &c. &c.“ibid. 1628, on large sheets, and often reprinted: the best edition is that of Vesel, 1702. 22.” Rationarium Temporum,“ibid. 1633, 12mo. the best known and most useful of all his works, and long the standard book in all seminaries and private libraries, for chronology and history. It was consequently often reprinted, improved, and enlarged, not only by the author, but by various other editors. There are two editions, printed at Leyden in 1724 and 1745, 2 vols. 8vo, which are said to be the best. Besides these, and many other works of inferior importance enumerated by his biographer, Petau published a considerable number of theological pieces, which have sunk into oblivion, except perhaps his” Theologica dogmata,“Paris, 1G44, 5 vols. folio; reprinted more correctly at Antwerp, 1700, 3 vols. folio. Of this work, Bayle has observed, that Petavius did the Socinians great service, though unawares, and against his intentions and quotes the following passage from the” Lettres Choisies“of Mr. Simon” If there be any thing to censure in Petavius’s works, it is chiefly in the second tome of his “Dogmata Theologica,” in which he seems to favour the Arians. It is true, that he softened those passages in his preface; but as the body of the work continues entire, and the preface, which is an excellent piece, came afterwards, it has not entirely prevented the harm which that book is like to do at this time, when the new Unitarians boast, that father Petavius declared for them.“Baylo thinks he has resolved this, by informing us that Petavius’s original design, in the second volume of his” Dogmata Theologica,“was, to represent ingenuously the doctrine of the three first centuries. Having no particular system to defend, he did not disguise the opinions of the fathers; but acknowledged that some of them entertained false and absurd notions concerning the Trinity. All this, however, either from fear, or upon better consideration, he retracted, and published a” Preface,“in which he laboured solely to asseYt the orthodoxy of the fathers. The” Dogmata Theologica of Petavius,“says Gibbon,” is a work of incredible labour and compass: the volumes which relate solely to the incarnation (two folios of 837 pages) are divided into sixteen books: the first of history, the remainder of controversy and doctrine.“” The Jesuit’s learning,“adds our infidel historian,” is copious and correct: his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected: but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candour, as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause."

In 1680, 1681, Mr. Petty t published his “Miscellanea Parliamentaria,” 12mo; and other collections were left by him upon the subject of the law of parliament, which, after his death, were published under the title of “Jus Parliamentarium, or the ancient power, jurisdiction, rights, and liberties of the most high court of Parliament, revived and asserted,” 1739, fol. He also left a summary or table of the records kept in the Tower; some Mss. containing copies of records and law matters, relating chiefly to naval concerns; and other Mss. containing a great number of collections from records and other authentic materials, chiefly relating to the law and constitution of England, which are preserved in the Inner Temple library, and are much recommended to the notice of the English lawyer and historian, by Mr. Justice Barrington in his “Observations on the Statutes.”

, an ancient ecclesiastical historian, was born in Cappadocia, about the year 388, or as some say 368. He pursued his studies principally at Constantinople; but we have few particulars of his life, and no account of his death. He wrote an ecclesiastical history in twelve books, which begins with the controversy between Arius and Alexander, and ends about the year 425. As he was brought up in Arian principles, his history is not free from partiality; but there are many useful things in his writings relating to the antiquities of the church. We have only extant an abridgment of it in Photius, and some extracts taken out of Suidas and other authors. Jac. Gothofredus, a learned lawyer, first published them at Geneva, in 1643, 4to, with a Latin translation and large notes. Valesius, having reviewed this abridgment by the manuscripts, and corrected the text in several places, caused it to be printed with the other ecclesiastical historians, at Paris, in 1673, folio. It was afterwards reprinted at London, in 1720, when Reading republished Valesius’s edition, in three volumes, folio.

, a theologian and historian, born at Geneva in 1655, was ofa distinguished family, and went through his studies with success. He travelled into Holland and England, and then became a professor of theology in his native city, with a considerable reputation. He was invited to Leyden, but refused to leave his own country. From excess of application to his duties, he fell into a languid state, and died on the 9th of June, 1724, at the age of 69. He was a Protestant, of a mild and tolerant disposition, and a father to the poor. His principal works are, 1. “Theologia Christiana,” 3 vols. 4to, the best edition of which is that of 1721. 2. “Christian Morality,” Geneva, 1710, 8 vols. 12mo; a very excellent work. 3. “The History of the 12th and 13th Centuries,” intended as a continuation of that of Le Sueur; but the supplementary work is more esteemed than the original, 2 vols. 4to. 4. “Sermons.” 5. “Letters.” 6. “A Treatise against indifference in Religion,” 1716, 12mo. 7. Many tracts of morality and piety, among which that on “The Art of living and dying well,” Geneva, 1716, in 12mo, is particularly esteemed. The subject is the same, and the title nearly the same, as one by our countryman Taylor. 8. Several controversial tracts.

