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

By this wise and just act, all Nash’s future hopes of succeeding by the tables were blown up. From that time, we find him involved in continual disputes, every day calumniated with some new slander, and continually endeavouring to obviate its effects. Nature had by no means formed him for a beau garq on: his person was clumsy, too large, and awkward, and his features harsh, strong, and peculiarly irregular; yet even with those disadvantages he made love, became an universal admirer of the sex, and was universally admired. He was possessed, at least, of some requisites of a lover. He had assiduity, flattery, fine clothes, and as much wit as the ladies he addressed. Wit, flattery, and fine clothes, he used to say, were enough to debauch a nunnery. He did not long continue an universal gallant but,in the earlier years of his reign, entirely gave up his endeavours to deceive the sex, in order to become the honest protector of their innocence, the guardian of their reputation, and a friend to their virtue. This was a character he bore for many years, and supported it with integrity, assiduity, and success; and he not only took care, during his administration, to protect the ladies from the insults of our sex, but to guard them from the slanders of each other. He, in the first place, prevented any animosities that might arise from place and precedence, by being previously acquainted with the rank and quality of almost every family in the British dominions. He endeavoured to render scandal odious, by marking it as the result of envy and folly united. Whatever might have been his other excellences, there was one in which few exceeded him, his extensive humanity. None felt pity more strongly, and none made greater efforts to relieve distress. “If we were,” says his biographer, “to name any reigning and fashionable virtue in the present age, it should be charity. We know not whether it may not be spreading the influence of Nash too widely, to say, that he was one of the principal causes of introducing this noble v emulation among the rich; but certain it is, no private man ever relieved the distresses of so many as he.” Before gaming was suppressed, and in the meridian of his life and fortune, his benefactions were generally found to equal his other expences. The money he got without pain, he gave away without reluctance; and, when unable to relieve a wretch who sued for assistance, he has been often seen to shed tears. A gentleman of broken fortune, one day standing behind his chair, as he was playing a game of piquet for 200l. and observing with what indifference he won the money, could not avoid whispering these words to another who stood by, “Heavens! how happy would all that money make me!” Nash, overhearing him, clapped the money into his hand, and cried, “Go, and be happy.” In the severe winter of 1739, his charity was great, useful, and extensive. He frequently, at that season of calamity, entered the houses of the poor, whom he thought too proud to beg, and generously relieved them. But of all the instances of Nash’s bounty, none does him more real honour, than the pains he took in establishing an hospital at Bath; in which benefaction, however, Dr. Oliver had a great share. This was one of those wellguided charities, dictated by reason, and supported by prudence, chiefly by the means of Dr. Oliver and Mr. Nash; but not without the assistance of Mr. Allen, who gave them the stones for building, and other benefactions. As Nash grew old, he grew insolent, and seemed not aware of the pain his attempts to be a wit gave others. He grew peevish and fretful; and they, who only saw the remnant of a man, severely returned that laughter upon him, which he had once lavished upon others. Poor Nash was no longer the gay, thoughtless, idly industrious creature he once was; he now forgot how to supply new modes of entertainment, and became too rigid to wind with ease through the vicissitudes of fashion. The evening of his life began to grow cloudy. His fortune was gone, and nothing but poverty lay in prospect. He now began to want that charity, which he had never refused to any; and to find, that a life of dissipation and gaiety is ever terminated by misery and regret. He was now past the power of giving or receiving pleasure, for he was poor, old, and peevish; yet still he was incapable of turning from his former manner of life to pursue happiness. An old man thus striving after pleasure is indeed an object of pity; but a man at once old and poor, running on in this pursuit, might excite astonishment.

In domestic life, among his servants and dependants, where no gloss was required to colour his sentiments and disposition, nor any ma^k necessary to conceal his foibles, he was ever fond of promoting the interests of his servants and dependants, and making them happy. In his own house, no man was perhaps more regular, cheerful, and beneficent. His table was always free to those who sought his friendship, or wanted a dinner. As his thoughts were entirely employed in the affairs of his government, he was seldom at home but at the time of eating or of rest. His table was well served, but his entertainment consisted principally of plain dishes. He generally arose early in the morning, being seldom in bed after five; and, to avoid disturbing the family, and depriving his servants of their rest, he had the fire laid after he was in bed, and, in the morning, lighted it himself, and sat down to read some of his few, but well-chosen books. His generosity and charity in private life, though not so conspicuous, was as great as that in public, and indeed far more considerable than his little income would admit of. Such is nearly the account given of this singular character in the preceding editions of this Dictionary, the omission of which might perhaps be felt by some of our readers, while others may justly doubt if the life of such a man has fair claims on our attention. It contains, however, some portion of amusement, and some of moral tendency. Our account is a very brief abridgment of the Life of Nash, published by Goldsmith, who, it has been observed, tortured his genius to give substance to inanity, and strained to describe the gaudy hue of a butterfly, the glittering tinsel of a beau, the sentiments of a man devoid of all reflection, and the principles of an idler, whose walk of life never transgressed the eternal circle of gallantry, gambling, and the insipid round of fashionable dissipation. This account, however, is perhaps not more a satire on Nash, than on the age in which he lived.

He died either in 1600 or 1601; for he published one of his pamphlets in 1599, and he is spoken of as dead in an old comedy, called “The Return from Parnassus,” which was written in 1602. But before 1600, he seems to have altered the course of his life, and to have become a penitent. In a pamphlet, entitled “Christ’s Tears over Jerusalem,” printed before the end of the sixteenth century, he says, in a dedication to lady Elizabeth Gary, “A hundred unfortunate farewels to fantasticall satirisme. In those vaines heretofore I mis-spent my spirit, and prodigally conspired against good houres. Nothing is there now so much in my vowes as to be at peace with all men, and make submissive amends where I have most displeased. Again. To a little more wit have my increasing yeeres reclaimed mee then I had before: those that have beene perverted by any of my workes, let them reade this, and it shall thrice more benefit them. The autumne I imitate, in sheading my leaves with the trees, and so doth the peacock shead his taile,” &c.

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.

, a learned rabbi, who flourished in the fifteenth century, was the first Jew who compiled a Hebrew concordance to the bible, principally, as he allowed, from Latin concordances. It was entitled “Light to the Path,” or “Meir Netib,” and was first printed at Venice in 1524, reprinted afterwards in a more correct state, with a Talmudical index, at Basil, in 1581, and at Rome, by Calasio, in 1622, in four volumes folio. Buxtorf the elder published at Basil in 1632 another, and the best edition; after which it was edited by Mr. Romaine and his coadjutors, as we have noticed in our account of Calasio. When Nathan died is not specified. He was employed on his concordance from 1438 to 1448.

While at Padua he lost his father, which obliged him to return to Paris to settle his affairs. In 1628, the faculty of medicine chose him to make the ordinary harangues at the admission of licentiates, which he performed entirely to their satisfaction. One of these, in Latin, on the origin and dignity of the medical school at Paris, was printed there in 1628, in octavo. He was then recommended by one of his friends to cardinal Bagni, who appointed him his librarian and Latin secretary. He took him also to Rome in 1631, and Naud had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with the celebrated Peiresc, as the cardinal travelled by the way of Beaugensier, on purpose to see his old friend, who complimented him very warmly on having acquired for a librarian a young man of Naude’s extensive knowledge of books. While on this journey, Naude went to Padua, where, in 1633, he received the degree of doctor of philosophy and medicine, in order to support the character of physician to Louis XIII. with which he had been honoured. On the death of cardinal Bagni, in 1640, he intended to return to France, but had so many liberal offers to remain in Italy, that he changed his mincl, and determined to attach himself to cardinal Barberini. There is much difference of dates amongst his biographers respecting his return from Paris. All we can decide is, that he acted there as librarian to cardinal Mazarine, and that he collected for him a library of 40,OO0 volumes, the greatest that had then appeared in France. But the cardinal died in 1642, and he consequently could not have long been in his service. Perhaps he was employed to make purchases for this library when in Italy, &c. The cardinal appears not to have rewarded him with much liberality, and in 1648 we find him complaining of being neglected. He had, however, a greater mortification to undergo in 1652, when this fine collection was sold by order of the parliament. He is said to have been greatly irritated on this occasion, and bought all the medical books it contained for 3500 livres Isaac Vossius now recommended him to Christina queen of Sweden, with whom he resided a few months as librarian, or rather to fill up that station in the absence of Vossius, who was at this time in disgrace. Isiaude, however, neither liked the employment nor the people, and took an early opportunity to give in his resignation; on which occasion the queen, and some other persons of rank, testified their regard for him by various presents. The fatigue of his journey on returning brought on a fever, which obliged him to stop at Abbeville, where he died July 29, 1653. Naude was a man of great learning, and in his private conduct, correct, prudent, and friendly. His sentiments, as we have noticed, were on some subjects, very liberal, but on others he deserves less praise. While he played the freethinker so far as to despise some parts of the belief of his church, he could gravely vindicate the massacres of St. Bartholomew, as a measure of political expedience. His works are very numerous. To the few already mentioned we may add, 1. “Le Marfore, ou Discours contre les libelles.” Paris, 1620, 8vo. 2. “Instruction & la France sur la verit de l'histoire des freres de la Rose-croix,” ibid. 1623, 8vo. The Rosecrucians he considers as impostors. 3. “Addition a Thistoire de Louis XI.” ibid. 1630. 4. “Consideration politique sur les coups d'Etat, par G. N. P.” Rome, (i. e. Paris), 1639, 4to. It is in this work he vindicates the massacre of St. Bartholomew; but he appears to have published it with great caution, and it is said that this first edition consisted of only twelve copies. It was, however, reprinted in 1667, 1673, and in 1752, 3 vols. 12mo, with notes and reflections by Louis du May. 5. “Bibliographia Politica,” Leyden, 1642, 16mo, a learned work, but not very correct. 6. “Hieronymi Cardani vita,” Paris, 1643, 8vo. 6. “Jugement de tout ce qui a ete imprim6 contre le cardinal Mazarin depuis Jan. 6, jusqu'au 1 Avril, 1649,” Paris, 1641, 4to. This curious work, which is of great rarity, is sometimes called “Mascurat,” and consists of a dialogue between St. Ange, a librarian, L e. Naude, and Mascurat, a printer, i. e. Camusat. 7. “Avis a Nosseigneurs du pariement sur la vente de la Bibliotheque du cardinal Mazarin,” 1G52, 4to. 8. “Nundaeana et Patiniana,” Paris, 1701, in which are many of his sentiments, and some particulars of his history.

In 1515, he was nominated by the senate of Venice historiographer of iiis native country, and was at that time deemed the most elegant Latin writer that Italy could boast. He appears however to have been so fastidious as to be rarely satisfied with any thing he wrote, and is supposed to have destroyed ten books of the history of Venice a few hours before his death. Many of his poems shared the same fate, either because they fell short of that standard of excellence which he had formed in his own mind, or had been composed after models which he deemed illchosen. If he could be thus severe to himself, we cannot wonder that he should be equally so to others. It is said, that he every year burnt a copy of Martial, as a corrupter of that pure taste which distinguished the writers of the Augustan age. Navagero’s Latin poems are how consequently few in number, but sufficient to justify the character bestowed by his countrymen, and the esteem in which they held him. They were printed in 1530, under the title “Andreas Naugerii Patricii Veneti Orationes duse, Carminaque nonnulla,” Venice, folio. Considerable additions were made by Vulpius, although improperly called “opera omnia;” and printed at Padua, in quarto, 1718.

Notwithstanding the prohibition of implements of writing, Nayler found means to procure them in his confinement, and wrote many things condemning his past conduct. The following^ addressed to his friends, the Quakers, is an extract of one of them: “Dear brethren, my heart is broken this day for the offence that I have occasioned to God’s truth and people, and especially to you, who in dear love followed me, seeking me in faithfulness to God, which I rejected, being bound wherein I could not come forth, till God’s hand brought me, to whose love I now confess. And, I beseech you, forgive wherein I evil requited your love in that day. 'God knows my sorrow for it, since I see it, that ever I should offend that of God in any, or reject his counsel and I greatly fear farther to offend, or do amiss, whereby the innocent truth, or people of God, should suffer, or that I should disobey therein.”

He was confined about two years; and after he was set at liberty he went to Bristol, where, in a public meeting, he made confession of his offence and fall, so as to draw tears from most of those who were present: and, restoration to humility of mind and soundness of judgment being apparent in him, he was restored to the esteem and fellowship of his friends. He quitted London finally in 1660, intending to return to his wife and children at Wakefield; but was found by a countryman one evening in a field near Holm and King’s Rippon, in Huntingdonshire, having been (as was said) robbed, and left bound. He was taken to Holm, and his cloaths shifted, on which he said, “You have refreshed my body; the Lord refresh your souls:” not long after which he died in peace, and his remains were interred inn King’s Rippon, in a burying-ground belonging to Thomas Parnel, a physician there. About two hours before his close, he spoke these words: “There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thoughts to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it; for, its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love, unfeigned; and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, f though none else regard it, or can own its life. It’s conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it: nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for, with the world’s joy, it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken: I have fellowship therein with them, who lived in dens and desolate places, in the earth; who through death obtained this resurrection, and eternal holy life.” Nayler’s writings were collected into an octavo volume, printed in 1716, which may still occasionally be found.

, an Oxford divine, was born at Yeate, in Gloucestershire, in 1519, and was educated under the care of his uncle Alexander Belsire, who was afterwards first president of St. John’s college, at Winchester school. From this he was removed to New college, Oxford, in 1538, and admitted fellow in 1540. He also took his degree of M. A. and six years afterwards was admitted into holy orders. He was reckoned an able divine, but was most noted for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, on which account sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John’s college, encouraged him by a yearly pension often pounds. His adherence to the popish religion induced him to go to the university of Paris, during king Edward the Sixth’s reign, where he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. On his return during Mary’s reign, he held the rectory of Thenford in Northamptonshire, and became chaplain to bishop Bonner but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, according to Dodd, he suffered himself to be deprived of his spiritualities, retired to Oxford, and entered himself a commoner in Hart-hall. He had not been long here before he professed conformity to the newly-established religion, and in 1559 was appointed Hebrew professor of the foundation of Henry VIII. in which office he remained until 1569. When first appointed he built lodgings opposite Hart-hall, joining to the westend of New college cloister, which were for some time known by the name of Neal’s lodgings. During queen Elizabeth’s visit to the university in 1566, he presented to her majesty, a ms. now in the British Museum, entitled “Rabbi Davidis Kimhi commentarii super Hoseam, Joellem, Amos, Abdiam, Jonam, Micheam, Nahum, Habacuc, et Sophonian; Latine redditi per Thomam Nelum, Heb. linguae profess. Oxonii; et R, Elizabethse inscripti.” He presented also to her majesty a little book of Latin verses, containing the description of the colleges, halls, &c.; and a few days after exhibited a map of Oxford, with small views very neatly drawn with a pen by Bereblock. These views, with the verses, were published by Hearne at the end of “Dodwell de parma equestri.” The verses are in the form of a dialogue between the queen and the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the university, and are not wanting in that species of pedantic flattery so frequently offered to her majesty. Neal, however, was never a conformist irr his heart, and in 1569 either resigned, or being known to be a Roman catholic, was ejected from his professorship, and then retired to the village of Cassington near Oxford, where he lived a private and studious life. Wood can trace him no further, but Dodd says that he was frequently disturbed while at Cassington on account of his religion, and being often obliged to conceal, or absent himself, went abroad. The records of Doway mention that one Thomas Neal, an ancient clergyman, who had suffered much in prison in England, arrived there June 1, 1578, and returned again to England January 7, 1580. How long he lived afterwards is uncertain. He was certainly alive in 1590, as appears by an inscription he wrote for himself to be put upon his tomb-stone in Cassington church, which also states that he was then seventy-one years old. In the British Museum, among the royal Mss. is another ms. of his, entitled “Rabbinicae qusedam Observationes ex praedictis commentariis.” Wood speaks of one of his names, of Yeate in Gloucestershire, who dying in 1590, his widow had letters of administration granted, and adds, “whether it be meant of our author I cannot justly say, because I could never learn that he was married.” But nothing can be more improbable than the marriage of -a man who had suffered so much for a religion that prohibits the marriage of the clergy, and who was so inveterate against the reformed religion, that we are told the fable of the Nag’s-head ordination was first propagated by him.

From his works he appears to have deserved the high character he enjoyed during his life-time, and which some critics of modern times have revived. He was one of the very few in those days who turned their thoughts to the history of literature. His first publication was “Erotema Grascae Linguae, cum proefatione Philippi Melanchthonis de utilitate Grsecae linguse,” Basil, 1553, and 1565, 8vo. In a subsequent edition Neander gives a list of the works he had published, or which he had projected, and among the latter was an universal history of authors, “Pandectae variorum auctorum et scriptorum.” From the sketch he had given of the proposed contents of this work, there is great reason to regret that he did not complete it; in the second edition of his “Erotemata” he has given a specimen of what he could have done, in a dissertation on ancient libraries, on books that are lost, and on the libraries of his own time which contained the most valuable Mss. and an account of the principal Greek and Latin authors, whose works have been published, with a minuteness of description which would have reflected credit on a modern bibliographer. The last edition of his “Erotemata” was edited at Leipsic in 1589, 8vo, by his disciple, John Volland. Neander’s other works are, 2. “Graecae Linguae Tabulae,” Basil, 1564, and Wittemberg, 1581, 8vo. 3. “Linguae Hebreae Erotemata, cum veterurn Rabbinorurn testimoniis de Christo, apophthegmatibus veterum Hebreeorum et notitia de Talmude, Cabbala, &c.” Basil, 1556, 8vo, often reprinted. The preface to this work is on the same plan with that to the “Erotemata Graecae Linguae,” containing notices of the most eminent Oriental scholars, the writings of the rabbins, the editions of the Bible, &c. 4. “Aristologia Pindarica Graeco-Latina, et Sententiae novem Lyricorum,” Basil, 1556, 8vo, with prolegomena on the life of Pindar, the Greek games, &c. 5. “Aristologia GraecoLatina Euripidis; argumenta quoque singulis tragcediis praemissa sunt,” ibid. 1559, 4to. 6. “Anthologicum Graeco-Latinum,” ibid. 1556, 8vo. This is a collection of sentences from Hesiod, Theognes, and other ancient poets, with three books of similar extracts from Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, &c. but is by no means, as some bibliographers have called it, a new edition of the Greek Anthology. 7. “Gnomonologia Graeco-Latina, sive insigniores sententiae philosophorum, poetarum, oratorum, et historicorum, ex magno Anthologio Joannis Stobaei excerptae, et in locos supra bis centum digests,” ibid. 1558, 8vo. 8. “Opus aureum et Scholasticum,” Leipsic, 1577, or, according to Fabricius, 1575, a collection somewhat like the former, but with some entire pieces, as the poem of Comthus on the rape of Helen, that of Tryphiodorus on the destruction of Troy, and three books of Quintus Calaber, which last are translated into Latin prose by Lawrence Rhodoman, one of Neander’s pupils. 9. “Sententiae Theologicae selectiores, Græco-Latinæ,” Basil, 1557, 8vo. 10. “Catechesis parva Martini Lutheri Graeco-Latina,” &c. ibid. 1564­and 1567, 8vo. 11. “Loci communes Philosophic! Graeci,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo, a work by Volland, above-mentioned, with notes by Neander. 12. “Gnomonologia Latina ex omnibus Latinis vetustis ac probatis autoribus, recentioribus etiam aliquot, in locos communes digesta,” Leipsic, 1581, and 1590, 8vo. 13. “Phraseologia Isocratis GraecoLatina,” Basil, 1558, 8vo. 14. “Joannis Vollandi de re Poetica Graecorum libri quatuor, e noutionibus et bibliotheca Mich. Neandri collecti,” Leipsic, 1582, 1592, ancl 1613, 8vo. 15. “Argonautica, Thebaica, Troica, Ilias parva; poematia Graeca anonymi (Laur. Rhodomani) primum edita cum argumentis a Mich. Neandro,” Leipsic, 1588, 8vo. Some other works have been attributed to Neander, on less certain authority, which are mentioned by Fabricius and Baillet; and more ample information respecting him may probably be found in a work which we have not seen, a life of him by Volborth, in German, published at Gottingen in 1777. There flourished about the same time with our author, a physician of the same names, who was born in 1529, and died in 1581, whose forgotten works, however, cannot easily be mistaken for those of the learned Greek professor.