, an Italian historian and miscellaneous writer, was born at Ferrara in 1530, and prosecuted his studies with so much success, that at the age of twenty he obtained the professorship of rhetoric in his native city. Alphonsus II. who was then hereditary prince of Ferrara, having heard some of his lectures, conceived a high opinion of him, and when he succeeded his father, extended his friendship to Pigna in a manner calculated to raise ambition in him, and envy among his contemporaries. Pigna, however, while he set a proper value on his prince’s favours, studiously avoided every occasion of profiting by them, and refused every offer of preferment which was made, employing such time as he could spare from his attendance at court, on his studies. He died in 1575, in the forty-sixth year of his age, greatly lamented by the citizens of Ferrara, who had admired him as a favourite without pride, and a courtier without ambition. His chief work, as an historian, was his history of the house of Este, “Historia de' Principi di Este, in sino al 1476,” published at Ferrara, 1570, folio. This is a well- written account, but contains too much of the fabulous early history of that illustrious family, which was never judiciously investigated until Muratori and Leibnitz undertook the task. Pigna’s other works are, I. “11 Principe,” Venice, 1560, 8vo, in imitation of Machiavel’s Prince, but written upon sound principles, which, says one of his biographers with too much truth, is the reason why it is almost unknown. 2. “II duello, &c.” 1554, 4to. 3. “I Romanzi in quali della poesia e della vita d'Ariosto si tratta,” Venice, 1554, 4to. 4. “Carminum libri quatuor,” in a collection consisting likewise of the poems of Calcagnini and Ariosto, printed at Venice in 1553, 8vo.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

, so called, a learned Italian, and author of a “History of the Popes,” was born in 1421 at Piadena, in Latin Platina, a village between Cremona and Mantua; whence he took the name by which he is generally known. He first embraced a military life, which he followed for a considerable time but afterwards devoted himself to literature, and made a considerable progress in it. He went to Rome under Calixtus III. who was made pope in 1455 and procuring an introduction to cardinal Bessarion, he obtained some small benefices of pope Pius II. who succeeded Calixtus in 1458, and afterwards was appointed to an office which Pius II. created, called the college of apostolical abbreviators. But when Paul II. sue-‘ ceeded Pius in 1464, Platina’ s affairs took a very unfavourable turn. Paul hated him because he was the favourite of fris predecessor Pius, and removed all the abbreviators from their employments, by abolishing their places, notwithstanding some had purchased them with great sums of money. On this Platina ventured to complain to the pope, and most humbly besought him to order their cause to be judged by the auditors of the Rota. The pope was offended at the liberty, and gave him a very haughty repulse “Is it thus,” said he, looking at him sternly, “is it thus, that you summon us before your judges, as if you knew riot that all laws were centered in our breast Such is our decree they shall all go hence, whithersoever they please I am pope, and have a right to ratify or cancel the acts of others at pleasure.” These abbreviators, thus divested of their employments, used their utmost endeavours, for some days, to obtain audience of the pope, but were repulsed with contempt. Upon this, Platina wrote to him in bolder language “If you had a right to dispossess us, without a hearing, of the employments we lawfully purchased; we, on the other side, may surely be permitted to complain of the injustice we suffer, and the ignominy with which we are branded. As you have repulsed us so contumeliousjy, we will go to all the courts of princes, and intreat them to call a council; whose principal business shall be, to oblige you to shew cause, why you have divested us of our lawful possessions.” This letter being considered as an act of rebellion, the writer was imprisoned, and endured great hardships. At the end of four months he had his liberty, with orders not to leave Rome, and continued in quiet for some time; but afterwards, being suspected of a plot, was again imprisoned, and, with many others, put to the rack. The plot being found imaginary, the charge was turned to heresy, which also came to nothing; and Platina was set at liberty some time after. The pope then flattered him with a prospect of preferment, but died before he could perform his promises, if ever he meant to do so. On the accession, however, of Sixtus IV. to the pontificate, he recompensed Platina in some measure by appointing him in 1475, keeper of the Vatican library, which was established by this pope. It was a place of moderate income then, but was highly acceptable to Platina, who enjoyed it with great contentment until 1481, when he was snatched away by the plague. He bequeathed to Pomponius Laetus the house which he built on the Mons Quirinalis, with the laurel grove, out of which the poetical crowns were taken. He was the author of several works, the most considerable of which is, “De Vitis ac Gestis Summorum Pontificum” or, History of the Popes from St. Peter to Sixtus IV. to whom he dedicated it. This work is written with an elegance of style, and discovers powers of research and discrimination which were then unknown in biographical works. He seems always desirous of stating the truth, and does this with as much boldness as could be expected in that age. The best proof of this, perhaps, is that all the editions after 1500 were mutilated by the licensers of the press. The Account he gives of his sufferings under Paul II. has been objected to him as a breach of the impartiality to be observed by a historian but it was at the same time no inconsiderable proof of his courage. This work was first printed at Venice in 1479, folio, and reprinted once or twice before 1500. Platina wrote also, 2. “A History of Mantua,” in Latin, which was first published by Lambecius, with notes, at Vienna, 1675, in 4to. 3. “De Naturis rerum.” 4. “Epistolae ad diversos.” 5. “De honesta voluptate et valetutiine.” 6. “De falso et vero bono.” 7. “Contra amores.” 8. “De vera nobilitate.” 9. “De optimo cive.” 10.“Panegyricus in Bessarionem.” 11. “Oratio ad Paulum II.” 12. “De pace Italiae componenda et bello Turcico indicendo.” 13. “De flosculis lingua? Latin.” Sannazarius wrote an humorous epigram on the treatise “de honesta voluptate,” including directions for the kitchen, de Obsoniis, which Mr. Gresswell has. thus translated:

Desirous of making himself master of all the wisdom and learning which the age could furnish, Plato commenced his travels with visiting that part of Italy, called Magna Græcia, where he was instructed in all the mysteries of the Pythagorean system, the subtleties of which he afterwards too freely blended with the more simple doctrine of Socrates. He next visited Theodorus of Gyrene, and when under this master he found himself sufficiently instructed in the elements of mathematics, he determined to study astronomy, and other sciences, in Egypt, and that he might travel with safety, he assumed the character of a merchant. Wherever he came, he obtained information from the Egyptian priests concerning their astronomical observations and calculations; and it has been asserted, that Plato acquired in Egypt his opinions concerning the origin of the world, and learned the doctrines of transmigration, and the immortality of the soul: but it is more probable that he learned the latter doctrine from Socrates, and the former from Pythagoras. Nor, according to Brucker, is there more reason for thinking that he learned in Egypt, the doctrine of the Hebrews, and enriched his system from the sacred Scriptures, although the contrary has been maintained by several eminent Jewish and Christian writers, and was commonly received by the Christian fathers. As to the supposed agreement between the Mosaic and Platonic doctrines, that historian thinks that either the agreement is imaginary, or it consists in such particulars as might be easily discovered by the light of reason. After learning what distant countries could teach, Plato returned to Italy, to the Pythagorean school at Tarentum, where he endeavoured to improve his own system, by a mixture of the Pythagorean, as then taught by Archytas, TimsEus, and others. And afterwards, when he visited Sicily, he retained such an attachment to the Italic school, that, through the bounty of Dionysius, he purchased, at a vast price, several books, which contained the doctrine of Pythagoras, from Philolaus, one of his followers. In this way Plato accumulated his knowledge. His dialectics he borrowed from Euclid of Megara; the principles of natural philosophy he learned in the Eleatic school from Hermogenes and Cratylus: and combining these with the Pythagorean doctrine of natural causes, he framed from both his system of metaphysics. Mathematics and astronomy he was taught in the Cyrenaic school, and by the Egyptian priests. From Socrates he imbibed the pure principles of moral and political wisdom; but he afterwards obscured their simplicity by Pythagorean speculations.