, who flourished in the twelfth century, was probably born, and certainly educated at St. Alban’s abbey, of which period of his life he speaks with pleasing recollection in his poem “De Laude sapientiae Divinae.” He completed his education at Paris, and took the order of St. Augustine. He became the friend, associate, and correspondent of Peter of Blois, or Petrus Blesensis, and was afterwards abbot of Cirencester, in which office he died in 1217. He was much attached to the studious repose of the monastic life, yet he frequently travelled into Italy. His compositions are various, and, as Mr. Warton observes, crowd the department of Mss. in our public libraries. He has left numerous treatises of divinity, philosophy, and morality, and was also a poet, a philologist, and a grammarian. He wrote a tract on the mythology of the ancient poets, Esopian fables, and a system of 'grammar and rhetoric. Mr. Warton, who examined his elegiac poem “De vita motiastica,” says it contains some finished lines; but gives the highest praise to the poem already mentioned, “De divina sapientia.”

, a philosopher and divine of the Roman catholic persuasion, was born at London Sept. 10, 1713. His father possessed a considerable patrimony at Hilston, in the county of Monmouth, being of the younger or catholic branch of the Needham family, but died young, leaving only a small fortune to his four children. Our author, his eldest son, studied in the English college of Douay, where he took orders, and taught rhetoric for several years, but was particularly distinguished for his knowledge of experimental philosophy.

Mr. Needham’s papers inserted in the Philosophical Transactions were, 1. Account of chalky tubulous concretions, called Malm; vol.XLII. 2. Miscroscopical observations on Worms in Smutty Corn; vol. XLII. 3. Electrical Experiments lately made at Paris; vol. XLIV. 4. Account of M. Buffon’s Mirror, which burns at 66 feet; ibid. 5. Observations upon the generation, composition, and decomposition of Animal and Vegetable substances; vol. XLV. 6. On the Discovery of Asbestos in France; vol. LI. His works printed at Paris, in French, are, 1. “New Microscopical Discoveries,” 1745. 2. “The same enlarged,” 1750. 3. “On Microscopical, and the Generation of Organized Bodies,” 1769, 2 vols. Besides these he had a considerable share in the controversy that was carried on about sixty years ago at Paris and Rome respecting the origin of the Chinese. He had seen a famous bust at Turin, on the breast and forehead of which several characters were visible, which some antiquaries supposed to be Egyptian. Mr. Needham having compared them with the characters of a Chinese dictionary in the Vatican, printed at Pekin, in 26 vols, (entitled Ching Zu Tung) perceived a striking resemblance between the two. He drew from this resemblance an argument in favour of the opinion of the late De Guignes (see de Guignes), concerning the origin of the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chinese, or rather concerning the descent of the latter from the former, and pronounced, without hesitation, that the bust was Egyptian. The process of this discovery, or rather opinion, he published in 1761, in a pamphlet entitled “De Inscriptione quadam Ægyptiaca Taurini inventa, et characteribus Ægyptiis olim et Sinis cornmunibus exarata; idolo cuidam antiquo in regia, universitate servato, ad utrasque academias, Londinensem et Fajrisiensem, rerum antiquarum investigation! praspositas, data Eptstola,” 8vo. Several others subscribed to this, opinion, but it is more generally thought that the conclusion respecting the descent of the Chinese from the Egyptians does not follow from the premises. The very candid and fair manner, however, in which Mr. Needham proceeded in his comparison of the characters on the bust tyith thos.e in the dictionary, was acknowledged in an attestation very honourable to his probity, signed by several of the, literati at Rome, and by two of our countrymen then resident there, sir Richard Lyttelton and the late duke of Grafton.

, an English political writer, and a model of political prostitutes, was born at Burford, in Oxfordshire, in August 1620. His mother was daughter to an inn-keeper at Burford, and Hftarried to Mr. Marchamont Needham, an Oxford student. He died in 1621, and Mrs. Marchamont, his mother, the next year re-married with Christopher Glynn, vicar of Burford;, and master of the free-school there. This gentleman, perceiving his step-son to have very pregnant parts, took him under his own tuition; and, at the age of fourteen, he was-sent to Alt-Souls college. Here, being made one of the choristers, he continued till 1637; when taking the degree of B. A. which was inconsistent with his chorister’s place, he retired to St. Mary’s Hall, and in 1640 became third under-master of Merchant Taylors’ School. This, however, he resigned in 1642, and his next employment was that of a writer to an attorney in Gray’s Inn, but this too he soon quitted, and commenced his political career in a weekly paper under the title of “Mercurius Britannicus,” on the side of parliament. This procured him popularity, apparently without respect, as he was familiarly known among the populace by the name of captain Needham, of Gray’s Inn. In this publication he pretended to communicate “the affairs of Great Britain, for the better information of the people.” It began about the middle of August 1643, and came out on Mondays in one sheet, to the“latter end of 1646, or beginning of 1647. Perhaps our author might take the Me from a tragicomedy called” Mercurius Britannicus, or the English Intelligencer," reprinted in 1641, in 4to, written by Richard Brathwayte.

Having now rendered himself obnoxious to the popular party, he found it necessary to leave London, and for a time lay concealed at the house of Dr. Peter Heylin, at Minster-Lovel, near Burford; till, at length being discovered, he was imprisoned in Newgate, and would probably have been executed, had not iLenthal, the speaker of the house of commons, who knew him and his relations well, and Bradshaw, president of the high court of justice,' obtained his pardon. Thinking his talents useful, and caring* little whom they employed, they made such promises as easily induced him to write on the side of the independents. Needham had no scruples as to principle, and after accepting their offers, immediately published a third weekly paper, called “Mercurius Politicus,” which came out every Wednesday, in two sheets, 4to, commencing with the 9th of June 1649, and ending with 6th of June 1650, which being Thursday, he began again with Number I. from Thursday, June 6, to Thursday, June 13, 1650, beginning, “Why should not the commonwealth have a fool, as well as the king had,” &c. This paper, which contained many discourses against monarchy, and in behalf of a free state, at least, before Cromwell was made protector, was carried on without any interruption till about the middle of April 1660, when it was prohibited by an order of the council of state, and Needham fled the kingdorn, justly dreading what never was inflicted on him; for after the restoration, by means of a hired courtier of as little principle as himself, he obtained his pardon under the great seal. After this he practised physic, chiefly among the dissenters, and contrived to support himself, and keep up his fame for scurrility by some controversies with the faculty, until his death, which happened suddenly in 1678. Needham’s character may be gathered from the preceding short account. He had natural parts, not much improved by education, and wrote in that coarse and vulgar style of obloquy, which was suited to his readers, and, as we have seen in our own times, will find readers enough to reward the grossest prostitution of talents. Besides the “Mercuries 7 ' already mentioned, he published a great number of other things, the titles of which are worth transcribing, as a specimen of the style in which political controversy was then carried on 1.” A Check to the Checker of Britannicus,“&c. 1624 2, A sharp libel against his Majesty’s late message for Peace, anno 1645 in answer to which was published” The Refusers of Peace inexcusable, by his Majesty’s command,“1645; one sheet 4to. 3.” A Hue and Cry after the King, written after the King’s Defeat at Naseby, in 1645.“4.” The Case of the Kingdom, stated according to the proper interests of the several parties engaged,“&e. 'the third edition in 1647. 5.” The Levellers levelled or the Independents’ Conspiracy to root out Monarchy, an interlude,“1647. 6.” A Plea for the King and Kingdom, by way of answer to a late Remonstrance of the Army,“1648. 7.” Digitus Dei; or God’s justice upon treachery and treason, exemplified in the Life and Death of the late James duke of Hamilton,“&c. 1649. 8. The year before came out a book entitled” The manifold Practices and Attempts of the Hamiltons, &c. to get the Crown of Scotland,“1648, probably written by Needham, as the whole of it is contained in the” Digitus Dei.“9.” The Public Intelligencer,“&c. these came out weekly on Monday, but contained mostly the same matter that was in the” Political Mercuries.“10.” The Case of the Commonwealth of England stated,“&c. 1649. 11.” Discourse of the excellency of a Free State above Kingly Government,“1650, published with the former, and reprinted in 1768, by Richard Baron, a politician of the republican stamp. 12.” An Appendix added out of Claudius Salmasius’s Defensio Regis, and Mr. Hobbes’s de corpore politico.“13.” Trial of Mr. John Goodwin, at the bar of religion and right reason,“&c. 1657. In reply to this, Goodwin took occasion, in a piece entitled” The Triumviri,“to characterize our author as having a foul mouth, which Satan hath opened, '&c. 1658. 15.” Interest will not lye, &c. in refutation of c The Interest of England stated,“1659. 14.” The moderate Informer, &c. communicating the most remarkable transactions, both civil and military, in the Commonwealth of England,“&c. It commences with the 12th of May 1659, but was not carried on above two or three weeks. Needham, it seems, was dismissed from his place of writing the weekly news, in the time of Richard, by the influence of the Presbyteriaus, and John Can put in his room; yet, in spite of opposition, he carried on the writing of his” Mercuries.“16.” News from Brussels, &c. in a Letter dated 10 March, 1659;“but said to be written by our author against Charles II. and his court, and conveyed to the press by Praise-God Barebones. It was answered about a week after, in” The late News, or Message from Brussels unmasked.“17.” A short History of the English Rebellion completed, inverse,“1661; a collection of all such verses as he had printed before each of his” Mercurii Pragmatici.“To it he prefixed” The true Character of a rigid Presbyter;“and added the coat of arms of sir John Presbyter: but the * character was pot of his writing. It was reprinted in 1680, 4to. 18.” Discourse concerning Schools and School-masters,“1663. 19.” MedelaMedicinae,“&c. 1665 answered by two doctors of that faculty, fellows of the college of physicians, viz. John Twisden, in his” Medicina veterum vindtcata,“&c. and Robert Sprackling, in his” Medela Ignorantiæ.“20.” An epistolary Discourse“before” Medicina Instaurata, &c. by Edward Bolnest, M. D.“1665. 21.” A Pacquet of Advices tfnd Animadversions, &c. occasioned by a Letter from a person of quality to his friend in the country, written* By lord Shaftesbury,“1676. 22.” A second Palcquet of Advices, &c. in answer to some Considerations upon the Question whether the Parliament b& dissolved by Hs Prorogation for Fifteen Months?“and another, entitled” The Long Parliament dissolved,“written by Denzil lord Holies, but owned by his chaplain, a nonconformist, named Carey, or Carew, who was comAvitted prisoner to the Tower of London in the beginning of February, 1676. 23.” A Letter frona a person newly chosen to sit in this Parliament, to a Bencher in the Temple,“&c. 24.” A Narrative of the cause and manner of the Imprisonment of the Lords now close prisoners in the Tower of London.“Needham is said to have been encouraged to write these two Pacquets by lord Danby. 25.” Christianissimus Christianandus or Reasons for the Reduction of France to d more Christian state in Europe,“1678. 26.” A Preface to `A new idea of the Practice of Physic, written by Francis de la Boe Sylvius,'" 1675.

Our author also translated into English, Selden’s “Mare Clausum,” printed in 1652, or thereabouts, in folio; in which he foisted the name of commonwealth, instead of the kings of England, and suppressed the dedication to the king. He also added an appendix to it, concerning the sovereignty of the kings of Great Britain on the sea, entitled “Additional Evidences,” which he procured, as it is thought, of president Bradshaw. He also made comments and glosses on the book; but after the restoration the copy was corrected, and restored by J. H. gent. (James Howell), and printed in 1662, folio.

, a celebrated painter of architecture, was born, as is supposed, at Antwerp, in 1570, and was a disciple of Henry Stenwyck. His favourite objects were views of the interior of churches, convents, splendid halls, &c. Of these he described the rich decorations, and every member of the architecture, with uncommon neatness of pencilling, but with such attention to the most minute parts, as must have required a vast deal of patience, and has indeed in some cases made them objects of wonder rather than of imitation. The columns, capitals, or the ornamental paiatings of the churches he represents, are all marked with the utmost precision, and finished with an exquisite touch, and a light clean pencil. It is said, however, that he sometimes took liberties with the originals by introducing objects that he thought improved them to the eye. Tins was making a pleasing picture, but was a violation of truth. As he designed figures but indifferently, other artists assisted him in these, particularly Velvet Breughel and Tenters. He died in 1651, aged eighty-one, leaving a son, called The Young, who painted the same subjects, but with inferior skill.

, a landscape painter, was born at Amsterdam in 1619, and is well known to the connoisseurs in painting, by a peculiarity of style, and also by the handling and transparence of his landscapes. His subjects are views of villages, or the huts of fishermen, oiv the banks of rivers and canals, by moon -light, generally finished 2 with a remarkable neatness of pencilling. His touch rsextremely light, free, and clean, and his imitation of nature true; particularly in the lustre of his skies about the moon, and the reflection of the beams of that luminary on the surface of the waller. His figures are usually well designed, and their actions and attitudes are well adapted to their employments and occupations. In all parts of Europe his pictures are still in good esteem, but are seldom found uninjured, owing to the simplicity of his manner, and his painting very thin. This artist died in 1683, leaving a son, Eglon Hendrick Vender Neer, who was born at Amsterdam in 1643. He was at first a pupil to his father, and afterwards of Jacob Vanloo. He had an extensive talent, and executed subjects drawn from various branches of the art, with an equal degree of merit. His portraits, in large and small, are well coloured, and touched with spirit and delicacy; in history he designed with correctness, and composed with ingenuity; his conversations have the manner, the breadth, and the finish, of Terburg; his landscape is varied and well chosen, but too much loaded, and too anxiously discriminated in the fore-grounds. The portrait of this artist, painted by himself, and inscribed “Eglon Hendric Vander Neer f. 1696,” has a place in the gallery of Florence. He died in 1703, aged sixty.

, one of the bravest, and the most successful navai commander that 'ever appeared in the world, the fourth son of the rev. Edmund Nelson, rector of Burnham- Thorpe, in the county of Norfolk, was born in the parsonage-house of that parish, September 29, 1758. His father’s progenitors were originally settled at Hilsborough, where, in addition to a small hereditary estate, they possessed the patronage of the living, which our hero’s grandfather enjoyed for several years. His father married, in May 1749, Catherine, daughter of Maurice Suckling, D. D. prebendary of Westminster, whose grandmother had been sister to sir Robert Walpole, earl of Orford. By this lady he had eight sons and three daughters. Horatio, so called after the late earl of Orford, was placed at the high-school of Norwich, whence he was removed to NorthWalsham, both within the precincts of his native county. In his twelfth year, the dispute having taken place between the courts of St. James’s and Madrid, relative to the possession of the Falkland Islands, an armament was immediately ordered, and captain Maurice Suckling, his maternal uncle, having obtained a ship, young Nelson was, at his own earnest request, placed on his quarter-deck as a midshipman, on board the Raisonable, of 64 guns. But in consequence of the dispute being terminated, and capt. Suckling being appointed to a guard-ship in the Medway, Nelson was sent a voyage to the West Indies, and on his return he was received by his uncle on board the Triumph, then lying at Chatham, in the month of July 1772. It was observed, however, that although his voyage to the East Indies had given him a good practical knowledge of seamanship, he had acquired an absolute horror of the royal navy and it was with some difficulty that captain Suckling was enabled to reconcile him to the service; but an inherent ardour, coupled with an unabating spirit of enterprize, and utter scorn of danger, made him at length ambitious to partake in every scene where knowledge was to be obtained or glory earned.

In 1778 he was appointed to the Bristol, and rose by seniority to be first lieutenant. In the course of the succeeding year, (June 11, 1779,) he obtained the rank of post- captain, on which occasion he was appointed to the command of the Hinchinbroke. Having sailed in this vessel for the West Indies, he repaired to Port Royal in the island of Jamaica; and an attack upon that island being expected, on the part of count D'Estaing’s fleet and army, Nelson was intrusted, both by the admiral and general, with the command of the batteries at Port-Royal, the most; important post in the whole island. A plan was next formed for taking fort San Juan, on the river St. John, in the gulf of Mexico; and captain Nelson was appointed to the command of the naval department. His business was to have ended when he had convoyed the forces, about 500 men, from Jamaica to the Spanish main; but it was found, that not a man of the whole party had ever been up the rjver: he therefore, with his usual intrepidity, quitted his ship, and superintended the transporting of the troops, in boats, 100 miles up a river which, since the time of the Buccaneers, none but Spaniards had ever navigated. Of all the services in which he had been engaged, this was the most perilous. It was the latter end of the dry season: the river was low, full of shoals, and sandy beaches; and the men were often obliged to quit the boats, and drag them through shallow channels, in which the natives went before to explore. This labour, and that of forcing the rapids, w,ere chiefly sustained by the sailors, who, for seven or eight hours during the day, were exposed to a burning sun, and at night to heavy dews. On the 9th of April they arrived at a small island, called St. Bartholomew, which commanded the river in a rapid and difficult part, and was defended by a battery mounting nine or ten swivelsNelson, putting himself at the head of a few sailors, leaped on the beach, and captain Despard, since executed for high treason, having gallantly supported him, they defeated the Spaniards with their own guns. Two days afterwards, having come in, sight of the castle of San Juan, they began to besiege it on the 13th, and it surrendered on the 24th. But all that this victory procured them was a cessation from toil: no supplies were found, and the castle itself was worse than a prison. The hovels, which were used as an hospital, were surrounded with putrid hides; and when orders were obtained from the commander in chief to build one, the sickness arising from the climate had become so general, that there were no hands to work at it. The rains continued, with few intervals, from April to October, when they abandoned their conquest; and it was then reckoned that of 1800 who were sent to different posts upon this scheme, only 380 returned. Nelson narrowly escaped. His advice had been to carry the castle by assault; instead of which, eleven days were spent in the formalities of a siege. He returned before its surrender, exhausted with fatigue, and suffering under a dysentery, by which his health became visibly impaired; but he fortunately received an appointment to the Janus of 44 guns, in which he reached Jamaica in such a state of sickness, that although much was done to remove it, he was soon compelled to return to England, in the Lion, commanded by the hon. William Cornwallis, through whose attention a complete recovery was effected.