, a great philosopher and historian of antiquity, who lived from the reign of Claudius to that of Adrian, was born at Chaeronea, a small city of Bceotia, in Greece, which had also been the birth-place of Pindar, but was far from partaking of the proverbial dulness of his country. Plutarch’s family was ancient in Chaeronea: his grandfather Lamprias was a man eminent for his learning, and a philosopher; and is often mentioned by Plutarch in his writings, as is also his father. Plutarch was initiated early in study, to which he was naturally inclined; and was placed under Ammonius an Egyptian, who, having taught philosophy with reputation at Alexandria, thence travelled into Greece, and settled at Athens. Under this master he made great advances in knowledge, but being more intent on things than words, he neglected the languages. The Roman language at that time was not only the language of 'Rome, but of Greece also; and much more used there than the French is now in England. Yet he was so far from regarding it then, that, as we learn from himself, he did not become conversant in it till the decline of life; and, though he is supposed to have resided in Rome near forty years, at different times, he never seems to have acquired a competent skill in it.

On the death of Henry VIII. in 1547, he endeavoured to renew his designs, in order, as his partial historian says, “to repair the breaches which Henry had made in the faith and discipline of the church.” On this occasion he solicited the pope’s assistance, and wrote to the privycouncil of England, partly soothing and partly threatening them with what the pope could t do; but all this had no effect, and the members of the privy-council refused to receive either the letter or him who brought it. The cardinal also drew up a treatise, and inscribed it to Edward VI. which contained an elaborate vindication of his conduct towards the late king, but it does not appear that it ever came into Edward’s hands. Pole therefore remained still attainted, and was one of the few excepted in the acts of grace which passed at the accession of the young king.

, an eminent Greek historian, was of Megalopolis, a city of Arcadia, and was the son of Lycortas, general of the Achaeans, who were then the most powerful republic in Greece. He was born in the fourth year of the 143d olympiad, or in the 548th year of the building of Rome, or about 203 years before Christ. When twentyfour years of age, the Achaeans sent him and his father Lycortas ambassadors to the king of Egypt; and the son had afterwards the same honour, when he was deputed to go to the Roman consul, who made war upon Perses, king of Macedon. In the consulships of Æmilius Paetus and Julius Pennus, a thousand Achaeans were ordered to Rome, as hostages, for the good behaviour of their countrymen who were suspected of designs against the Romans; and were there detained seventeen years. Polybius, who was one of them, and was then thirty-eight years of age, had great talents from nature, which were well cultivated by education; and his residence at Rome appears to have been of great advantage to him since he owed to it, not only the best part of his learning, but the important friendship he contracted with Scipio and Lselius and when the time of his detention expired, he accompanied Scipio into Africa. After this he was witness to the sack and destruc* tion of Corinth, and of the reduction of Achaia to tho condition of a Roman provinces Amidst these dreadful scenes, he displayed noble traits of patriotism and disinterestedness, which obtained for him so much credit, that he was entrusted with the care of settling the new form of government in the cities of Greece, which office he performed to the satisfaction both of the Romans and the Greeks. In all his journeys he amassed materials for his history, and took such observations as to render his descriptions very accurate. Although his chief object was the history of the Romans, whose language he had learned with great care, and the establishment of their empire, yet he had in his eye the general history of the times in which he lived and therefore he gave his work the name of “Catholic or Universal” nor was this at all inconsistent with his general purpose, there being scarcely any nations at that time in the known world, which had not some contest with, or dependence upon, the Romans. Of forty books which he composed, there remain but the first five entire; with an epitome of the twelve following, which is supposed to have been made by that great assertor of Roman liberty, Marcus Brutus. Brutus is said to have been so particularly fond of Polybius, that, even in the last and most unfortunate hours of his life, he amused himself not only in reading, but also in abridging his history. The space of time which this history includes, is fifty-three years, beginning, after two of introductory matter, at the third book.

How much this historian was valued by the ancients, appears by the number of statues erected to his honour, and Cicero, Strabo, Josephus, Plutarch, and others, have spoken, of him in terms of the highest applause. Livy however has been censured for calling him only auctor haudquaquam spernendus, “an author by no means to be despised,” after he had borrowed very largely from him but Casaubon and Vossius think that according to the usual phraseology of the ancients, Livy’s expression implies a rery high eulogium. Polybius’s style is by no means elegant, but the accuracy and fidelity of his narrative render his history a work of great importance. There is no historian among the ancients, from whom more is to be learned of the events which he professes to narrate, and it is much to be lamented that his history has not descended to us in a perfect state. We have only the Brst five books entire, and an abridgment of the twelve following, with some excerpta or extracts of this history, formerly made by Constantinus Forphyrogenitus which were first published in Greek by Ursinus in 1582, and in Greek and Latin by the learned Henry Valesius in 1634. Poly bi us lived to a great age; but concerning the particulars of his life much eannot be collected. He was highly honoured by the friendship of Scipio who, when the other hostages from Achaia were distributed through the cities of Italy, obtained leave by his interest for Polybius to live at Rome. He died at eighty-two years of age, of an illness occasioned by a fall from his horse.

, a learned traveller and geographer, was born probably about 1570, and entered of Gonvil and Caius college, Cambridge, in 1587, where he took the degrees in arts. The time of his leaving the university does not appear; but in 1600, we find him mentioned by Hackluyt, with great respect, in the dedication to secretary Cecil, of the third volume of his voyages“. He appears to have been in some measure a pupil of Hackluyt’s, or at least caught from him a love for cosmography and foreign history, and published in the same year, 1600, what he calls the” blossoms of his labours,“namely,” A Geographical History of Africa," translated from Leo Africanus, Lond. 4to. The reputation of his learning, and his skill in the modern languages, not very usual' among the scholars of that age, soon brought him acquainted with his learned contemporaries, and in a visit to Oxford in 1610, he was incorporated M. A. About the same time he appears to have been a member of parliament. In Feb. 1612, he was at Paris, where he delivered to Thuanus, ten books of the ms commentaries of the reign of queen Elizabeth, sent over by sir Robert Cotton for the use of that historian. From his correspondence it appears that he was at various parts of the Continent before 16 19, when he was appointed secretary to the colony of Virginia, in which office he remained until Nov. 1621, when he returned to England. Being however appointed, Oct. 24, 1623, by the privycouncil of England, one of the commissioners to inquire into the state of Virginia, he went thither again in that character, but came back to his own country in the year following, from that time he appears from his letters, to have resided chiefly at London, for the rest of his life, the period of which cannot be exactly ascertained, but must be antecedent to the month of Oct. 1635, as he is mentioned as deceased in a letter of Mr. George Gerrards, of the third of that month. His letters, in the British Museum, addressed to Mr. Joseph Mead, sir Thomas Puckering, and others, will perhaps be thought inferior to none in the historical series, for the variety and extent of the information contained in them, respecting the affairs of Great Britain.

, a learned English divine, was born at Padstow, in Cornwall, May 3, 1648. He was the son of Edmund Prideaux, esq. of an ancient and honourable family in that county, and was equally well descended by his mother, the daughter of John Moyle, esq. of Bake, in Cornwall. After some elementary education at Liskard and Bodmin, he was placed under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1668 admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, by dean Fell. His attainments here must have distinguished him very early: for we find that in 1672, when he took his bachelor’s degree, Dr. Fell employed him to add some notes to an edition of Florus, then printing at the university press: and soon after, he was requested to be the editor of Malela, a Greek historian, from a ms. in the Bodleian library but having represented this as a work not worth the printing, being fabulous and trifling, the design was laid aside, until Dr. Hody, who was of a different opinion, undertook the task. Mr. Prideaux, about the same time, was employed in giving a history of the Arundelian marbles, with a comment, which was published in May 1676, under the title *' Marmora Oxoniensia,“folio. Such a work was well calculated to advance his reputation abroad, as well as at home; and there was such a demand for it, that within a few years it could not be procured but at a very high price. It suffered, however, very much from the carelessness and neglect of a Mr. Bennet, then corrector to the university press, and contained so many typographical errors, that Mr. Prideaux never could speak of it with complacency. A more correct edition was published by Maittaire, in 1732. In 1675 Mr. Prideaux took his degree of M. A. Having, by order, presented one of the copies of the” Marmora“to the lord chancellor Finch, this introduced him to his lordship’s patronage, who soon after placed one of his sons under him, as tutor at Christ Church and in 1679 presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s, in the suburb of Oxford, where he officiated for several years. The same year he published two tracts out of Maimonides in Hebrew, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title ec De Jure pauperis et peregrini apud Judeos.” This he did in consequence of having been appointed Dr. Busby’s Hebrew lecturer in Christ Church, and with a view to teach students the rabbinical dialect, and to read it without points. In 1681, the lord chancellor Finch, then earl of Nottingham, presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of- Norwich. In Nov. 1682, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, and on the death of lord Nottingham, found another patron in his successor sir Francis North; who, in February of the following year, gave him the rectory of Bladen, with Woodstock chapelry, in Oxfordshire; and as Mr. Prideaux had been appointed librarian to Christ Church, to which no salary belongs, he was allowed to hold this living with his student’s place.