On the commencement of the late eventful war, he was delighted with the appointment to the Agamemnon of 64 guns, bestowed on him in Jan. 1793, and was very soon after placed under the orders of lord Hood, then appointed to command in the Mediterranean, who always placed such confidence in captain Nelson, as manifested the high opinion which he entertained not only of his courage, but of his talents and ability to execute the arduous services with which he was entrusted. If batteries were to be attacked, if ships were to be cut out of their harbours, if the hazardous landing of troops was to be effected, or difficult passages to be explored, we invariably find Nelson foremost on the occasion, with his brave officers, and the gallant crew of the Agamemnon. During the time that Nelson had the command of the Agamemnon, and previously ta the commencement of hostilities with Spain, he put into Cadiz to water; and on beholding the Spanish fleet, exclaimed, “These ships are certainly the finest in the world. Thank God! the Spaniards cannot build men, as they do ships!” It was observed in the Mediterranean, that before captain Nelson quitted his old ship, he had not only fairly worn her out, there not being a mast, yard, sail, nor any part of the rigging, but was obliged to be repaired, the whole being cut to pieces with shot, but had exhausted himself and his ship’s company. At Toulon, and the celebrated victories achieved at Bastia and Calvi, lord Hood bore ample testimony to the skill and unremitting exertions of captain Nelson, “which,” said his lordship, “I cannot sufficiently applaud.” During the memorable siege of Bastia, he superintended the disembarkation of the troops and stores, and commanded a brigade of seamen, who served on shore at the batteries. Lord Hood had submitted to general Dundas, and afterwards to his successor D‘Aubert, a plan for the reduction of Bastia; but he could obtain only a few artillery-men, and began the siege with less than 1200 soldiers, artillery-men, and marines, and 250 sailors. With these, which Nelson said were ’“few, but of the right sort,” a landing was effected on the 4th of April, under colonel Villetes and Nelson, who had obtained from the army the title of brigadier. The sailors dragged the guns up the heights, which was a work that could probably have been accomplished only by British seamen, and the soldiers behaved with the same spirit. The siege continued nearly seven weeks, and on the 19th of May a treaty of capitulation was begun; and 1000 regulars, 1500 national guards, and a large body of national troops, laid down their arms to 1000 soldiers and marines, and 200 seamen. The siege of Calvi was carried on by general Stuart, and Nelson had less responsibility here than at Bastia, but the business was equally arduous; “I trust,” said he to lord Hood, “it will not be forgotten, that twenty-five pieces of cannon have been dragged to the different batteries, and mounted, and all, but three, fought by seamen.” It was at this siege of Calvi, that he lost an eye, and yet his name did not appear, in the Gazette, among the wounded. Of this neglect he could not help complaining, and on one occasion said, “they have not done me justice but never mind: I'll have a Gazette of my own;” and on another occasion, with a more direct attempt to prophesy, he wrote to Mrs. Nelson, “One day or other I will have a long Gazette to myself. I feel that such an opportunity will be given me. I cannot, if I am in the field of glory, be kept out of sight.”

In Feb. 1797, he fell in with the Spanish fleet, but was enabled to escape from them and join admiral sir John Jervis off Cape St. Vincent, on the 13th of that month, in time to communicate intelligence relative to the state and force of the Spanish fleet, and to shift his pendant on board his former ship, the Captain, 74 guns. Before sunset, the signal was made to prepare for action. At daybreak, the enemy were in sight The British force consisted of two ships of 100 guns each, two of 98, two of 90, eight of 74, and one of 64, with four frigates, a sloop, and a cutter. The Spaniards had one ship of 136 guns, six of 112 guns each, two of 84, and-eighteen of 74 guns, with ten frigates. The disproportion was very great, but sir John Jervis, following the new system of naval tactics, determined to break the line of the enemy; and before the Spanish admiral could form a regular order of battle, of which he seemed very desirous, sir John, by carrying a press of sail, caine up with them, passed through the fleet, then tacked, and thus cut off nine of their ships from the main body. These, in their turn, attempted to form on their larboard trick, either with a design of passing through the British line, or to the leeward of it, and thus rejoining their friends. One of the nine only succeeded; the others were so warmly received, that they took to flight, and did not appear in action till the close. The admiral was now enabled to direct his whole attention to the enemy’s main body, still superior to his whole fleet. He made signal to tack in succession. Nelson, whose station was in the rear of the British line, perceiving that the Spanish fleet was bearing up before the wind, with an intention of forming their line, joining their separated ships, or flying; determined to prevent either of these schemes from taking effect, and accordingly, without a moment’s hesitation, disobeyed the signal, and ordered his ship to be wore. This at once brought him into action with seven of the largest ships of the enemy’s fleet, among which were the Santissima of 136 guns, and two others of 112. Captain Trowbridge, in tihe Culloden, nobly supported him; and the Blenheim, captain Frederick, came to their assistance. The Salvador del Mundo and the San Isidore dropped astern, and were fired into by the Excellent, captain Collingwood, to whom the latter struck. “But Collingwood,” says Nelson, “disdaining the parade of taking possession of beaten enemies, most gallantly pushed up with every sail set, to save his old friend and mess-mate, who was to all appearance in a very critical situation.” The Captain was at this moment fired upon by three first rates, and the San Nicholas and a 74 were within pistol-shot. The Blenheim was a -head, and the Culloden crippled a-stern. Collingwood ranged, passed within ten feet of the San Nicholas, and giving her a most tremendous broadside, pushed on for the Santissima Trinidad. At this time the Captain had lost her fore-topmast, had not a sail, shroud, or rope left, her wheel was shot away, and thus left incapable of farther service in the line or the chase; her noble commander, Nelson, instantly resolved on a bold and decisive measure, and determined, whatever might be the event, to attempt Jhis opponent sword in hand; and directed captain Miller to put the helm a-star-board, and the boarders were summoned, This gentleman, the commodore’s captain, (who was afterwards in the battle of the Nile, where he gained great honour, and was slain in the Theseus, under sir Sidney Smith), so judiciously directed the course of his ship, that he laid her aboard the star-board quarter of the Spanish 84; her spritsail-yard passing over the enemy’s poop, and hooking in her mizen shrouds: when the word to board being given, the officers and seamen, destined for this perilous duty, headed by lieutenant (now sir Edward) Berry (who was afterwards lord Nelson’s captain in the Vanguard, in the battle of the Nile), together with the detachment of the 69th regiment, commanded by lieutenant Pearson, then doing duty on board the Captain, passed with rapidity on board the enemy’s ship, and in a short time the San Nicholas was in possession of her intrepid assailants. The commodore’s ardour would not permit him to remain an inactive spectator of this scene. He was aware that the attempt was hazardous, and he thought his presence might animate his brave companions, and contribute to the success of this bold enterprise. He^ therefore, as if by tnagic impulse, accompanied the party in this attack; passing from the fore-chains of his own ship into the enemy’s quarter-gallery, and thence through the cabin to the quarter-deck, where he arrived in time to receive the sword of the dying commander, who had been mortally wounded by the boarders. The English were at this time in possession of every part of the ship, and a fire of musketry opened upon them from the stern-gallery of the San Josef. Two alternatives now presented themselves, to quit the prize, or instantly to board the three-decker; and, confident in the bravery of his seamen, he determined on the latter. Directing, therefore, an additional number of men to be sent from the Captain on board the San Nicholas, Nelson headed himself the assailants in this new attack, exclaiming, “Westminster-abbey, or a glorious victory” Success in a few minutes, and with little loss, crowned the enterprise. For a moment, commodore Nelson could scarcely persuade himself of this second instance of good fortune; he, therefore, ordered the Spanish commandant, who had the rank of brigadier, to assemble the officers on the quarter-deck, and means to be taken instantly for communicating to the crew the surrender of the ship. All the officers immediately appeared, and the commodore had the surrender of the San Josef duly confirmed, by each of them delivering his sword. On this occasion Nelson had received only a few bruises. The Spaniards had still eighteen or twenty ships, which had suffered little or no injury; but they did not think right to renew the battle. As soon as the action was discontinued, Nelson went on board the admiral’s ship, who received him on the quarterdeck, took him in his arms, and said he could not sufficiently thank him. Before the news of the action had arrived in England, Nelson had been advanced to the rank of rear-admiral; and now for his gallantry, on the 14th of February, he received the insignia of the Bath, and the gold medal from his sovereign. He was also presented with the freedom of the city of London in a gold box.

In April 1797, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag as rear admiral of the blue, and was detached to bring down the garrison of Porto-Ferraio, and on May 28 he shifted his flag from the Captain to the Theseus, and was appointed to the command of the inner squadron at the blockade of Cadiz. During this service, his personal courage was, if possible, more conspicuous than at any other period of his former history. In the attack on the Spanish gun-boats, July 3, 1797, he was boarded in his barge, with only its usual complement of ten men and the coxswain, accompanied by captain Freemantle. The commander of the Spanish gun-boats, Don Miguel Tregovia, in a barge rowed by 26 oars, having 3O men, including officers, made a most desperate effort tooverpower sir Horatio Nelson and his brave companions; but after a long and doubtful conflict, the whole of the Spaniards were either killed or wounded, and Nelson brought off the launch. On the 15th of July, he was detached with a small squadron to make an attack on the town of Santa Cruz, in the island of Teneriffe, where it was imagined a Manilla ship had landed an immense treasure. The rear-admiral, on his arrival before the town, lost no time in directing 1000 men, including marines, to be prepared for landing from the ships, under the direction of captains Trowbridge, Hood, Thomson, Freemantle, Bowen, Miller, and Waller, who volunteered their services. The boats of the squadron being manned, the landing was effected in the night, and th party were in full possession of Santa Cruz in about seven hours; but, finding it impracticable to storm the citadel, they prepared for their retreat, which was allowed by the Spaniards unmolested, agreeably to the stipulations made with captain Trowbridge. It was on this occasion that our gallant hero, in stepping out of the boat, received a shot through the right elbow, which rendered amputation necessary.

In April 1798, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag in the Vanguard, and as soon as he had rejoined earl St. Vincent, he was dispatched to the Mediterranean, that he might ascertain the object of the great expedition fitting out at Toulon. He sailed with a small squadron from Gibraltar, on the 9th of May, to watch this armament. On the 22 d, a sudden storm in the gulph of Lyons carried away all the top-masts of the Vanguard; the fore-mast went into three pieces, and the bow-sprit was sprung. Captain (afterwards sir Alexander) Ball took the ship in tow, to carry her into St. Pietros, Sardinia. Nelson, apprehensive that this attempt might endanger both vessels, ordered him to cast off; but that excellent officer, possessing a spirit very like that of his commander, replied that he was confident he could save the Vanguard, and by God’s help he would do it. Previously to this, there had been a coolness between these brave seamen but from that moment, Nelson became fully sensibje of the extraordinary merit of captain Ball, and a sincere friendship subsisted between them during the remainder of their lives. Being compelled to refit, the delay enabled him to secure his junction with the reinforcement which lord St. Vincent had sent to join him, under commodore Trowbridge. That officer brought with him no instructions to Nelson, as to the course he was to steer, nor any positive account of the enemy’s destination every thing was left to his own judgment. The first news was, that they had surprised Malta. He formed a plan for attacking them while at Gozo; but on the 22d, intelligence reached him that they had left that island on the 16th, the day after their arrival. He then pursued them to Egypt, but he could not learn any thing of them during his voyage; and when he reached Alexandria, the enemy were not there. He then shaped his course for the coast of Caramania, and steered from thence along the southern side of Candia, carrying a press of sail both night and day, with a contrary wind. Irritated that they should have eluded his vigilance, the tediousness of the night made him impatient, and the officer of the watch was repeatedly called upon to declare the hour, and convince his admiral, who measured time by his own eagerness, that it was not yet break of day. “It would have been my delight,” said he, “to have tried Bonaparte on a wind.” Baffled in his pursuit, Nelson returned to Sicily, took in stores at Syracuse, and then made for the Morea. There, on the 28th of July, he learnt that the French had been seen about a month before, steering to the south-east from Candia. He resolved to return, and immediately, with every sail set, stood again for the coast of Egypt. On the 1st of August, they came in sight of Alexandria; and at four in the afternoon, captain Hood, in the Zealous, made signal for the French fleet. For several preceding days, the admiral had scarcely taken either food or sleep: he now ordered his dinner to be served, while preparations were making for battle; and when his officers rose from, table, and went to their separate stations, he said to them, “Before this time to-morrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster- abbey.” It has never been explained, why Bonaparte, having effected his landing, should not have ordered the fleet to return. It is, however, certain, that it was detained by his express command; though after the death of Brueys, he accused 4iim of having lingered there, contrary to his received orders. That admiral, not being able to enter the port of Alexandria, had moored his fleet in Aboukir bay, in a strong and compact line of battle; the headmost vessel being as close as possible to a shoal on the north-west, and the rest of the fleet forming a kind of curve along the line of deep water, so as not to be turned by any means on the south-west. The French admiral had the advantage of numbers in ships, in guns, and in men: he had thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, carrying 1196 guns, and 11,230 men; whereas the English had the same number of ships of the line, and one 50 gun ship, carrying 1012 guns, and 8068 men. They had, however, Nelson for chief-in-command, who, in all cases, was a mighty host in himself. During the whole cruize, it had been Nelson’s practice, whenever circumstances would admit of it, to have his captains on board the Vanguard, and fully explain to them his own ideas of the best modes of attack, whatever might be the situation of the enemy. His officers, therefore, were well acquainted with his principles of tactics and such was his confidence in their abilities and zeal, that the only plan arranged, in case they should find the French at anchor, was for the ships to form as most convenient for their mutual support, and to anchor by the stern. When he had fully explained his intended plan, captain Berry exclaimed with transport, “If we succeed, what will the world say” “There is no if.” replied the admiral “that we shall succeed is most certain: who may live to tell the story is a very different question.”

The position of the enemy presented the most formidable obstacles, but the admiral viewed these with the eye of a seaman determined on an attack; and it instantly struck him, that where there was room for an enemy’s ship to swing, there was room for one of ours to anchor. No further signal was necessary than those which had already been made. The admiral’s designs were as fully known to his whole squadron, as was his determination to conquer or perish in the attempt. The action commenced at sunset, at half past 6 o'clock, with an ardour that cannot be described. The Goliath, captain Foley, and the Zealous, captain Hood, received the first fire from the enemy. It was received with silence. On board every one of the British ships, the crew were employed aloft in furling sails, and below in tending the braces, and making ready for anchoring; a wretched sight for the French, who, with all their advantages, were on that element upon which escape was impossible. Their admiral, Brueys, was a brate and able man, yet he had, in a private letter, boasted that the English had* missed him, “because, not rinding themselves superior in numbers, they did not think it prudent to try their strength with him.” The moment was now come in which he was to be fatally undeceived. The shores of the bay of Aboukir were soon lined with spectators, who beheld the approach of the English, and the awful conflict of the hostile fleets, in silent astonishment. The two first ships of the French line were dismasted within a quarter of an hour after the action, and the others suffered so severely, that victory was even now regarded as certain. The third, the fourth, and the fifth, were taken possession^ of at half past eight. In the mean time, Nelson had received a severe wound on the head from a piece of iron, called a langridge shot; the skin of his forehead, being cut with it at right angles, hung down over his face. A great effusion of blood followed; but, as the surgeon pronounced there was no immediate danger, Nelson, who had retired to the cabin and was beginning to write his dispatches, appeared again on the quarter-deck, and the French ship the Orient being on fire, gave orders that boats should be sent to the relief of her men. Her commander Brueys was dead of his wounds, and the ship soon after blew up. The firing recommenced with the ships to the lee-ward of the centre, and continued until three in the morning. At day-break, the two rear-ships of the enemy were the only ships of the line that had their colours flying, and immediately stood out to sea, with two frigates The Zealous pursued, but as there was no other ship in a condition to support her, she was recalled. These, however, were all that escaped; and the victory was the most complete and glorious in the annals of naval history, uniting indeed, as was said in the House of Commons, all those qualities by which other victories had been most distinguished.

He went on however in his career, and it is to be deeply regretted that the proceeding which immediately followed, has been thought to detract from the glories of his former life. He now set sail for Sicily, and on his arrival at Naples, was received as a deliverer by their majesties and the whole kingdom. But soon after the subjects of that monarch, discontented at his conduct, and supported by the French, drove him from his capital, after which they established, or rather proclaimed, “The Parthenopean Republic.” The zeal of cardinal Ruffo, however, who successfully mingled the character of a soldier with that of a priest, proved signally efficacious towards the restoration of the exiled monarch. Having marched to Naples at the head of a body of Calabrians, he obliged “the patriots,” as they were termed, who were in possession of all the forts, to capitulate; and to this treaty the English, Turkish, and Russian commanders acceded. On the appearance of lord Nelson, however, Ferdinand publicly disavowed “the authority of cardinal Ruffo to treat with subjects in rebellion,” and the capitulation was accordingly violated, with the exception of the prisoners in Castella Mare alone, which had surrendered to the English squadron under commodore Foote. For this part of lord Nelson’s conduct much has been pleaded, but the general opinion was that it could not be justified.

On the ninth of August lord Nelson brought his Sicilian majesty safe to his court, having kept him some weeks in his ship, out of the reach of peril; and on the thirteenth the king presented him with a sword most magnificently enriched with diamonds, and conferred upon him the title of duke of Bront6, and annexed to the title an estate supposed to be worth 300O/. per annum. Besides the presents just mentioned, he received from the East India company 10,000l.; from the Turkey company a piece of plate of great value; from the city of London a sword of exquisite workmanship and great worth; from the grand seignior a diamond aigrette, or plume of triumph, valued at 2000/; also a rich pelisse valued at 1000^., and from the Seignior’s mother a rose set with diamonds of equal value; from the emperor of Russia and the king of Sardinia boxes set with diamonds worth 3700l.: besides many other presents of less value, but costly, and expressive of a high sense of gratitude in the donors.

After the appointment of lord Keith to the command of the Mediterranean fleet, lord Nelson made preparations to return, and proceeding in company with sir William and lady Hamilton, to Trieste, he travelled through Germany to Hamburgh, every where received with distinguished honours. He embarked at Cuxhaven, and landed at Yarmouth on the sixth of November 1800, after an absence from his native country of three years. In the following January he received orders to embark again, and it was during this short interval that he formally separated from lady Nelson. Some of his last words to her were, “I call God to witness, that there is nothing in you, or your conduct, that I wish otherwise.” He was now raised to the rank of vice-admiral of the blue, and soon after hoisted his flag on board the San Josef of 112 guns, his own prize at the battle of cape St. Vincent. About this time the emperor Paul of Russia had renewed the northern confederacy, the express and avowed object of which was to set limits to the naval supremacy of England. A resolution being taken by the English cabinet to attempt its dissolution, a formidable fleet was fitted out for the North Seas, under sir Hyde Parker, in which lord Nelson consented to go second in command. Having shifted his flag to the St. George of 98 guns, he sailed with the fleet in the month of March, and on the 30th of that same month he led the way through the Sound, which was passed without any loss. But the battle of Copenhagen gave occasion for an equal display of lord Nelson’s talents as that of the Nile. The Danes were well prepared for defence. Upwards of two hundred pieces of cannon were mounted upon the crown batteries at the entrance of the harbour, and a line of twenty-five two-deckers, frigates, and floating batteries, was moored across its mouth. An attack being determined upon, the conduct of it was entrusted to lord Nelson; the action was fought on the second of April; Nelson had with him twelve ships of the line, with all the frigates and small craft, the remainder of the fleet was with the commander in chief, about four miles off. The combat which succeeded was one of the most terrible on record. Nelson himself said, that of all the engagements in which he had borne a part, it was the most terrible. It began at ten in the morning, and at one victory had not declared itself. A shot through the main-mast knocked a few splinters about the admiral “It is warm work,” said he, “and this may be the last day to any of us in a moment; but, mark you, I would not be elsewhere for thousands.” Just at this moment sir Hyde Parker made signal for the action to cease. It was reported to him, but he continued pacing the deck, and appeared to take no notice of it. The signal-lieutenant asked if he should repeat it. “No,” replied Nelson, “acknowledge it.” Presently he called to know if the signal for close action was still hoisted, and being answered in the affirmative, he said, “Mind you keep it so.” About two o'clock, great part of the Danish line had ceased to fire, and the victory was complete, yet it was difficult to take possession of the vanquished ships, on account of the fire from the shore, which was still kept up. At this critical period, with great presence of mind, he sent the following note to the crown prince of Denmark “Lord Nelson has directions to spare Denmark when no longer resisting but, if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, lord Nelson must be obliged to set on fire all the floating-batteries he has taken, without having the power of saving the brave Danes who had defended them.” This immediately produced a treaty, which ended the dispute, and annihilated the northern confederacy. For this service lord Nelson was raised to the rank of a viscount. His last effort, in this war, was an attack on the preparations making at Boulogne, for the invasion of England; but, after the loss of many brave men on our side, the enterprize proved unsuccessful, from the situation of the harbour.