, an ancient Greek historian of the sixth century, was born at Caesarea in Palestine, and went thence to Constantinople in the time of the emperor Anastasius whose esteem he obtained, as well as that of Justin the first, and Justinian. His profession was that of a rhetorician and pleader of causes. He was advanced to be secretary to Belisarius, and attended that renowned general in the wars of Persia, Africa, and Italy. He afterwards was admitted into the senate, and became prefect or governor of the city gt Constantinople; where he seems to have died, somewhat above sixty, about the year 560. His history contains eight books; two, of the Persian war, which are epitomized by Photius, in the sixty-third chapter of his “Bibliotheca;” two, of the wars of the Vandals; and four, of that of the Goths; of all which there is a kind of abridgment, in the preface of Agathias, who began his history where Procopius left off. Besides these eight books, Suidas mentions a ninth, which comprehends matters not before published, and is therefore called his avExSbra, or indita. Vossius thought that this book was lost but it has since been published, and gone through many editions. Many learned men have been of opinion, that this is a spurious work, and falsely ascribed to Procopius; and cannot be persuaded, that he, who in the eight books represented Justinian, Theodora, and Belisarius, in a very advantageous light, should in this ninth have made such a collection of particulars as amounts to an invective against them and Le Vayer was so sensibly affected with this argument, that he declares all Procopius’ s history to be ridiculous, if ever so little credit be given to the calumnies of this piece. Fabricius, however, sees no reason, why this secret history tnayhot have been written by Procopius; and he produces several examples, and that of Cicero amongst them, to shew that nothing has been more usual, than fur writers to take greater liberties in their private accounts, than they can venture to introduce in what was designed for the public. There is another work of Procopius, still extant, entitled “KTi<7/xaT<z, sive de sedificiisconditis vel restauratis auspicio Justiniani Imperatoris Hbri vi.” which, with his eight books of history, were first renewed in Greek by Hoeschelius in 1607 for the book of anecdotes, though published in 1624, was not added to these, till the edition of Paris, 1662, in folio, when they were all accompanied with Latin versions.

The learned have been much divided, nor are they yet agreed, about the religion of Procopius some contending that he was an Heathen, some that he was a Christian, and some that he was hoth Heathen and Christian: of which last opinion was the learned Cave. Le Vayer declares for the Paganism of Procopius, and quotes the following passage from his first book of the “Wars of the Goths,” which, he says, is sufficient to undeceive those who considered him as a Christian historian. “I will not trouble myself,” says he, speaking of the different opinions of Christians, “to relate the subject of such controversies, although it is not unknown to rne because I hold it a vain desire to comprehend the divine nature, and understand what God is. Human wit knows not the things here below; how then can it be satisfied in the search after divinity I omit therefore such vain matter, and which only the credulity of man causes to he respected; content with acknowledging, that there is one God full of bounty, who governs us, and whose power stretches over the universe. Let every one therefore believe what he thinks fit, whether he be a priest and tied to divine worship, or a man of a private and secular condition.” Fabricius sees nothing in this inconsistent with the soundness of Christian belief, and therefore is not induced by this declaration, which appeared to Le Vayer, and other learned men, to decide against Procopius’s Christianity. This, however, whatever the real case may be, seems to have been allowed on all sides, that Procopius was at least a Christian by name and profession; and that, if his private persuasion was not with Christians, he conformed to the public worship, in order to be well with the emperor Justinian.

As an historian, he deserves an attentive reading, having written of things which he knew with great exactness. Suidas, after he had given him the surname of Illustrious, calls him rhetorician and sophister as perhaps he seems to have been too much for an historian. He is copious but his copiousness is rather Asiatic than Athenian, and has in it more of superfluity than true ornament. It may not be improper to mention, that Grotius made a Latin version of Procopius’s two books of the wars of the Vandals, and of the four books of the wars with the Goths a good edition of which was published at Amsterdam in 1655, 8vo.