Lord Nelson did not remain directly off Cadiz with his fleet, or even within sight of the port. His object was to induce the enemy to come out; with this view he stationed his fleet in the following manner. TheEuryalus frigate was within half a mile of the mouth of the harbour to watch the enemy’s movements, and to give the earliest intelligence. At a still greater distance he had seven or eight sail of the line. He himself remained off Cape St. Mary with the rest of the fleet, and a line of frigates extended and communicated between him and the seven or eight sail off Cadiz. The advantage of this plan was, that he could receive ample supplies and reinforcements off Cape St. Mary, without the enemy being informed of it, and thus they always remained ignorant of the real force under his command: Villeneuve had also been misled by an American, who declared that Nelson could not possibly be with the fleet, as he had seen him in London but a few days before. Relying on this, the highest compliment they could pay Nelson, and on their own superiority, they put to sea on the 19th, and on the 21st lord Nelson intercepted them off Cape Trafalgar, about sixty miles east of Cadiz. When his lordship found, that by his manoeuvres, he had placed the enemy in such a situation that they could not avoid an engagement, he displayed much animation, and his usual confidence of victory. “Now,” said he, “they cannot escape us; I think we may make sure of twenty of them; I shall probably lose a leg, but that will be purchasing a victory cheaply.” He appears, however, to have had more gloomy presages, for on this morning he wrote a prayer in his journal, and solemnly bequeathed lady Hamilton, as a legacy, to his king and country. He left also to the beneficence of his country his adopted daughter, desiring that in future she would use his name only. “These,” said he, “are the only favours I ask of my king and country at this moment, when I am going to fight their battle.” He had put on the coat which he always wore in action, and kept for that purpose with a degree of veneration: it bore the insignia of all his orders. “In honour,” said he, “Igained them, and in honour I will die with them.” The last order which his lordship gave, previously to action, was short, but comprehensive, “England Expects Every Man To Do His Duty,” which was received with a shout of applause throughout the whole fleet. “Now,” said the admiral, “I can do no more we must trust to the great Disposer of all events, and the justice of our cause. I thank God for this opportunity of doing my duty.” It had been represented to him so strongly, both by captain Blackwood, and his own captain, Hardy, how advantageous it would be for him to keep out of the action as long as possible, that he consented that the Temeraire, which was then sailing abreast of the Victory, should be ordered to pass a-head, and the Leviathan also. They could not possibly do this if the Victory continued to carry all her sail; and yet so far was Nelson from shortening sail, that he seemed to take pleasure in baffling the advice to which he could not but assent. He had determined himself to fight the Santissima Trinidada; and it is worthy of remark, that he gained the highest honour in grappling with this ship in the action off Cape St. Vincent. She was the largest ship in the world, carried 136 guns, and had four decks. The Victory did not fire a single shot till she was close along-side the Trinidada, and had already lost 50 men in killed and wounded. Lord Nelson ordered his ship to be lashed to his rival, and in this labour the commander of the Trinidada ordered his men also to assist. For four hours the conflict which ensued was tremendous. The Victory ran on board the Redoubtable, which, firing her broad-sides into the English flag-ship, instantly let down her lower deck ports, for fear of being boarded through them. Captain Harvey, in the Temeraire, fell on board the Redoubtable on the other side; another ship, in like manner, was on board the Temeraire, so that these four ships, in the heat of battle, formed as compact a tier as if they had been moored together, their heads lying all the same way. The lieutenants of the Victory immediately depressed their guns, and fired with a diminished charge, lest the shot should pass through and injure the Temeraire: and because there was danger that the enemy’s ship might take fire from the guns of the lower-deck, whose muzzles touched her side when they were run out, the fireman of each gun stood ready with a bucket of water, which, as soon as the gun was discharged, he dashed at the hole made in her sides by the shot. In the prayer to which we have already alluded, and which Nelson wrote before the action, he desires that humanity, after victory, might distinguish the British fleet. Setting an example himself, he twice gave orders to cease firing upon the Redoubtable, supposing she had struck, because her great guns were silent; and as she carried no flag, there were no means of ascertaining the fact. From this ship, whose destruction was twice delayed by his wish to spare the vanquished, he received his dealt. Captain Hardy, on perceiving frequent showers of musket-balls fired on the Victory’s quarter-deck, requested lord Nelson to take off the insignia by which he was exposed, as a mark, to the sharp shooters placed in the main-round-top of the enemy’s ships. He answered, he would when he had time but paid no farther attention to his safety. In a minute afterwards, his secretary, Mr. Scott, who stood near him, was killed. A musket-ball entered his head, and he fell dead instantly. Captain Adair of the marines endeavoured to remove the mangled body, but it had attracted the notice of the admiral, who said, “Is that poor Scott who is gone?” Afterwards, whilst he was conversing with captain Hardy, on the quarter-deck, during the shower of musket-balls and raking fire that was kept up by the enemy, a doubleheaded shot came across the poop and killed eight of the marines. In a few minutes, a shot struck the fore-bracebits on the quarter-deck, and passing between lord Nelson and captain Hardy, drove some splinters from the bits about them, and bruised captain Hardy’s foot. They mutually looked at each other, when Nelson, whom no danger could affect, smiled and said, “It is too warm work, Hardy, to last.” The Redoubtable had, for some time, commenced a heavy fire of musketry from her tops, which, like those of the enemy’s other ships, were filled with riflemen. The Victory, however, became enveloped in smoke, except at intervals, when it partially dispersed, and, owing to the want of wind, was surrounded with the enemy’s ships.

At th'e same time he engaged zealously in every public scheme for propagating the faith, and promoting the practice of true Christianity, both at home and abroad; and was eminently active in forwarding the building, repairing, and endowing churches, and establishing charity-schools, then a matter of very great importance in counteracting the seductions of the popish party. Nelson, we have remarked, was not fully decided in quitting the communion of the church of England; and upon the death of Dr. Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, in the end of 1709, he returned to it again. Dr. Lloyd was the last survivor of the deprived bishops, except Dr. Kenn, by whose advice Mr. Nelson was determined in this point. It had been a case in view some time, and had been warmly argued on both sides, whether the continuance of their separation from the church should be schismatical or no; and our author had some conferences upon it with Dr. Hickes, who was for perpetuating the nonjuring church, and charging the schism upon the church established .

His publications were, 1. “Transubstantiation contrary to Scripture; or, the Protestant’s Answer to the Seeker’s Request, 1688.” This was at the same time that his lady engaged on the popish side of the controversy. 2. “A. Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, 1704,” 8vo, and large impressions of it several times since. 3. “A Letter on Church Government, in answer to a pamphlet entitled The Principles of the Protestant Reformation,” 1705, 8vo. 4. “Great duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice,” &c. 1707, 8vo. Dr. Waterland observes, that, in this piece, our author, after Dr. Hickes, embraced the doctrine of a material sacrifice in the symbols of the eucharist, which was first stated among the protestants in 1635, by the famous Mede, and, having slept for some years, was revived by Dr. Hickes, in 1697. Waterland’s Christian Sacrifice explained,“&c. p. 37, 42d. edit. 1738, 8vo. 5.” The Practice of true Devotion, &c. with an office for the Communion,“1708, 8vo. 6.” Life of Bishop Bull,“&c. 1713, 8vo. 7.” Letter to Dr. Samuel Clarke,“prefixed to” The Scripture doctrine of the most holy and undivided Trinity vindicated against the misrepresentations of Dr. Clarke,“1713, 8vo. To this Clarke returned an answer; in which he highly extols Mr. Nelson’s courtesy and candour; which he had likewise experienced in a private conference with him upon this subject. 8.” An Address to Persons of Quality and Estate,“&c. 1715, 8vo. 9.” The whole Duty of a Christian, by way of question and answer, designed for the use of the charity-schools in and about London.“10. Thomas a Kempis’s Christian Exercise.” 11.“The archbishop of Cambray (Fenelon’s) Pastoral Letter.” 12. “Bishop Bull’s important points of Primitive Christianity maintained” and other posthumous pieces of that learned prelate.

, 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.

We are informed, by Florentine historians, that this family had borne the highest posts of the state from the year 900, when it was raised, with five others, to the dignity of Famiglia Cavalleresca, by the famous Ugo, marquis of Tuscany. The education of Philip de Nerli was superintended by Benedetto, a disciple of Politian; and in his youth he formed an intimacy with the most distinguished scholars of Florence. In the beginning of duke Alexander’s government, in 1532, he was chosen among the first to be of the quarantotto, or forty-eight magistrates, who were afterwards called senators. He governed the chief cities of Tuscany, in quality of commissary, which title is bestowed only upon senators; and the opinion which Alexander entertained of his judgment, made him be always employed upon public affairs, and nothing important was transacted without his concurrence. From this intimacy with political events, we may suppose him enabled to transmit to posterity the secret springs which gave them birth. He was a great favourite, and nearly related to the family of Medicis, which created him some enemies. He died at Florence, Jan. 17, 1556. His “Commentari de Fatti Civili,” containing the affairs transacted in the city of Florence from 1215 to 1537, were printed in folio, at Augsburg, in 1728, by Settimanni. As the author every where betrays his partiality to the Medici, they may be advantageously compared with Nardi’s history of the same period, who was equally hostile to that family.

, one of the contributors to the restoration of classical learning, was a native of Novara, a lawyer, and of the Minorite order. He flourished in the fifteenth century, but no particulars of his life are upon record. He dedicated his lexicon, or vocabulary of the Latin tongue, in a copy of verses addressed to the duke Ludovicus Sforza, which are printed by Mr. Roscoe in the Appendix, No. XX. to his Life of Leo X. This work was first printed under the title of “Onomasticon,” at Milan, in 1483, fol. an edition of great rarity and price; but such was its importance to the study of the Latin language in that age, that it was reprinted four times, in 1488, 1496, 1502, and 1507. This last, printed at Strasburgh, contains some pieces by the author, “de octo partibus orationis,” “de compositione eleganti,” and “de syllabarum quantitate.” He quotes as authorities a great many of his learned contemporaries and predecessors.

, from whom the sect of the Nestorians derive their name, was born in Germanica, a city of Syria, in the fifth century. He was educated and baptized at Antioch, and soon after the latter ceremony withdrew himself to a monastery in the suburbs of that city. When he had received the order of priesthood, and began to preach, he acquired so much celebrity by his eloquence and unspotted life, that in the year 429 the emperor Theodosius appointed him to the bishopric of Constantinople, at that time the second see in the Christian church. He had not been long in this office before he began to manifest an extraordinary zeal for the extirpation of heretics, and not above five days after his consecration, attempted to demolish the church in which the Arians secretly held their assemblies. In this attempt he succeeded so far, that the Brians, grown desperate, set fire to the church themselves, and with it burnt some adjoining houses. This fire excited great commotions in the city, and Nestorius was ever afterwards called an incendiary. From the Arians he turned against the Novatians, but was interrupted in this attack by the emperor. He then began to persecute those Christians of Asia, Lydia, and Caria, who celebrated the feast of Easter upon the 14th day of the moon; and for this unimportant deviation from the catholic practice, many of these people were murdered by his agents at Miletum and at Sardis. The time, however, was now come when he was to suffer by a similar spirit, for holding the opinion that “the virgin Mary cannot with propriety be called the mother of God.” The people being accustomed to hear this expression, were much inflamed against their bishop, as if his meaning had been that Jesus was a mere man. For this he was condemned in the council of Ephesus, deprived of his see, banished to Tarsus in the year 435, whence he led a wandering life, until death, in the year 439, released him from farther persecution. He appears to have been unjustly condemned, as he maintained in express terms, that the Word was united to the human nature in Jesus Christ in the most strict and intimate sense possible; that these two natures, in this state of union, make but one Christ, and one person; that the properties of the Divine and human natures may both be attributed to this person; and that Jesus Christ may be said to have been born of a virgin, to have suffered and died: but he never would admit that God could be said to have been born, to have suffered, or to have died. He was not, however, heard in his own defence, nor allowed to explain his doctrine. The zealous Cyril of Alexandria (see Cyril) was one of his greatest enemies, and Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis^ one of the chief promoters of his doctrines, and the co-founder of the sect. In the tenth century the Nestorians in Chaldsea, whence they are sometimes called Chaldaeans, extended their spiritual conquest beyond mount Imaus, and introduced the Christian religion into Tartary, properly so called, and especially into that country called Karit, and bordering on the northern part of China. The prince f that country, whom the Nestorians converted to the Christian faith, assumed, according to the vulgar tradition, the name of John, after his baptism, to which he added the surname of Presbyter, from a principle of modesty; whence it is said, his successors were each of them called Prester John, until the time of Jenghis Khan. But Mosheim observes, that the famous Prester John did not begin to reign in that part of Asia before the conclusion of the eleventh century. The Nestorians formed so considerable a body of Christians, that the missionaries of Rome were industrious in their endeavours to reduce them under the papal yoke. Innocent IV. in 1246, and Nicolas IV. in 1278, used their utmost efforts for this purpose, but without success. Till the time of pope Julius III. the Nestorians acknowledged but one patriarch, who resided first at Bagdat, and afterwards at Mousul; but a division arising among them in 1551, the patriarchate became divided, at least for a time, and a new patriarch was consecrated by that pope, whose successors fixed their residence in the city of Ormus, in the mountainous part of Persia, where they still continue distinguished by the name of Simeon; and so far down as the seventeenth century, these patriarchs persevered in their communion with the church of Rome, but seem at present to have withdrawn themselves from it. The great Nestorian pontiffs, who form the opposite party, and look with a hostile eye on this little patriarch, have, since 1559, been distinguished by the general denomination of Elias, and reside constantly in the city of Mousul. Their spiritual dominion is very extensive, takes in a great part of Asia, and comprehends also within its circuit the Arabian Nestorians, and also the Christians of St. Thomas, who dwell along the coast of Malabar. It is observed, to the honour of the Nestorians, that of all the Christian societies established in the East, they have been the most careful and successful in avoiding a multitude of superstitious opinions and practices that have infected the Greek and Latin churches* About the middle of the seventeenth century the Romish missionaries gained over to their communion a small number of Nestorians, whom they formed into a congregation or church, the patriarchs or bishops of which reside in the city of Amida, or Diarbekir, and all assume the denomination of Joseph. Nevertheless, the Nestorians in general persevere, to our own times, in their refusal to enter into the communion of the Romish church, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties and alluring offers that have been made by the pope’s legate to conquer their inflexible constancy.

Nevile published the Cambridge verses on the death of sir Philip Sidney, in 1587, and projected a translation of Livy, but never completed it. Another work of his is entitled “Apologia ad Walliae proceres,” Lond. 1576, 4to. Doubtless an apology for the passage abovementioned, which had given offence. He also translated, or rather paraphrased, the “CEdipus,” in his sixteenth year, as part of a translation of Seneca’s tragedies translated by Studley, Nuce, Hey wood, &c. and printed in 1581. Warton says, that notwithstanding the translator’s youth, it is by far the most spirited and elegant version of the whole collection, and that it is to be regretted that he did not undertake all the rest. He died Oct. 4, 1614, and was buried in the cathedral at Canterbury.

, a republican writer, the second son of sir Henry Nevile, of Billingbeare, in Berkshire, was born in 1620, and became a commoner of Merton college, Oxford, in 1635, but appears to have left it without taking a degree. In the beginning of the rebellion, he travelled on the continent, but returned in 1645, and became an active agent for republicanism. In November 1651, he was elected one of the council of state, but when he found Cromwell aspiring to the crown, under the pretence of a protectorate, he retired. He caballed with Harrington and others for their imaginary commonwealth until the Restoration, when he was taken into custody, but soon after released. From this time he lived privately until his death, Sept. 20, 1694, at Warfi eld in Berkshire. The only one of his publications worthy of notice was, his “Plato Redivivus: or a Dialogue concerning Government,” 168 I, which Mr. Hollis, in his republican zeal, reprinted in 1763. His other works were, 1. “The Parliament of Ladies,” 1647, 4to, a kind of banter on sir Henry Blount, for certain loose sentiments respecting the female sex. 2. “Shuffling, cutting, and dealing, in a game at Piquet,” 1659, 4to, another satire on Cromwell. 3. “The Isle of Pines: or a late discovery of a fourth island near Terra australis incognita, by Hen. Cornelius Van Sloetten,” Lond. 1668, 4to. He was also the editor of Machiavel’s works, and the defender of his principles. Wood says he wrote some poems, inserted in various collections. One in Mr. Nichols’s collection, vol. VII. p. 1, gives us no very favourable idea of his genius or decency.

, 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.

After Dr. Young had published his celebrated satires, Mr. Newcomb, who was very intimate with him, printed, 1. “The Manners of the Times, in seven Satires.” 2. “An Ode to the Queen, on the happy accession of their Majesties to the Crown,” 1727. 3. “An Ode to the Right Honourable the Earl of Orford, on Retirement,” 1742. 4. “A Collection of Odes and Epigrams, &c. occasioned by the Success of the British and Confederate Arms in Germany,” 1743. 5. “An Ode inscribed to the Memory of the late Earl of Orford,” 1747. 6. Two Odes to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, on hjs return from Scotland, and on his Voyage to Holland,“1746. 7.” A Paraphrase on some Select Psalms.“8.” The Consummation, a Sacred Ode on the final Dissolution of the World, inscribed to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,“1752, 4to. 9.” A Miscellaneous Collection of Original Poems, Odes, Epistles, Translations, &c. written chiefly on political and moral subjects; to which are added, Occasional Letters and Essays, formerly published in defence of the present government and administration,“1756, a large volume in 4to. 10.” Vindicta Britannicn, an Ode on the Royal Navy, inscribed to the King,“1759, 4to, 11.” Novus Epigrammatum Delectus, or Original State Epigrams and Minor Odes, suited to the Times,“1760, 8vo. 12.” The Retired Penitent, being a poetical Version of one of the Rev. Dr. Young’s Moral Contemplations. Revised, approved, and published, with the Consent of that learned and eminent Writer,“1760, 12mo. 13.” A congratulatory Ode to the Queen, on her Voyage to England,“1761, 4to. 14.” On the Success of the British Arms;, A congratulatory Ode addressed to his Majesty,“1763, 4to. 15.” The Death of Abel, a Sacred Poem, written originally in the German language, attempted in the style of Milton,“1763, 12mo. 16. In 1757, he published” Versions of two of Hervey’s Meditations,“in blank verse. And, in 1764, the whole of them were printed in two volumes, 12mo, inscribed to the right hon. Arthur Onslow, sir Thomas Parker, and lady Juliana Penn. Mr. Nichols also supposes, that Dr. Newcomb was the author of” A Supplement to a late excellent poem, entitled Are these things so?“1740; and of” Preexistence and Transmigration, or the new Metamorphosis; a Philosophical Essay on the Nature and Progress of the Soul; a poem, something between a panegyric and a satire," 1743. Dr. Newcomb died probably about 1766^ in which year his library was sold, an4 when he must have been in his ninety-first year.

, an eminent prelate, descended from a non-conformist family, was born at Barton-le-Clay, in Bedfordshire, April 10, 1729, and educated at Abingdon school. In 1745 he entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, but removed some time after to Hertford college, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1753, and became a tutor of considerable eminence. Among other pupils who preserved a high respect for his memory, was the late hon. Charles James Fox. In 1765 he took his degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was appointed chaplain to the earl of Hertford, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, who conferred on him, withiti a year, the see of Dromore. In 1775, he was translated to Ossoryj and in 1778 produced his first workj “An Harmony of the Gospels,” which involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley respecting the duration of our Lord’s ministry, Dr. Priestley confining it to one year, while the bishop extended its duration to three years and a half. In 1779 Dr. Newcome was translated to the see of Waterford; and in 1782 published “Observations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his moral character.” This was followed, ia 1785, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” 4to, and in 1788, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the prophet Ezekiel,” 4to. He published also about the same time “A Review of the chief difficulties in the Gospel history respecting our Lord’s Resurrection,” 4to, the purpose of which was to correct some errors in his “Harmony.” In 1792 he published at Dublin one of his most useful works, “Art historical view of the English Biblical translations; the expediency of revising by authority our present translation; and the means of executing such a work,” 8vo. Concerning the latter part of this scheme there are many differences of opinion, and in the learned prelate’s zeal to effect a new translation, he is thought, both in this and his former publications, to have been too general in his strictures on the old. He lived, however, to witness Dr. Geddes’s abortive attempt towards a new translation, and the danger of such a work falling into improper hands. For the historical part, the bishop is chiefly indebted to Lewis, but his arrangement is better, and his list of editions more easily to be consulted, and therefore more useful. Except a very valuable Charge, this was the last of Dr. Newcorae’s publications which appeared in his life-time. In January 1795 he was translated to the archbishopric of Armagh. He died at his house in St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Jan. 11, 1800, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was interred in the new chapel of Trinity college. Soon after his death was published his “Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant of Jesus Christ,” &c. The writer of his life in the Cyclopaedia says that this work “has been made the basis of an” Improved Version of the New Testament, published by a Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, &c.“much to the mortification, as we have heard, of some of the archbishop’s relatives;” nor will our readers fail to sympathize with them, when they are told that this “Improved version” is that which has been so ably and justly censured and exposed by the Rev. Edward Nares, in his “Remarks on the Version of the New Testament lately edited by the Unitarians,” &c. 1810, 8vo. Archbishop Newcome’s interleaved Bible, in four volumes folio, is in the library at Lambeth-palace. He was, unquestionably, an excellent scholar, and well-qualified for biblical criticism; but either his zeal for a new version, or his views of liberality, led him to give too much encouragement to the attempts of those witb whom he never could have cordially agreed, and who seem to consider every deviation from what the majority hold sacred, as an improvement.

Shortly after his return in 1742, he was unanimously elected knight of the shire for the county of Middlesex; but, in the next parliament he was, on lord Cornbury’s being called up to the house of peers, elected in 1751 to succeed him as representative for the university of Oxford, an honour which few men knew better how to appreciate. In no place, and on no occasion, is the purity of election more sacredly guarded than in the choice of members to represent that university, where to make declarations, to canvass, to treat, or even to be seen within the limits of the university during a vacancy, would be, in any candidate, almost a forfeiture of favour. In the case of our worthy baronet, he remained ignorant of being proposed and elected, until he received a letter from the vicechancellor, Dr. Browne, master of University college, by one of the esquire beadles. In the same independent manner he was re-elected in 1754, 1761, 1768, and 1774, during which last year, he was in Italy. On the dissolution of parliament in 1780, being advanced in years, and desirous of repose, he solicited his dismission, retired from public life, and was succeeded by sir William Dolben. He died at his seat at Arbury, Nov. 25, 1806, in the eighty-seventh year of his age.

Although he retired from public life in 178O, his ample and richly-stored library appears to have afforded him sufficient employment, and he preserved his critical taste and acumen to almost the last period of his life. Among his employments, not many years before his death, was anexamination of Whitaker’s account of Hannibal’s passage over the Alps. He had himself twice crossed these stupendous mountains, and was much dissatisfied with some parts of the route which Whitaker had assigned to Hannibal, particularly where that author leads him from Lyons to Geneva (every step, as sir Roger said, out of his way) and therefore he drew up a succinct account of the march of the Carthaginian, conducting him from Lyons up the river to Seissel, thence to Martigni, and so to the great St. Bernard, and to Aouste (Auguste) of which in his own tour he had many drawings. Such had been his early application, and such his powers of memory, that the best classics seemed as familiar to him when he was past fourscore, as if just come from Oxford or Westminster. But these were not his only studies. He was well acquainted with theology, particularly the writings of our elder divines, and was himself a man of a devout habit, and unremitting in; religious duties. One of his latest works was the composing of a “Harmony of the Gospels,” divided into short sections; but he never considered these works as more than the amusements of retired life, and they were consequently seen only by his frieads, am,png whom were Drs; Winchester and Townson, and the present worthy archdeacon Churton, to whose pen we owe the mos^ valuable part of this sketch.

, an eminent English mathematician and divine, the grandson of John Newton, of Axmouth, in Devonshire, and the son of Humphrey Newton of Oundle, in Northamptonshire, was born at Oundle in 1622, and was entered a commoner of St. Edmund’s hall, Oxford, in 1637. He took the degree of B. A. in 1641; and the year following, was created master, in precedence to several gentlemen that belonged to the king and court, then residing in the university, on account of his distinguished talents in the higher branches of science. His genius being inclined to astronomy and the mathematics, he made great proficiency in these sciences, which he found of service during the times of the usurpation, when he continued stedfest to his legal sovereign. After the restoration he was created D. D. at Oxford, Sept. 1661, was made one of the king’s chaplains, and rector of Ross, in Herefordshire, in the place of Mr. John Toombes, ejected for non-conformity. He held this living till his death, which happened at Ross, Dec. 25, 1678. Mr. Wood gives him the character of a capricious and humoursome person; but whatever may be in this, his writings are sufficient monuments of his genius and skill in the mathematics. These are, 1. “Astronomia Britannica, &c. in three parts,” 1656, 4to. 2. “Help to Calculation; with tables of declination, ascension, &c.” 1657, 4to. 3. “Trigonometria Britannica, in two books,” 1658, folio one composed by our author, and the other translated from the Latin of Henry Gellibrand. 4, “Chiliades centum Logarithmorum,” printed with, 5. “Geometrical Trigonometry,” 1659. 6. “Mathematical Elements, three parts,” 1660, 4to. 7. “A perpetual Diary, or Almanac,” 1662. 8. “Description of the use of the Carpenter’s Rule,” 1667. 9. “Ephemerides, shewing the Interest and Rate of Money at six per cent.” &c. 1667. 10. “Chiliades centum Logarithmorum, et tabula partium proportionalium,” 1667. 11. “The Rule of Interest, or the case of Decimal Fractions, &c. part II.” 1668, 8vo. 12. “School-Pastime for young Children,” &c. 1669, 8vo. 13. “Art of practical Gauging,” &c. 1669, 14. “Introduction to the art of Rhetoric,” 1671. 15. “The art of Natural Arithmetic, in whole numbers, and fractions vulgar and decimal,” 1671, 8vo. 16. “The English Academy,” 1677, 8vo. 17. “Cosmography.” 18. “Introduction to Astronomy.” 19. “Introduction to Geography,” 1678, 8vo.

, an English clergyman, whose extraordinary history has long been before the public, was born in London, July 24, 1725. His father was many years master of a ship in the Mediterranean trade, and in 1748 went out as governor of York Fort, in Hudson’s Bay, where he died in 1750. His mother, who died when he was only seven years old, had given him such religious instruction as suited his capacity, which was apt and good. By school education he profited little. He appears indeed to have been at a school at Stratford, in Essex, about two years, and acquired some knowledge of the L&tin, but his master’s method being too precipitate, he soon lost all he had learned. At the age of eleven he was taken to sea by his father, and before 1742 had made several voyages, at considerable intervals, which were chiefly spent in the country, excepting a few months in his fifteenth year, when he was placed with a very advantageous prospect at Alicant, where, as he says, “he might have done well, if he had behaved well.” For about two years something like religious reformation appeared in him, but he adds, “it was a poor religion, and only tended to make him gloomy, stupid, unsocial, and useless;” and from this he was seduced into the contrary extreme, by perusing some of the writings of Shaftesbury, which he found in a petty shop at Middleburgh, in Holland. In 1742, when his father proposed to leave off going to sea, he endeavoured to provide his son with a situation, and an eligible one occurred of his going to Jamaica; but happening to meet with the lady who became afterwards his wife, he abhorred the thought of living from her at such a distance as Jamaica, and that perhaps for four or five years, and therefore absented himself on a visit to Kent, until the ship sailed without him. His father, though highly displeased, became reconciled, and in a little time Mr. Newton sailed with a friend of his father’s to Venice. In this voyage, being a common sailor, and exposed to the company of some profligate comrades, he began to relax from the regularity which he had preserved in a certain degree, for more than two years; and in this and his subsequent voyages, represents himself as extremely thoughtless, vi-r cious, and abandoned. The consequences of this conduct led to those adventures which he has so interestingly de-r tailed in his life, published in 1764, and to which we must refer as to a work that does not admit of a satisfactory abridgment. If his vices were great, his sufferings seem also to have amounted to the extremes of misery and disgrace; but at length, about 1747, he was rescued by his father from this state of wretchedness, and in 1748, appears to have been for the first time awakened to a proper sense of his past life, which gradually improved into a real reformation. After this he was employed in ships concerned in the African slave-trade, and acquired that knowledge which many years afterwards enabled him to contribute, by his evidenoe before parliament, to the abo-i lition of that detestable traffic.

At length a variety of circumstances concurred to wean him from the sea, and after having been for some time placed in a situation as tidewaiter at Liverpool, he applied with great diligence to his studies, and acquired a competent knowledge of the sacred languages, with a view to take orders in the church. In 1758 he had received a title to a curacy, but on application to the archbishop of York, Dr. Gilbert, was refused ordination, as it appeared that he had been guilty of some irregularities, such as preaching in dissenting meetings, or other places, without ordination of any kind. In April 1764, however, by dint of strong recommendation, and a professed attachment, which he ever most carefully preserved, to the doctrines and discipline of the church, he was ordained by Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, to the curacy of Olney, and admitted into priest’s orders in June 1765. The living of Olney was at this time held by the celebrated angler, Moses Brown (see his article), a man who maintained the same evangelical sentiments as Mr. Newton, but had been under pecuniary difficulties, and was glad to accept the chaplaincy of Morden college, Blackheath, leaving the charge of his flock at Olney to Mr. Newton, who remained here for sixteen years.

At Olney Mr. Newton became acquainted with two gentlemen whose friendship gave an important interest to his future life, the benevolent John Thornton, esq. and William Cowper, the celebrated poet. The farmer, conceiving a high idea of the integrity and usefulness of Mr. Newton in this parish, determined to allow him a certain sum (200l. a year) with which he wished him to keep open house for such as were worthy of entertainment, and to help the poor and needy. Mr. Newton reckoned that he had received of Mr. Thornton upwards of 3000l. in this way during his residence atOlney, a sum which, however great, will not surprize those who knew the extent of Mr. Thornton’s liberality. His intimacy with Cowper forms one of the most interesting periods of that poet’s life. To what is said in our account of Cowper (vol. X. p. 405, &c.) we have only to regret in this place that much information has been lost to the public by the suppression of Mr. Newton’s letters to his afflicted friend. These letters must have been in Cowper’s possession; but what became of them after his death has never been explained. Had they appeared, they probably would have established beyond all power of contradiction, that no part of Cowper’s deplorable melancholy was attributable to his connection with Mr. Newton, or with men of his principles. Mr. Newton was himself a man of remarkable cheerfulness of disposition, and had a particular talent in administering consolation to those whose uneasiness arose from religious affections, nor was he easily mistaken in separating real concern from affectation. It appears that Mr. Newton was once in possession of a life of Cowper, written by himself, at the calmest period of his life; some facts from this have been communicated to the public by his biographer, but more remains, which we have been told would have thrown additional light on Mr. Cowper’s remarkable history.

In 1779 Mr. Newton was removed from Olney to be rector of the united parishes of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Lombard-street, on the presentation of his steady friend Mr. Thornton, and continued his labours in this place during life. Few men had more the art of attracting friendship; and his congregation, which increased every day, became attached to him in a degree which time has not yet. abated. One trait in his character added much to his usefulness; his benevolence was most extensive; his house was open to the afflicted of every description; gratitude appears to have been his predominant virtue; he never for a moment forgot the wretched state from which Providence had raised him, and this thankfulness continually operated in endeavour! to relieve the wants of others. He never knew how to refuse applications from the distressed, and his sympathy often drew such nearer him than a man more studious of domestic quiet would have wished. However liberal in affording an asylum to poor persons of whom he had a good opinion, he was, like Dr. Johnson, often the only person in his house who exhibited a contented mind and a thankful heart. Among his other services of no small importance, was his kind patronage of young men intended for the church. Some of these he had frequently about him, and assisted them either from his own scanty means, or by recommending them to his opulent friends, with whom Mr. Newton’s recommendations were decisive. It may now be mentioned, that the world owes the character and services of the late Dr. Claudius Buchapan to Mr. Newton, as will appear more particularly when the life of that gentleman shall be exhibited to the world. The early part of it was almost as unpromising as that of Mr. Newton himself.

Mr. Newton died Dec. 31, 1807, and was buried in the rector’s vault of his church. His faculties experienced some decay during the last two or three years, but his conversation at times exhibited his usual powers, and that original turn of thinking and expression which, in his former days, rendered his company equally pleasant and edifying. In 1750 he married Mary, the daughter of Mr. George Cattet, of Chatham, in Kent, who died in 1790, but had no issue by her. His principal works, of which a complete edition was published soon after his death, consist of sermons, preached and published at various times; the narrative of his life, published in 1764; “Review of Ecclesiastical History,” on the plan which Mr. Milner afterwards pursued; “Hymns,” some of which are by Cowper; “Cardiphonia;” and the “Messiah,” a series of sermons on the words of the celebrated oratorio. His “Life” was written by the late rev. Richard Cecil, and is published in 12mo. To this we owe the above sketch.

Here he soon gave proofs of a surprizing genius, and astonished his acquaintances by his mechanical contrivances. Instead of playing among other boys, he always busied himself in making curiosities, and models of wood of different kinds. For this purpose he got little saws, hatchets, hammers, and all sorts of tools, which he knew how to use with great dexterity. He even went so far as to make a wooden clock. A new windmill was set up about this time near Grantham in the way to Gunnerby. Young Newton’s imitating genius was excited, and by frequently prying into the fabric of it, as they were making it, he contrived to make a very perfect model, which was considered at least equal to the workmanship of the original, This sometimes he set upon the house-top where he lodged, and clothing it with sails, the wind readily turned it. He put a mouse into this machine, which he called his miller, and he contrived matters so that the mouse would turn round the mill whenever he thought proper. He used to joke too about the miller eating the corn that was put into the mill. Another of his contrivances was a water-clock, which he made out of a box that he begged from the Brother of his landlord’s wife. It was about four feet in height, and of a proportional breadth. There was a dial-plate at top with figures for the hours. The index was turned by a piece of wood which either fell or rose by water dropping. This stood in the room where he lay, and he took care every morning to supply it with its proper quantity of water.

Mrs. Vincent was neice to the wife of sir Isaac’s landlord at Grantham, and lived with him in the same house. According to her account, he very seldom joined with his school-fellows in their boyish amusements, but chose rather to be at home, even among the girls, and would frequently make little tables, cupboards, and other utensils, for her and her play-fellows to set their babies and trinkets in. She mentioned likewise a cart, which he made with four wheels, in which he would sit, and by turning a windlass about, make it carry him round the house wherever he pleased. He is said to have contracted an attachment to Mrs. Vincent, whose maiden name was Storey, and would have married her, but being himself a fellow of a college, with hardly any other income, and she having little or no fortune of her own, he judged it imprudent to enter into any matrimonial connection. But he continued to visit her as long as he lived, after her marriage, and repeatedly supplied her with money when she wanted it.

During all this time the mother of sir Isaac lived at North Witham, with her second husband; but, upon his death, she returned to Woolsthorpe, and in order to save expences as much as she could, she recalled her son from school, in order to make him serviceable at Woolsthorpe, in managing th farm and country business. Here he was employed in superintending the tillage, grazing, and harvest; and he was frequently sent on Saturdays to Grantham market, with com and other commodities to sell, and to carry home what necessaries were proper to he bought at a market town for a family; but, on account of his youth, his mother used to send a trusty old servant along with him, to put him in the way of business. Their inn was at the Saracen’s head, in West-gate, where, as soon as they had put up their horses, Isaac generally left the man to manage the marketing, and, retiring to Mr. Clark’s garret, where he used to lodge, entertained himself with a parcel of old books till it was time to go home again; or else he would stop by the way, between home and Grantham, and lie under a hedge studying, till the man went to town and did the business, and called upon him in his way back. When at home, if his mother ordered him into the fields to look after the sheep, the corn, or upon any other rural employment, it went on very heavily under his management. His chief delight was to sit under a tree with a book in his hands, or to busy himself with his knife in cutting wood for models of somewhat or other that struck his fancy, or he would get to a stream and make mill-wheels. This conduct of her son induced his mother to send him to Grantham school again for nine months; and then to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he was admitted June 3, 1660, and where he was soon noticed by Dr. Isaac Barrow, who perceived his talents, and contracted a great friendship for him. The progress of his studies here was of no common kind. He always informed himself beforehand of the books which his tutor intended to read, and when he came to the lectures he found he knew more of them than his tutor himself. The first books which he read for that purpose were Saunderson’s Logic, and Kepler’s Optics. A desire to know whether there was any thing in judicial astrology, first put him upon studying mathematics. He discovered the emptiness of that study as soon as he erected a figure; for which purpose he made use of two or three problems in Euclid, which he turned to by means of an index. He did not then read the rest, looking upon it as a book containing only plain and obvious things. This neglect of the ancient mathematicians, we are told by Dr. Pemberton, he afterwards regretted. The modern books which he read gave his mind, as he conceived, a wrong bias, vitiated his taste, and prevented him from attaining that elegance of demonstration which he admired in the ancients. The first mathematical book that he read was Des Cartes’s Geometry, and he made himself master of it by dint of genius and application, without going through the usual steps, or having the assistance of any person. His next book was the “Arithmetic of Infinites,” by Dr. Wallis. On these books he wrote comments as he read them, and reaped a rich harvest of discoveries, or more properly, indeed, made almost all his mathematical discoveries as he proceeded in their perusal.

In contemplating his genius, it becomes a doubt which of these endowments had the greatest share, sagacity, penetration, strength, or diligence; and, after all, the mark that seems most to distinguish it is, that he himself made the justest estimation of it, declaring, that, if he had done the world any service, it was due to nothing but industry and patient thought; that he kept the subject under consideration constantly before him, and waited till the first dawning opened gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light. And hence no doubt arose that unusual kind of horror which he had for all disputes a steady unbroken attention, free from those frequent recoilings inseparably incident to others, was his peculiar felicity; he knew it, and he knew the value of it. No wonder then that controversy was looked on as his bane, when some objections, hastily made to his discoveries concerning light and colours, induced him to lay aside the design he had of publishing his optic lectures; we find him reflecting on that dispute, into which he was unavoidably drawn thereby, in these terms: “I blamed my own imprudence for parting with so real a blessing as my quiet to run after a shadow.” It is true, this shadow, as Fontenelle observes, did not escape him afterwards, nor did it cost him that quiet which he so much valued, but proved as much a real happiness to him as his quiet itself; yet this was a happiness of his own making; he took a resolution, from these disputes, not to publish any more about that theory, till he had put it above the reach of controversy, by the exactest experiments, and the strictest demonstrations; and, accordingly, it has never been called in question since.