, of Lucca, an ecclesiastical historian in the fourteenth century, was descended from a noble family, from whom he derived the name of “Bartholomew Fiadoni,” but took that of Ptolemy when he entered into the order of St. Dominic. He became superior of the monastery both at Lucca and Florence. He was afterwards selected by pope John XXII. as his confessor, and in 1318 he was tnade bishop of Torcello, under the patriarchate of Venice. This prelate died in 1327. He was the first of the Italians who studied and wrote on church history. His “Annales” extend from 1060 to 1303, and was published at Lyons in 1619. His largest work was “Historiae Ecclesiastic,” in twenty-four books, commencing with the birth of Jesus Christ, and brought down to 1313. This, after remaining long in ms. was at length published at Milan in 1727, by Muratori, in his grand collection, entitled “Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.”

, an eminent German civilian and historian, was born in 1631 at Flaeh, a little village near Chemnitz, in Upper Saxony, of which village his father, the descendant of a Lutheran family, Elias Puffendorf, was minister. He discovered an early propensity to letters, when at the provincial school at Grimm, and at a proper age was sent to Leipsic, where he was supported by the generosity of a Saxon nobleman, who was pleased with his promising talents, his father’s circumstances not being equal to the expence. His fajher designed him for the ministry, and directed him to apply himself to divinity; but his inclination led his thoughts to the public law, which, in Germany, consists of the knowledge of the rights of the empire over the states and princes of which it is composed, and of those of the princes and states with respect to each other. He considered this study as a proper method of advancing in some of the courts of Germany, where the. several princes who compose the Germanic body, were accustomed to have no other ministers of state than men of learning, whom they styled counsellors, and whose principal study was the public law of Germany. As these posts were not venal, and no other recommendation necessary to obtain them but real and distinguished merit, Puffendorf resolved to qualify himself for the honours to which he aspired. After he had resided some time at Leipsic, he left that city, and went to Jena, where he joined mathematics and the Cartesian philosophy to the study of the law. He returned to Leipsic in 1658, with a view of seeking an employment fit for him. One of his brothers, named Isaiah, who had been some time in the service of the king of Sweden, and was afterwards his chancellor in the duchies of Bremen and Werden, then wrote to him, and advised him not to fix in his own country, but after his example to seek his fortune elsewhere. In compliance with this advice, he accepted the place of governor to the son of Mr. Coyet, a Swedish nobleman, who was then ambassador from the king of Sweden at the court of Denmark. For this purpose he went to Copenhagen, but the war being renewed some time after between Denmark and Sweden, he was seized with the whole family of the ambassador, who himself escaped in consequence of having a few days before taken a tour into Sweden.

, a learned English divine, and compiler of a valuable collection of voyages, was born at Thaxstead in Essex in 1577, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1600, and afterwards that of bachelor of divinity. Ill 1604 he was instituted to the vicarage of Eastwood in Essex; but, leaving the cure of it to his brother, went and lived in London, the better to carry on the great work he had undertaken. He published the first volume in 1613, and the fifth in 1625, under this title, “Purchas his Pil^ grimage, or Relations of the World, and the Religions observed in all ages and places discovered from the Creation unto this present.” In 1615, he was incorporated at Oxford, as he stood at Cambridge, bachelor of divinity; and a little before, had been collated to the rectory of St. Martin’s Ltidgate, in London. He was chaplain to Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and had also the promise of a deanery from Charles I. which he did not live to enjoy. His pilgrimages, and the learned Hackluyt’s Voyages, led the way to all other collections of that kind; and have been, justly valued and esteemed. Boissard, a learned foreigner, has given a great character of Purchas; he styles him “a man exquisitely skilled in languages, and all arts divine and human; a very great philosopher, historian, and divine; a faithful presbyter of the church of England; very famous for many excellent writings, and especially for his vast volumes of the East and West Indies, written in his native tongue.” His other works are, “Purchas his Pilgrim or Microcosmos, or The Historie of Man,” 1627, 8vo, a series of meditations upon man at all ages and in all stations, founded on Psalm xxxix. 5. In the address to the reader are a few particulars of himself and family, which we have extracted. He published also “The King’s Tower and Triumphal Arch of London,” 1623, 8vo; and “A Funeral Sermon on Psalm xxx. 5.” is attributed to him, if.it be not mistaken for the Microcosmos. His son, Samuel, published “A Theatre to Political flying Insects,” 1657, 4to. His Voyages now sell at a vast price.