In 1664 he took his bachelor’s degree, and in 1667 he was elected fellow of Trinity college. The following year he took his master’s degree, and in 1669 Dr. Barrow resigned his mathematical professorship to him. In 1671 he was elected fellow of the royal society. It has been asserted that at this time he was so poor that he was obliged to apply to the society for a dispensation from the usual contribution df a shilling a week, which all the fellows of the society regularly paid. But this, in the opinion of his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow, seems doubtful. Bis estates, for he had two, were worth about 80l. a year, which, added to his fellowship and professorship, mast have been sufficient for such a trifling expence. He had indeed his mother and her family to support, but when we consider the expence of living at this time, Mr. Newton, with about 200^ a year, his probable income, could not be reckoned a poor man. In 1675 he had a dispensation from king Charles II. to retain his fellowship without taking orders. In 1687 he was chosen one of the delegates to represent the university of Cambridge, before the high commission court, to answer far their refusing to admit father Francis master of arts upon king James’s mandamus, without his taking the oaths prescribed by the statutes; and was greatly instrumental in persuading his colleagues to persist in the maintenance of their rights and privileges. So strenuous indeed was the defence which he made, that James, infatuated as he was at this time, thought proper to drop his pretensions. In 1688 he was chosen by the university of Cambridge, member of the convention parliament, and was again chosen in 1701. In 1696, the earl of Halifax, at that time Mr. Montague, and chancellor of the exchequer, who was a great patron of the learned, wrote to him that he had prevailed on the king to make him warden of the mint, a place worth five or six hundred pounds a year, and which Mr. Montague stated would not require more attendance than he could spare. In this office he did signal service in the great re-coinage which took place soon after, and is said to have saved the nation 80,000l. In 1699 he was made master and worker of the mint, in which situation he continued until his death, and behaved himself with an universal character of integrity and disinterestedness. He had frequent opportunities of employing his skill in mathematics and chemistry, particularly in his “Table of Assay of Foreign Coins,” which is printed at the end of Dr. Arbuthnot’s book of coins.

While at the university, he spent the greatest part of his time in his closet, and when he was tired with the severer studies of philosophy, his relief and amusement was going to some other study, as history, chronology, divinity, chemistry; all which he examined with the greatest attention, as appears by the many papers which he left behind him on those subjects. After his coming to London , all the time he could spare from his business, and from the civilities of life, in which he was scrupulously exact and complaisant, was employed in the same way; and he was hardly ever alone without a pen in his hand, and a book before him: and in all the studies which he undertook, he had a perseverance and patience equal to his sagacity and invention. His niece, afterwards married to Mr. Conduitt, who succeeded him as master of the mint, lived with him about twenty years during his residence in London. He always lived in a very handsome, generous manner, though without ostentation or vanity always hospitable, and, upon proper occasions, he gave splendid entertainments. He was generous and charitable without bounds; and he used to say that they who gave away nothing till they died, never gave. This, perhaps, was one reason why he never made a will. Scarcely any man of his circumstances ever gave away so much during his own life-time, in alms, in encouraging ingenuity and learning, and to his relations nor, upon all occasions, showed a greater contempt of his own money, or a more scrupulous frugality of that which belonged to the public, or to any society he was entrusted for. He refused pensions and additional employments that were offered him; he was: highly honoured and respected in all reigns, and under all administrations, even by those whom he opposed y for in every situation he shewed an inflexible attachment to the cause of liberty, and to the constitution of Great Britain. George II. and queen Caroline shewed him particular marks of their favour and esteem, and often conversed with him for hours together. The queen in particular, used to take delight in his company, and was accustomed to congratulate herself that she lived in the same country, and at the same time, with so illustrious a person. Yet, notwithstanding the extraordinary honours that were paid him, he had so humble an opinion of himself, that he had no relish for the applause which he received. In Spence’s “Anecdotes” we are told, that when Ramsay was one day complimenting him on his discoveries in philosophy, he answered, “Alas! I am only like a child picking up pebbles on the shore of the great ocean of truth.” He was so little vain and desirous of glory from any of his works, that he would have let others run away with the credit of those inventions which have done so much honour to human nature, if his friends and countrymen had not been more jealous than he was of his own glory, and the honour of his country. He was exceedingly courteous and affable, even to the lowest, and never despised any man for want of capacity: but always expressed freely his resentment against immorality or impiety. He not only shewed a great and constant regard to religion in general, as well by an exemplary life, as in all his writings, but was also a firm believer in revealed religion, with one exception, an important one indeed, that his sentiments on the doctrine of the Trinity by no means coincided with what are generally held. He left many papers behind him on religious subjects, which Dr. Horsley, who examined them, declined publishing, probably on account of the opinions which we have just hinted. Sir Isaac had such a mildness of temper that a melancholy story would often draw tears from him, and he was exceedingly shocked at any act of cruelty to man or beast; mercy to both being the topic that he loved to dwell upon. An innate modesty and simplicity showed itself in all his actions and expressions. His whole life was one continued series of labour, patiejrce, charity, generosity, temperance, piety, goodness, and every other virtue, without a mixture of any known vice whatsoever.

Fontenelle, after detailing these circumstances, observes, that “he was not distinguished from other men by any singularity, either natural or affected;” and Dr. Johnson considered it as an eminent instance of Newton’s superiority to the rest of mankind, “that he was able to separate knowledge from those weaknesses by which knowledge is generally disgraced: that he was able to excel in science and wisdom, without purchasing them by the neglect of little things: and that he stood alone merely because he had left the rest of mankind behind him, not because he deviated from the beaten track.”

He was blessed with a very happy and vigorous constitution he was of a middle stature, and rather plump in his latter years: he had a very lively and piercing eye.: a comely and gracious aspect, and a fine head of hair, as white as silver, without any baldness. To the time of his last illness he had the bloom and colour of a young man. He never wore spectacles, nor lost more than one tooth till the day of his death. About five years before his death, he was troubled with an incontinence of urine, and sometimes with a stillicidium, both of which continued to afflict him, more or less, according to the motion to which he was exposed. On this account he sold his chariot, and went always in a chair: and he gave up dining abroad, or with much company at home. He eat little flesh, and lived chiefly upon broth, vegetables, and fruit, of which he always eat heartily. In August, 1724, he voided, without any pain, a stone about the size of a pea, which came away in two pieces: one some days after the other. In January 1725, he had a violent cough and inflammation of the lungs, upon which he was persuaded, with considerable difficulty, to take a house in Kensington, where he had, in his eighty-fourth year, a fit of the gout, for the second time, having had a slight attack of it some years before. This fit left him in better health than he had enjoyed for several years. In the winter of 1725, he wanted to resign his situation as master of the mint to his nephew, Mr Conduitt, hut this gentleman would not permit his resignation, but offered to conduct the whole business in his place, and for about a year before his death sir Isaac hardly ever went to the Mint, trusting entirely to the management of his nephew.

On Tuesday, Feb. 28, 1727, he went to town, in order to attend a meeting of the Royal Society. Next day Mr. Conduitt paid him a visit, and found him apparently in better health than he had enjoyed for several years. Sir Isaac was sensible of it himself, and told his nephew, smiling, that he had slept the Sunday before from eleven at night till eight in the morning, without waking. But his fatigue in attending the Society, and in paying and receiving visits, brought his old complaint violently upon him . Dr. Mead and Mr. Cheselden were carried out to Kensington to see him, by Mr. Conduitt. They immediately pronounced his disease to be the stone in the bladder, and gave no hopes of his recovery. The stone was probably removed from the place where it lay quiet, by the great motion and fatigue of his last journey to London, From this time he had violent fits of pain, with scarcely any intermission: and though the drops of sweat ran down his face with anguish, he never complained, nor cried out, nor shewed the least sign of peevishness or impatience; and, during the short intervals from that violent torture, would smile and talk with his usual cheerfulness. On Wednesday March 15 he was somewhat better, and fallacious hopes were entertained of his recovery. On Saturday March 1$ he read the newspapers, and held a pretty long conversation with Dr. Mead, and had all his senses perfect but that evening at six, and all Sunday, he was insensible, and died on Monday March 20, 1727, between one and two o'clock in the morning; having reached the age of eighty-four years and a few months, and retained all hi? senses and faculties to the end of his life, strong, vigorouf, and lively. He continued writing and studying many hours every day, till the period of his last illness. Although he had lived with great splendour and liberality, and had originally but a small property, be accumulated 32,000l. of personal estate which was divided between his four nephews and nieces of half-blood . The land which he had of his father and mother descended to his hir of the whole blood, John Newton, whose great grand-father was sir Isaac’s uncle.

Sir Isaac was remarkably liberal to all his relations, particularly to his mother’s family by Mr. Smith, giving to one 500l. to another an estate of 4000l. or thereabouts, to make up a loss occasioned by the imprudent marriage of one of them, and to prevent a lawsuit among themselves. This was done many years before his death. He had a half-sister, who had a daughter, to whom he gave the best of educations. This was “the famous witty Miss Barton,” who married Mr. Conduitt; sir Isaac bought an estate of 70l. or 80l. a-year, and gave it to their daughter Miss Conduitt, then very young, who was afterwards married to the eldest son of lord Lymington, from whom the present earl of Portsmouth is descended. He was equally kind to his mother’s relations, the Ayscoughs, some of whom had been imprudent, and needed his help. To one he gave 800l. to another 200l. and many other sums, and frequently became security for them. He is said never to have sold the copies of any of his works, but gave them freely to the booksellers. Mr. Seward appears therefore to have been greatly mistaken in imputing a desire of gain to sir Isaac because he had some concern in the SouthSea bubble, and lost, according to his niece’s report, 20,000l. Even this loss made no alteration in his liberality, and in point of fact, it appears that the greatest instances of his kindness to his relations and friends occurred after the year 1720. The John Newton above mentioned, who inherited his real estate, died in 1737, at the age of thirty. He is said to have been illiterate and intemperate. With him the family of Newton became extinct.

Any investigation of his mathematical discoveries, or a laboured analysis of his philosophy, called, by way of distinction, the Newtonian, would be out of place in a work of this kind, and to be satisfactory would exceed all bounds. Dr. Keill said that if all philosophy and mathematics were considered as consisting of ten parts, nine of them would be found entirely of his discovery and invention. “Does Mr. Newton eat, drink, or sleep, like other men?” said the marquis de l'Hospital, one of the greatest mathematicians of the age, to the English who visited him. “I represent him to myself as a celestial genius entirely disengaged from matter.” Of his philosophy, properly so called, the great principle is the power of gravity: this had been hinted at by Kepler, but the glory of bringing it to a physical demonstration was reserved for Newton. It was first made public in 1686, but republished in 1713, with considerable improvements. Several other authors have since attempted to make it plainer, by setting aside many of the more sublime mathematical researches, and substituting either more obvious reasoning, or experiments, in lieu of them; particularly Whiston, in his “Prælect. Phys. Mathemat.;” S'Gravesande, in “Element, et Instit.” Dr. Pemberton, in his “View” and Maclaurin, in his excellent work, entitled “An Account of sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries.” Notwithstanding the great merit of this philosophy, and the universal reception it has met with at home, it gained ground at its first publication but slowly abroad, and Cartesianism, Huygenianism, and Leibnitzianism, maintained their ground, till the force of truth prevailed. It is now, bowever, held in the utmost veneration both at home and abroad. The philosophy itself is laid down principally in the third book of the Principia. The two preceding books are taken up in preparing the way for it, and laying down such principles of mathematics as have the nearest relation to philosophy: such are the laws and conditions of powers. And these, to render them less dry and geometrical, the author illustrates by scholia in philosophy, relating chiefly to the density and resistance of bodies, the motion of iight and sounds, a vacuum, &c. In the third book he proceeds to the philosophy itself; and from the same principles deduces the structure of the universe, and the powers of gravity, by which bodies tend towards the sun and planets; and from these powers, the motion of planets, and comets, the theory of the moon, and the tides. This book, which he calls “De Mundi Systemate,” he tells us was first written in the popular way; but considering, that such as are unacquainted with the said principles would not conceive the force of the consequences, nor be induced to lay aside their ancient prejudices, he afterwards digested the sum of that book into propositions, in the mathematical manner; so as it might only come to be read by such as had first considered the principles; not that it is necessary a man should master them all; many of them, even the firstrate mathematicians, would find a difficulty in getting over. It is enough to have read the definitions, laws of motion, and the three first sections of the first book: after which the author himself directs us to pass on to the book “De Systemate Mundi.”

Newton’s opinion of God is well expressed by Brucker: "God governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as the Lord of the universe. The Supreme Deity is an eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect Being, omnipotent and omniscient: that is, his duration extends from eternity to eternity, and his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things which exist, or can be known. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite he is not duration or space, but he endures, and is present; he endures for ever, and is present every where. Since every portion of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never or nowhere. God is omnipresent not virtually only, but substantially, for power cannot subsist without substance. In him all things are contained and move, but without reciprocal affection: God is not affected by the motion of bodies, nor do bodies suffer resistance from the omnipresence of God.

“It is universally allowed, that God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where. Whence be is throughout similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power of perceiving, understanding, and acting but in a manner not at all human; in a manner not at all corporeal in a manner to us altogether unknown. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so we have no idea of the manner in which the Most Wise God perceives and understands all things. He is entirely without body and bodily form, and therefore can neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under any corporeal representation. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the substance of anything is we are wholly ignorant. We see only the figures and colours of bodies; we hear only sounds; we touch only external superficies; we smell only odours; we taste onlysavours; of their internal substances we have no knowledge by any sense, or by any reflex act of the mind: much less have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his properties and attributes, by the most wise and excellent structure of things, and by final causes; and we reverence and worship him on account of his dominion. A God without dominion, providence, and design, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.”

While many learned mathematicians, and celebrated writers, have attempted to illustrate and explain different parts of the writings of Newton, some have ventured to call in question the ground of his philosophy. It has been objected, that attraction, the first principle in the Newtonian philosophy, is in reality one of those occult qualities which Newton professes to reject. But to this it is satisfactorily replied, that the power of gravity is not an unknown cause, since its existence is proved from the phaenooiena. The Newtonian philosophy does not require, that the cause of gravitation should be explained. It merely assumes an incontrovertible fact, that bodies gravitate towards each other according to a known law, and, by the help of geometrical reasoning, deduces from this fact certain conclusions. Newton himself expressly asserts, that it is enough for him that gravity really exists, though its cause be not certainly known. In truth no words can be more explicit than those in which Newton disclaims all reliance upon hypothetical principles, or occult qualities, and makes experience the only foundation of his philosophy.

Dissatisfied with the hypothetical grounds on which former philosophers, particularly Des Cartes, had raised the structure of natural philosophy, Newton adopted the manner of philosophising introduced by lord Bacon, and determined to raise a system of natural philosophy on the basis of experiment. He laid it down as a fundamental rule, that nothing is to be assumed as a principle, which is not established by observation and experience, and that no hypothesis is to be admitted into physics, except as a question, the truth of which is to be examined by its agreement with appearances. “Whatever,” says he, “is not deduced from phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis: and hypotheses, whether physical or metaphysical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.” In this philosophy, propositions are drawn from phenomena, and are ' rendered general by induction. This plan of philosophising he pursued in two different methods, the Analytic and the 8301thetic; collecting from certain phenomena the forces of nature, and the more simple laws of these forces; and then proceeding, on the foundation of these, to establish the rest. In explaining, for example, the system of the world, he first proves, from experience, that the power of gravitation belongs to all bodies then, assuming this as an established principle, he demonstrates, by mathematical reasoning, that the earth and sun, and all the planets, mutually attract each other, and that the smallest parts of matter in each have their several attractive forces, which are as their quantities of matter, and which, at different distances, are inversely as the squares of their distances. In investigating the theorems of the “Principia,” Newton made use of his own analytical method of fluxions; but, in explaining his system, he has 'followed the synthetic method of the ancients, and demonstrated the theorems geometrically. The following, we presume, is a correct list of the works of Newton, published before or after his death. 1. Several papers relating to his “Telescope,” and his “Theory of Light and Colours,” printed in the Philosophical Transactions, numbers 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85., 83, 96, 97, 110, 121, 123, 128; or vols. Vj, VII, VIII, IX, X, XL 2. “Optics, or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, and Inflections, and the Colours of Light,” 1704, 4to; a Latin translation by Dr. Clarke, 1706, 4 to.; and a French translation by Pet. Coste, Amst. 1729, 2 vols. 12mo; beside several English editions in 8vo. 3. “Optical Lectures,” 1728, 8vo; also in several Letters to Mr. Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society. 4. “Lectiones Opticse,” 1729, 4to. 5. “Naturalis Philosophise Principia Mathematica,” 1687, 4to; a second edition in 17 13, with a Preface, by Roger Cotes; the third edition in 1726, under the direction of Dr. Pemberton; an English translation, by Motte, 1729, 2 vols. 8vo, printed in several editions of his works, in different nations, particularly an edition, with a large Commentary, by the two learned Jesuits, Le Seur and Jacquier, in 4 vols. 4to, in 1739, 1740, and 1742. 6. “A System of the World,” translated from the Latin original, 1727, 8vo this was at first intended to make the third book of his Principia; an English translation by Motte, 1729, 8vo. 7. Several Letters to Mr. Flamsteed, Dr. Halley, and Mr. Oldenburg, 8. “A Paper concerning the Longitude,” drawn up by order of the House of Commons, ibid. 9. “Abrege de Chronologic,” &c. 1726, under the direction of the abbe Conti, together with some observations upon it. 10. “Remarks upon the Observations made upon a Chronological Index of Sir I. Newton,” &c. Philos. Trans, vol. XXXIII. See also the same, vol. XXXIV and XXXV, by Dr. Halley. 11. “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended,” &c. 1728, 4to. 12. “Arithmetica Universalis,” &c. under the inspection of Mr. Whiston, Cantab. 1707, 8vo. Printed, Dr. Hutton thinks, without the author’s consent, and even against his will: an offence which it seems was never forgiven. There are also English editions of the same, particularly one by Wilder, with a Commentary, in 1769, 2 vols. 8vo; and a Latin edition, with a Commentary, by Castilion, 2 vols. 4to, Amst. &c. 13. “Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones, et Differentias, cum Enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis,” 1711, 4to, under the inspection of W. Jones, eaq. f. ft. S.; the last tract had been published before, together with another on the Quadrature of Curves, by the method of fluxions, under the title of “Tractatus duo de Speciebus & Magnitudine Figurarum Curvilinearum,” subjoined to the first edition of his Optics in 1704; and other letters in the Appendix to Dr. Gregory’s Catoptrics, &c. 1735, 8vo; under this head may be ranked “Newtoni Genesis Curvarum per Umbras,” Leyden, 1740. 14. Several Letters relating to his Dispute with Leibnitz, upon his right to the invention of Fluxions printed in the “Commercium Epistolicum D. Johannis Collins & aliorum de Analyst Promota, jussu Societatis Regise editum,” 1712, 8vo. 15. Postscript and Letter of M. Leibnitz to the Abbe Conti, with Remarks, and a Letter of his own to that Abbe, 1717, 8vo. To which was added, Raphson’s History of Fluxions, as a Supplement. 16. “The Method of Fluxions, and Analysis by Infinite Series,” translated into English from the original Latin; to which is added, a Perpetual Commentary, by the translator Mr. John Colson, 1736, 4to. 17. “Several Miscellaneous Pieces, and Letters,” as follow L A Letter to Mr. Boyle upon the subject of the Philosopher’s Stone. Inserted in the General Dictionary, under the article Boyle, II. A Letter to Mr. Aston, containing directions for his travel?, ibid, under our author’s article; III. An English translation of a Latin Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews* Inserted among the miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves, vol. IL published by Dr. Thomas Birch, in 1737, 2 vols. 8vo. This Dissertation was found subjoined to a work of sir Isaac’s, not finished, entitled “Lexicon Propheticum;” IV. Four Letters from sir Isaac Newton to Dr. Bentley, containing some arguments in proof of a Deity, 1756, 8vo, very acutely reviewed by Dr. Johnson in the Literary Magazine, and afterwards inserted in his works V. Two Letters to Mr. Clarke, &c. iSi “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John,” 1733, 4to. 19. “I*. Newtoni Elementa Perspective Universalis,” 1746, 8vo. 20. “Tables for purchasing College Leases,” 1742, 12mo. 21. “Corollaries,” by Whiston. 22. A collection of several pieces of our author’s, under the following title, “Newtoni Is. Opuscula Mathematica Philos. & Philol. collegit J. Castilioneus,” Laus. 1744, 4to, 8 tomes. 23. “Two Treatises of the Quadrature^ Curves, and Analysis by Equations of an Infinite Number of Terms, explained: translated by John Stewart, with a large Commentary,” 1745, 4to. 24. “Description of an Instrument for observing the Moon’s Distance from the Fixed Stars at Sea,” Philos. Trans, vol. XLII. 25. Newton also published “Barrow’s Optical Lectures,” 1699, 4to; and “Bern. Varenii Geographia,” &c. 1681, 8vo. 26. The whole works of Newton, published by Dr. Horsley, 1779, 4to, in 5 volumes.

Besides the above, he left a vast quantity of manuscripts and papers relative to chronology and church history, many of which are copies over and over again, often with little or no variation; the whole number being upwards of 4000 sheets in folio, or 8 reams of folio paper. Of these there have been published only the “Chronology,” and “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.”

, D. D. founder of Hertford college, Oxford, was descended from a family that had long been of considerable repute, and of good fortune, but much injured during the civil wars. His father enjoyed a moderate estate at Lavendon Grange, in Bucks, (which is now in the family,) and lived in a house of lord Northampton’s in Yardlv-chase, where Dr. Newton is said to have been born about 1676. He was educated at Westminsterschool, and elected from that foundation in 1694 to a studentship of Christ-church, Oxford, where he executed the office of tutor very much to his own and the college’s honour and benefit. Here he became M. A. April 12, 1701; and B. D. March 18, 1707. He was inducted principal of Hart-hall, by Dr. Aldrich, in 1710, and took the degree of D. D. Dec. 7, that year. He was received into lord Pelham’s family, to superintend the education of the late duke of Newcastle, the minister, and his brother Mr. Pelham, who ever retained a most affectionate regard for him. Of this, however, he was long without any substantial proofs. Being a man of too independent and liberal principles ever to solicit a favour for himself, he was overlooked by these statesmen, till, in 1752, a short time before his death, when he was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, which he held with his principalship of Hertford-college. He was honoured with the esteem of the late lord Granville, than whom none at that timfe a better judge of merit and men of learning. He was aU lowed to be as polite a scholar and as ingenious a writer as any of the age. In closeness of argument, and perspicuity and elegance of language, he had not his equal. Never was any private person employed in more trusts, or discharged them with greater integrity. He was a true friend to religion, the university, and the clergy; a man of exemplary piety, and extensive charity. No one man was called forth so often to preach, in the latter end of queen Anne’s time, and in the beginning of king George I. as Dr. Newton.

The Mss. of Mr. Jones, published in the Gentleman’s Magazine for 1783, have furnished the following detached memoranda concerning him: " A very sensible, thoughtful, judicious, and a truly honest man. His writings shew his learning, judgment, and integrity; and his life exemplified every Christian virtue. He was my very good friend; and a promoter of my studies. I entirely loved and respected him living, and I shall always revere his memory now he is dead. Most orderly and exact in his family at Lavendon Grange (where I often visited him), as well as In his college. Discreet and punctual in every part of his conduct. Highly and justly esteemed by all the wise and good. He lamented the indolence and inactivity, and was grieved to observe the secular views and ambitious schemes, of some of the heads of colleges and halls; but he, for his own part, resolved to do his duty, as became a good governor, and a friend to useful discipline and learning. An example of temperance and decency in every part of his behaviour; and of great moderation also, in respect of the different sentiments of his fellow-protestants. He valued, and occasionally visited, and would converse, and sometimes dine with, Dr. Doddridge, when he came to Northampton. He saw that they both aimed at the same great and good end, in fitting up hopeful young students for the Christian ministry. He usually made excursions, in the long vacations, into various parts of the kingdom, most commonly taking with him, for company and improvement, one or more young gentlemen of fortune in his college, at the request, and with the approbation, of their parents. He was himself, in every respect, a gentleman, and a mail of refined good breeding. You might see this in every part of his conversation. At evening, upon such journeys, he would, a little before bed-time, desire his young pupils to indulge him in a short vacation of about half an hour, for his own private recollections. During that little interval they were silent, and he would smoke his pipe with great composure, and then chat with them again in am useful manner for a short space, and, bidding them a good night, go to his rest.

“He died at Lavendon Grange, extremely lamented by all the poor of that neighbourhood, to whom he was a kind benefactor, and by all his friends and acquaintance throughout the kingdom. Upon his death-bed, he ordered all his writings to be destroyed, as his worthy widow informed me; and she was a conscientious person. His friend, Dr t Hunt, advised her to be cautious, and to be sure she did not mistake his meaning, especially with regard to some articles. I also, to whom she paid a favourable regard, presumed to suggest the same caution. How far that good lady proceeded in the proposed destruction of the worthy doctor’s papers, I am not able to say; but do hitherto suppose she reduced them to ashes. Upon a vacancy of the public orator’s place at Oxford, Newton offered himself a candidate; but Digby Cotes, then fellow of All Souls-college, and afterwards principal of Magdalenhall, carried the point against him. Newton’s friends thought him to be by far the more qualified person for that eminent post; though orator Digby was also, I think, a man of worth as well as reputation. Newton survived him. Dr. Newton was well skilled in the modern foreign languages, as well as in the ancient ones of Greece and Rome. A well-polished gentleman, and, at the same time, a sincere Christian. He carried dignity in his aspect, but sweetened with great modesty, humility, and freedom of conversation. This I know, having carefully observed bim, and having always found him even and uniform, both in his temper and in his conduct. One thing comes novr into my mind. Being a guest for a night or two at his house at Lavendon, in the summer-1749, and in my way to Oxford and London, &c. I had much familiar and free discourse with him, and particularly upon the subject of a reasonable reform in some particulars relating to our ecclesiastical establishment a reform, to which he was a hearty welt- wisher. One evening, there being present his worthy vice-principal Mr. Saunders, and an ingenious young gentleman of fortune, a pupil of Saunders, the doctor was pleased to propose to us this question: What share are ifce to allow to Common Sense and Reason in matters of lieKgion? Those two gentlemen and myself being silent, he addressed himself particularly to me, who was, in pqiuT-qf age, superior to them both. I freely answered, that, in my poor opinion, the due exercise of common sense and reason^ and private judgment in all matters of religion, ought to be allowed to all Christians. He said, he was of the same mind. He read prayers in his family at Lavendon, morning and evening, being select parts of the public liturgy. On Wednesdays and Fridays the litany only. He appointed to his studious guests several separate apartments (being parlours) for private study, with pen, ink, and paper, for each, and the use of his library, which was near those apartments, &c. When Pelham was minister, that station corrupted the man, and made him like other ministers; for when he was asked why he did not place, in proper station, the able and meritorious Dr. Newton, he said, `How could I do it? he never asked me' forgetting his tutor. Mr. Pelham more than once employed Dr. Newton to furnish king’s speeches.” His foundation of Hertford-college, for which chiefly he is now remembered, was an unfortunate speculation, ft was preceded by some publications calculated to make known his opinions on academic education. The first of these, which appeared in 1720, was entitled “A Scheme of Discipline, with Statutes intended to be established by a royal charter for the education of youth in Hert-hall;” and in 1725, he drew up the statutes of Hertford -college, which he published in 1747. In 1726, or 1727, he published his “University Education,” which chiefly relates to the removal of students from one college to another, without the leave of their respective governors, or of the chancellor. This appears to have involved him in some unpleasant altercations with his brethren. His application, for a charter to take Hert-hall from under the jurisdiction of Exeter- college, and erect it into an independent college, occasioned a controversy between him and Dr. Conybeare, then rector of Exeter, and afterwards bishop of Bristol and dean of Christ church. In August 1740, however, he obtained the charter for raising Hert-hall into a perpetual college, for the usual studies; the society to consist of a principal, four senior fellows or tutors, eight junior fellows or assistants, eight probationary students, twenty-four actual students, and four scholars. He contributed an annuity of 55l. 6s. Sd. issuing out of his house at Lavendon, and other lands in that parish, to be an endowment for the four senior fellows at the rate of 13l. 6s. Sd. each yearly. He then purchased some houses in the neighbourhood of Hert-hall for its enlargement, and expended about 1500l. on building the chapel and part of an intended new quadrangle. Very few benefactors afterwards appeared to complete the establishment, which, by the aid of independent members subsisted for some years, but has of late gradually fallen off, and it is but within these few months that a successor could be found to the late principal Dr. Bernard Hodgson, who died in 1805. Dr. Newton’s radical error in drawing up the statutes, was his fixing the price of every thing at a maximum, and thus injudiciously overlooking the progress of the markets, as well as the state of society. He seems indeed to have been more intent on establishing a school upon rigid and ceconomical principles, than a college which, with equal advantages in point of education, should keep pace with the growing liberality and refinement of the age. Besides some single sermons, Dr. Newton published in answer to the learned Wharton on pluralities, a volume entitled “Pluralities indefensible,” 1744; and in 1752 issued “Proposals for printing by subscription 4000 copies of the Characters of Theophrastus, for the benefit of Hertford-college;” but this did not appear until a year after his death, when it was published by his successor Dr. William Sharp, in an 8vo volume. The produce to the college is said to have amounted to 1000l., which we much doubt, as the price was only six shillings each copy. In 1784, a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his grandson, S.Adams, LL. B. 8vo.

He wrote, 1. “A notable history of the Saracens, &c. drawn out of Aug. Curio, in three books,” Lond. 1575, 4to. 2. “A Summary, or brief Chronicle of the Saracens and Turks,” &c. printed with the former. 3. “Approved medicines and cordial precepts, with the nature and symptoms,” &c. ibid. 1580, 8vo. 4. “Illustrium aliquot Anglorum encomia,” ibid. 1589, 4to, at the end of Leland’s “Encomia.” 5. “Atropoion Delion or the death of Delia, with the tears of her funeral. A poetical Discourse of our late Elizabeth,” ibid. 1603, 4to. 6. “A pleasant new History: or a Fragrant Posie made of three flowers: Rose, Rosalynd, and Rosemary,” ibid. 1604. He also corrected “Embryon Relimatum,” written by John Stambridge, but he was not the author of the two parts of Tamerlane the great Scythian emperor, which were written by Marlow. He translated the following works: 7. “A Direction for the Health of Magistrates and Students,” from Gratarolus, Lond. 1574, 12mo; of this a copious extract may be seen in the Bibliographer, vol. II, 8. “Commentary on the two Epistles general of St. Simon and St. Jude,” from Luther, ibid. 1581, 4to. 9. “Touchstone of Complexions,” from Levinus Lemnius, ibid. 1581, 8vo, noticed in the “Censura Literaria,” with an extract, vol. VI. 10. “The third tragedy of L. An. Seneca, entitled Thebais,” ibid. 1581, published with the other translated plays, by Studley, Nevile, &c. Dr. Pulteney thinks that the “Herbal to the Bible,” printed in 1587, 8vo, was by him; and this is not improbable, as it is only a translation, of “Levini Lemnii explicatio similitudjnum quæ in Bibliis ex herbis et arboribus sumuntur.” He conceives also that Newton was the writer of the commendatory lines prefixed to Lyte’s Herbal, in which, after complimenting the author for his judicious selection of useful knowledge from former writers, he has versified, in less than two pages, the names of more than two hundred worthies in medical science, from the earliest antiquity to his own times. Warton observes that most of the ingenious and learned men of that age courted his favours as a polite and popular encomiast. Warton also infers that he was a partizan of the puritans, from no better authority than his having written “Christian friendship, with an invective against dice-play and other profane games,” Lond. 1586.

His first appearance as a preacher was in St. George’s, Hanover-square, where he officiated for a short time as curate, and afterwards as assistant preacher to Dr. Trebeck, whose ill-health disabled him from performing his duty. His first regular employment was that of reader and afternoon preacher at Grosvenor-chapel in SouthAudley-street. By this appointment, be became well known in the parish, and was soon taken into lord Carpenter’s family to be tutor to his son, afterwards created earl of Tyrconnel. Of this family he speaks with much gratitude, as a situation in which he lived very much at his ease “with not so much as an unkind word, or even a cool look ever intervening;” and, he tells us, that living at no kind of expense, he was tempted to gratify and indulge his taste in the purchase of books, prints, and pictures, and made the beginnings of a collection which was continually receiving considerable additions and improvements. Here he remained, however, for some time, without any promotion; but in 1738, Dr. Pearce, afterwards fcishop of Rochester, but then vicar of St. Martin’s, with svhom he had no acquaintance, sent to him requesting he would preach on a certain day at the chapel in Spring-garden, and immediately after offered to appoint him morning preacher at this chapel. This he gladly accepted, and it became the means of a useful and valuable connection with Dr. Pearce.

In the spring of 1744, Mr. Newton, through the interest of his patron, the earl of Bath, was preferred to the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, “so that,” as he observes, “he was forty years old before he obtained any living.” Upon this preferment, he quitted the chapel in Spring-garden. His fellowship also became vacant, and at the commencement in 1745 he took his degree of doctor in divinity. The rebellion in Scotland breaking out soon sifter, he was in all his sermons and discourses so strenuous in the cause of his king and country, that he received some threatening letters, which lord Bath advised him to lay before the secretary of state. One or two of his sermons upon this occasion he published by desire, as well as that which was preached on the 18th December, in the same year, before the House of Commons. In the beginning of the following spring, 1746, he was honoured with additional proofs of the friendship and confidence of the earl of Bath, being intrusted by his lordship with the relation of some secret transactions at court, of which an account may be seen in his life. The king requested that lord Bath would avenge his cause on his servants who had deserted him, by writing a full account of the whole transaction, which he appears to have shown to his chaplain. His majesty also desired it might be printed, at a convenient season; but it perished among the other papers which lord Bath burnt after his son’s death. In the spring 1747, Dr. Newton was chosen lecturer of St. George’s, Hanover- square, in the room of Dr. Savage, deceased. In the month of August following he married his first wife, Jane, the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Trebeck; with this lady he lived very happily near seven years. As they had no children, they boarded in the parsonage-house with Dr. Trebeck; Dr. Newton had the best apartment for his pictures, and by the good management of Mrs. Trebeck was freed from the care and trouble of house-keeping, to which he seems to have always had an aversion.

In 1749 he published his edition of “Milton’s Paradise Lost,” which was so favourably received by the public as to go through, in his life-time, eight editions. The title of this work was, “Paradise Lost, a Poem, in twelve books. The author, John Milton: a new edition, with notes of various authors. By Thomas Newton, D. D.” 1749, 2 vols. 4to. The type of the text is remarkably large, and the whole printed with much elegance. It is dedicated to the earl of Bath, who, the editor states, was entitled to this mark of respect, as it was undertaken chiefly at his de sire, and in some measure carried on at his expence,“his lordship having contributed the engravings. The whole dedication is in a style of respect evidently dictated by gratitudes;t cannot be accused of direct flattery, or at least it is a flattery which we could wish there were oftener cause to imitate. His lordship is complimented” on his open profession of the truth of the Christian revelation; his regard for our established church, and regular attendance upon public worship.“Dr. Newton’s design in this edition was to publish the” Paradise Lost,“as the work of a classic author, cum notis variorum, and his first care was to print the text correctly, according to Milton’s own 'editions, that is, the two printed in his life-time. In his preface, he criticises with freedom, and generally, in our opinion, with justice, Milton’s annotators and editors, Patrick Hume, Dr. Bentley, Dr. Pearce, who, with the earl of Bath, first engaged him in this undertaking, and gave him much assistance; Richardson the painter, Warburton, and some anonymous commentators. He was assisted, of living authors, by Dr. Heylin, Dr. Jortin, Dr. Warburton, a copy of Bentley’s edition with Pope’s ms notes, Mr. Richardson, jun. Mr. Thyer of Manchester, and some others. The notes are of various kinds, critical and explanatory; some to correct the errors of former editions, to discuss the various readings, and to establish the genuine text; some to illustrate the sense and meaning, to point out the beauties and defects of sentiment and character, and to commend or censure the conduct of the poem; some to remark the peculiarities of style and language, to clear the syntax, and to explain the uncommon words, or common words used in an uncommon signification; some to consider and examine the numbers, an-d to display the versification, the variety of the pauses, and the adaptness of the sound to the sense; and some to show his imitations and allusions to other authors, sacred or profane, ancient or modern. The preface is followed by a life of Milton, compiled from the best authorities, and with a defence of Milton’s religious and political principles, as far as in Dr. Newton’s opinion they are capable of being defended. This is followed by Addison’s excellent papers on the” Paradise Lost,“taken from the Spectator, and a jnost copious list of nearly a thousand subscribers. The plates were designed by Hayman, and engraved by Grignion, &c. and have very considerable merit. What perhaps distinguishes this edition from all others, is an elaborate verbal index, which was compiled by the indefatigable Mr. Alexander Cruden, author of the Concorto the Bible, Sometime after, Dr. Newton was prevailed upon to publish the” Paradise Regained, and Milton’s smaller poems“upon the same plan, which accordingly appeared in one volume 4to, 1752, but this is not accompanied by a verbal index.” These things,“he says,” detained him too long from other more material studies, though he had the good fortune to gain more by them than Milton did by all his works together." He gained 735l. Among other advantages, he estimates very highly, their having procured him the friendship and intimacy of two such men as bishop Warburton and Dr. Jortin.

In June 1754, he lost his father at the age of eightythree, by a gradual, gentle decline; and within a few days Jiis wife, at the age of fifty-eight, by a sudden and violent inflammation of the bowels. These trials together almost overwhelmed him with affliction. But at this time, he says, he was engaged in writing his “Dissertations on the Prophecies;” and “happy it was for him, for in any affliction he never found a better or more effectual remedy than plunging deep into study, and fixing his thoughts as intensely as he possibly could upon other subjects.” The first volume of “Dissertations on the Prophecies, which have remarkably been fulfilled, and are at this time fulfilling in the world,” 8vo, was published in the winter of 1754. This is the most interesting, and by far the most popular of all his works, and that, indeed, by which principally his name will be handed down to posterity. In the publication, he had the advantage of having it perused and corrected by bishop Pearce, Dr. Warburton, and Mr. Jortin; and its success was very great. Six large editions were published in his life-time, and its popularity seems lately to have been revived, although many works have been published since on the same subject, with different views and conclusions. Soon after the appearance of these “Dissertations,” they were translated into the Danish and German languages. The second and third volumes were not published until 1758, and as an encouragement to the work he was in the interim appointed to preach the Boyle’s Lectures, which he adverts to in the commencement of the second volume.

“As long as Dr. Trebeck lived, Dr. Newton continued to board in the family, from his old principle of avoiding ^s much as possible the trouble of housekeeping: but upon the death of Dr. Trebeck, which happened in 1759, and upon the breaking up of the family, he was under the necessity of looking out for a house, and for the present took one ready furnished in Mount-street. This naturally engaged him to think seriously again of matrimony; for he found his time and attention much divided even by the cares of his little family; the study of sacred and classic authors ill agreed with accounts of butchers’ and bakers’ bills, and by daily experience he was convinced more and more that it was not good for man to live alone without an help meet for him. And especially when he had some prospect of a bishopric, fresh difficulties and troubles opened to his view^ there would be two houses at least to i be furnished, there would be a greater number of servants to be taken, there would be a better table and public days to be kept; and he plainly foresaw that he must either fall a prey to servants, or must look out for some clever sensible woman to be his wife, who had some knowledge and experience of the world; who was capable of superintending and directing his affairs; who was a prudent manager and ceconomist, and could lay out his money to the best advantage; who, though she brought no fortune, yet might save one, and be a fortune in herself; who could supply his table handsomely, yet not expensively, and do the honours of it in a becoming manner; who had no more taste and love of pleasure than a reasonable woman should have; who would be happier in staying with her husband at home than in perpetually gadding abroad; who would be careful and tender of his health, and in short be a friend and companion at all hours.”

, a celebrated French antiquary ia the seventeenth century, was descended of a good family at Dijon, where his brother was proctor-general of the chamber of accounts, and born in 1623. Being inclined to the church, he became an ecclesiastic, and was made a canon in the holy chapel at Dijon but devoted himself wholly to the study and knowledge of antique monuments. Having laid a proper foundation of learning at home, he resigned his canonry, and went to Rome, where he resided many years; and, after his return to France, he held a correspondence with almost all the learned men in Europe. Perhaps there never was a man of letters, who had so frequent and extensive a commerce with the learned men of his time as the abbe Nicaise, nor with men of high rank. The cardinals Barbarigo and Noris, and pope Clement XL were among his regular correspondents. This learned intercourse took up a great part of his time, and hindered him from enriching the public with any large works; but the letters which he wrote himself, and those which he received from others, would make a valuable “Commercium Epistolicum.” The few pieces which he published are, a Latin dissertation “De Nummo Pantheo,” dedicated to Mr. Spanheim, and printed at Lyons in 1689. The same year he published an explication of an antique monument found at Guienne, in the diocese of Aach; but the piece which made the greatest noise was “Les Sirenes, ou discours sur leur forme et figure,” Paris, 1691, 4to; “A discourse upon the form and figure of the Syrens,” in which, following the opinion of Huet, bishop of Auvranches, he Undertook to prove, that they were, in reality, birds, and not fishes, or sea-monsters. He translated into French, from the Italian, a piece of Bellori, containing a description of the pictures in the Vatican, to which he added, “A Dissertation upon the Schools of Athens and Parnassus,” two of Raphael’s pictures. He wrote also a few letters in the literary journals, and a small tract upon the Ancient music; and died while he was labouring to present the public with the explanation of that antique inscription which begins “Mercurio et Minervæ Arneliæ, &c.” which was found in the village of Villy, where he died in Oct. 1701, aged 78.

, a celebrated grammarian, poet, and physician, flourished in the 160th olympiad, about 140 B. C. in the reign of Attains; or, according to some, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia. Suidas tells us, that he was the son of Xenophon of Colophon, a town in Ionia and observes, that, according to others, he was a native of Ætolia but, if we may believe Nicander himself, he was born in the neighbourhood of the temple of Apollo, at Claros, a little town in Ionia, near Colophon yet the name of his father was Damphæus. He was called an Ætolian, only because he lived many years in that country, and wrote a history of it. A great number of writings are ascribed to him, of which we have remaining only two: one entitled “Theriaca;” describing, in verse, the accidents which attend wounds made by venomoug beasts, with the proper remedies; the other, “Alexipharmaca” in which he treats of poisons and their antiuotes, or counter-poisons these are both excellent poems. Demetrius Phalereus, Theon, Plutarch, and Diphilus of Laodicea, wrote commentaries upon the first; and we have still extant very learned Greek “Scholia” upon both, the author of which is not known; though Vossius imagines they were made by Diphilus just mentioned. He wrote also “Ophiaca,” upon serpents; “Hyacinthia,' 1 a collection of remedies, and a commentary upon the” Prognostics of Hippocrates“in verse. The Scholiast of Nicander cites the two first of these, and Suidas mentions two others. Athenseus also cites, in several places, some poetical works of our author upon agriculture, called his” Georgics,“which were known likewise to Curio. Besides these he composed five books of” Metamorphoses,“some verses of which are copied by Tzetzes, and the” Metamorphoses“of Antonius Liberalis were apparently taken from those of Nicander. He composed also several historical works, among which” The History of Colophon,“his birth-place, is cited by Athenaeus we are told likewise of his history of Ætolia, Bœotia, and Thebes, and of” A History and description of Europe in general.“He was undoubtedly an author of merit, and deserves those eulogiums which are given of him in some epigrams in the” Anthologia.“This Nicander has been confounded with Nicander the grammarian of Thyatira, by Stephanus Byzantius: and Vossius, in giving the titles of the books written by both these Nicanders, does not distinguish them very clearly. Merian, in his essay on the influence of the sciences on poetry (in the Memoirs of the royal academy of Berlin for 1776), mentions Nicander to show the antipathy that there is between the language of poetry and the subjects which he treated. He considers Nicander as a therapeutic bard, who versified for the apothecaries, a grinder of anecdotes, who sung of scorpions, toads, and spiders. The” Theriaca“and” Alexipharmaca“are inserted in the Corp. Poet. Greec. Of separate editions, the best is that of Aldus, 1522; of the” Theriaca,“that of Bandini, 1764, 8yo, and of the” Alexipharmaca," that of Schneider, 1792, 8vo.

, a very eminent contributor to the restoration of literature, and founder of the library of St. Mark at Florence, was the son of Bartholomew Nicolas, a merchant of Florence, and was born in 1363. He was intended, and as some say, for a time engaged, in mercantile pursuits, but preferring the cultivation of the liberal arts, he placed himself, on the death of his father, under Marsigli, or Marsilius, a scholar of considerable fame. So ardent was his love of learning, that when he had attained a competent knowledge of the Latin language, he went to Padua, for the express purpose of transcribing the compositions of Petrarch. To this laborious task he was compelled, according to Tiraboschi, by the mediocrity of his fortune, which prevented his purchasing manuscripts of any great value. His fortune, however, such as it was, and his whole time, he devoted to the collection of manuscripts or making transcripts, and accumulated about eight hundred volumes of Greek, Roman, and oriental authors. What he copied, was executed with great accuracy, and he was one of the first who corrected the defects and arranged the text of the manuscripts which he had an opportunity of studying. His house was the constant resort of scholars and students, who had free access to his library, and to many of whom he was a liberal patron. Poggio Bracciolini valued him highly in this character, and on Niccoli’s death, Jan. 23, 1437, published a funeral oration, in which he celebrated his prudence, benevolence, fortitude, &c. He was not, however, without his faults, and had disgusted some eminent scholars of his time by his sarcastic wit and irritability of temper. By his will he directed that his library should be devoted to the use of the public, and appointed sixteen curators, among whom was Cosmo de Medici; but as he died in a state of insolvency, this legacy would have been lost, had not Cosmo offered to pay his debts on condition of obtaining a right to dispose of the books. This being agreed to, he deposjted them in the Dominican monastery of St. Mark at Florence. This collection was the foundation of another celebrated library in Florence, known by the name of the Bibliotheca Marciana, or library of St. Mark, which is yet open to the inspection of the learned, at the distance of three centuries. It does not appear that he was the author of any literary work, except a short treatise on the orthography of the Latin language, in which he attempted to settle various disputed points on this subject, by the authority of ancient inscriptions.

, a celebrated patriarch of Constantinople, of the ninth century, was distinguished for his zealous defence of the worship of images, against the emperor Leo the Armenian, who banished him in the year 815, to a monastery, where he died in the year 828, aged seventy. His works are, “An Abridgment of History,” from the death of the emperor Mauritius to Constantino Copronymus, printed at the Louvre, 1648, fol. It forms part of the Byzantine history, and has been translated into French by president Cousin. It is said to be accurate, but written in a dry and concise style. An “Abridgment of Chronography,” which is at the end of Syncellus; and several other works in Greek, which may be found in P. Labbe’s Councils, or the Library of the Fathers. Cardinal Baronius has inserted this patriarch’s “Confession of Faith” in torn. XI. of his Annals. He is supposed by Lardner and others, to have been the author of “The Stichometry,” a catalogue of the books of sacred scripture, which, ifof no other use, at least shews that the Jewish canon was generally esteemed sacred by Christians, and that the other books of the Old Testament, which are now deemed “Apocryphal,” were not of equal authority, though sometimes read in the churches, and quoted by Christian writers.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in 1613. Having finished his academical studies with the most promising success, he entered into the order of Minims, took the habit in 1632, and as usual, changed the name given him at his baptism for that of Francis, the name of his paternal uncle, who was also a Minim, or Franciscan. The inclination which he had for mathematics appeared early during his philosophical studies; and he devoted to this science all the time he could spare from his other employments, after he had completed his studies in theology. Ah the branches of the mathematics, however, did not equally engage his attention; he confined himself particularly to optics, and studied the rest only as they were subservient to his more favourite pursuit. He informs us in the preface to his “Thaumaturgus Opticus,” that he went twice to Rome; and that, on his return home, he was appointed teacher of theology. He was afterwards chosen to accompany father Francis de la Noue, vica^r-general of the order, in his visitation of the convents throughout all France. Amidst so many employments, it is wonderful that he found so much time to study, for his life was short, and must have been laborious. Being taken sick at Aix, in Provence, he died there, September 22, 1646, aged only thirty-three. He was an intimate acquaintance of Des Cartes, who had a high esteem for him, and presented him with his works. Niceron’s writings are, 1. “L'Interpretation des Chiffres, ou Regies pour bien entendre et expliquer facilement toutes sortes des Chiffres Simples,” &c. Paris, 1641, 8vo. This was only a translation oh the art of decyphering, written by Cospi in Italian, but is much improved by Niceron, who justly conceived it to be a work of utility. 2. “La Perspective curieuse, ou Magie artificielle des effets marveilleux de l'Optique, Catroptique, et Dioptrique,” intended as an introduction to his, 3. “Thaumaturgus Opticus: sive, Admiranda Optices, Catoptrices, et Dioptrices, Pars prima, &c.” 1646, fol. He intended to add two other parts, but was prevented by death.

, one of the most useful French biographers, was born at Paris, March 11, 1685. He was of an ancient and noble family, who were in very high repute about 1540. He studied with success in the Mazarine college at Paris, and afterwards at the college Du Plessis. He appears to have been of a serious turn of mind, and of great modesty, and from a dread of the snares to which he might be exposed in the world, de termined to quit it for a religious life. On this subject he consulted one of his uncles, who belonged to the order of Barnabite Jesuits. This uncle examined him; and, not diffident of his election, introduced him as a probationer to that society at Paris. He was received there in 1702, took the habit in 1703, and made his vows in 1704, at the age of nineteen. After he had professed himself, he was sent to Montargis, to study philosophy and theology, a course of both which he went through with credit, although he confesses that he never could relish the scholastic system then in vogue. His superiors then, satisfied with his proficiency and talents, sent him to Loches, in Touraine, to teach the classics and rhetoric. Here his devout behaviour and excellent conduct as a teacher, made him be thought worthy of the priesthood, which he received at Poitiers in 1708, and as he was not arrived at the age to assume this orders a dispensation, which his uncommon piety had merited, was obtained in his favour. The college of Montargis having recalled him, he was their professor of rhetoric during two years, and philosophy during four. In spite of all these avocations, he was humanely attentive to every call and work of charity, and to the instruction of his fellow-creatures, many of whom heard his excellent sermons, pure and unadorned in style, but valuable in matter, which he delivered not only from the pulpits of most of the churches within the province, but even from those of Paris. In 1716 his superiors invited him to that city, that he might have an opportunity of following, with the more convenience, those studies for which he always had expressed the greatest inclination. He not only understood the ancient, but almost all the modern languages; a circumstance of infinite advantage in the composition of those works which he has given to the public, and which he carried on with great assiduity to the time of his death, which happened after a short illness, July 8, 1738, at the age of fifty-three. His works are, 1. “Le Grand Fébrifuge; or, a dissertation to prove that common Water is the best remedy in Fevers, and even in the Plague; translated from the English of John Hancock, minister of St. Margaret’s, London, in 12mo.” This treatise made its appearance, amongst other pieces relating to this subject, in 1720; and was attended with a success which carried it through three editions; the last came out in 1730, in 2 vols. 12mo, entitled “A Treatise on common Water;” Paris, printed by Cavelier. 2. “The Voyages of John Ouvington to Surat, and divers parts of Asia and Africa; containing the History of the Revolution in the kingdom of Golconda, and some observations upon Silk- Worms,” Paris, 1725, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “The Conversion of England to Christianity, compared with its pretended Reformtion;” a work translated from the English, and written by an English catholic, Paris, 1729, 8vo. 4. “The Natural History of the Earth, translated from the English of Mr. Woodward, by Mons. Nogues, doctor in physic with an answer to the objections of doctor Camerarius containing, also, several letters written on the same subject, and a methodical distribution of Fossils, translated from the English, by Niceron,” Paris, 1735, 4to. 5. “Memoirs of Men illustrious in the republic of letters, with a critical Account of their Works. Paris,” 12uio. The first volume of this great work appeared in 1727; the others were given to the public in succession, as far as the thirty-ninth, which appeared in 1738. The fortieth volume was published after the death of the author, in 1739. Since that event three others were added, but in these are many articles of which Niceron was not the author. It is not easy to answer all the objections which may be offered to a work of this kind. The author himself, in one of his prefaces, informs us that some of his contemporaries wished for a chronological order; some for the order of the alphabet; some for classing the authors according to the sciences or their professions, and some according to the countries in which they were born. As his work, however, appeared periodically, he thought himself justified in giving the lives without any particular order, according as he was able to procure materials. That the French critics should dwell upon the unavoidable mistakes in a work of this magnitude, is rather surprizing, for they have produced no such collection since, and indeed Niceron has been the foundation, as far as he goes, of all the subsequent accounts of the same authors. Chaufepie only treats him with respect while he occasionally points out any error in point of date or fact.

, 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.

He wrote a “History, or Annals, from the death of Alexis Comnenus in 1118, to that of Baudouin in 1205,” entitled “Nicetæ Acominati Choniatæ Hist. Gr. et Lat. ed. C. An. Fabroto,” Paris, 1647, the best edition; but it had been printed with a translation, by Jerome Wolf, at Basil, in 1557, and again at Geneva, in 1593. It has since been inserted in the body of the “Byzantine Historians,” printed at the Louvre at Paris. This is considered as one of the most valuable pieces in that collection, but the style is Hot good. Father Morel of Tours, in the sixteenth century, translated the five first books of a piece entitled “The treasure of the Orthodox Faith,” ascribed to Nicetas, printed in 1580, 8vo, and inserted since in the twelfth volume of the “Bibliotheca Patruin” of Cologne. We have also a fragment of the twentieth book, concerning what ought to be observed upon the conversion of a Mahometan to Christianity. Michael Choniates, our author’s brother, composed several “Monodies upon his death,” which are translated by Morel, and also composed some other discourses, particularly one upon the “Cross,” the manuscript of which is in the public library at Paris.

In 1453 Nicholas received intelligence of the capture of Constantinople by Mahomet II. which some historians mention as the greatest affliction that befel the pope; but Gibbon, speaking on the subject, says, “Some states were too weak, and others too remote; by some the danger was considered as imaginary, by others as inevitable: the western princes were involved in their endless and domestic quarrels; and the Roman pontiff was exasperated by the falsehood or obstinacy of the Greeks. Instead of employing in their favour the arms and treasures of Italy, Nicholas V, had foretold their approaching ruin, and his honour seemed engaged in the accomplishment of his prophecy. Perhaps he was softened by the last extremity of their distress, but his compassion was tardy: his efforts were faint and unavailing; and Constantinople had fallen before the squadrons of Genoa and Venice could sail from their harbours.” From this time he spent the remainder of his pontificate in endeavours to allay the civil wars and commotions which took place in Italy, to reconcile the Christian princes who were then at war with one another, and to unite them in one league against the enemies of the Christian church. But all his efforts being unsuccessful, the disappointment is said to have hastened his death, which happened March 24, 1455. “The fame of Nicholas V.” says Gibbon, who seems to have formed a just estimate, of the character of this pontiff, " has not been adequate to his merits. From a plebeian origin, he raised himself by his virtue and learning; the character of the man prevailed over the interest of the pope; and he sharpened those weapons which were soon pointed against the Roman church. He had been the friend of the most eminent scholars of the age; he became their patron; and ‘such was the humility of his manners, that the change was scarcely discernible either to them or to himself. If he pressed the acceptance of a liberal gift, it was not as the measure of desert, but as the proof of benevolence; and when modest merit declined his bounty, ’ accept it,‘ he would say, with a consciousness of his own worth, ’ you will not always have a Nicholas among you.‘ The influence of the holy see pervaded Christendom; and he exerted that influence in the search, not of benefices, but of books. From the ruins of the Byzantine libraries, from the’darkcst monasteries of Germany and Britain, he collected the dusty manuscripts of the writers of antiquity; and wherever the original could not be removed, a faithful copy was transcribed, and transmitted for use. The Vatican, the old repository for bulls and legends, for superstition and forgery, was daily replenished with more precious furniture; and such was the industry of Nicholas, that in a reign of eight years he formed a library of 5000 volumes. To his munificence the Latin world was indebted for the versions of Xenophon, Diodorus, Polybius, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Appian; of Strabo’s Geography; of the Iliad; of the most valuable works of Plato and Aristotle; of Ptolemy and Theophrastus, and of the fathers of the Greek church.

, a celebrated Dominican, was born at Gironna, in Catalonia, about 1320. He was made inquisitor general by Innocent VI. about 1356, and afterwards chaplain to Gregory XL and judge of heretical causes. He died Jan. 4, 1399, leaving a precious monument of inquisitorial tyranny, entitled “Directorium Inquisitorium,” or the Inquisitor’s Directory, the best editions of which are those with corrections, particularly that “cum comment. Fran. Pegnse,” printed at Rome, 1587, fol. This book, says L'Avocat, contains the most pernicious and horrible maxims, according to which, not only private persons, but princes and kings, may be condemned secretly by the inquisition, without being permitted to speak in their own defence, and afterwards put to death by poison, or other means. It is astonishing, adds this liberal ecclesiastic, that a work which inculcates such dietestable principles should have been printed at Barcelona, afterwards at Rome, and at Venice. The commentary, he says, is as pernicious as the text. The French have an abridgment of the work, by the abbé Morellet, 1762, 12mo.

, whom Mr. Headley considers as a poet of great elegance and imagination, and one of the ornaments of the reign of Elizabeth, was born in London, of genteel parents, in 1584. In 1602 he entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, whence, after a short time, he removed to Magdalen hall, and took the degree of B. A. in 1606. After remaining at the university some years, and being esteemed among the most ingenious men of his day, according to Wood, he quitted Oxford for London, where he “obtained an employment suitable to his faculty.” What this employment was, we are left to conjecture. The time of his death is also uncertain, but he appears to have been alive at least in 1616, and was then but young. The most material of his works are his additions to “The Mirror for Magistrates,” a book most popular in its time (see Higgins), containing a series of pieces by Sackville, Baldwyne, Ferrers, Churchyard, Phayer, Higgins, Drayton. It was ultimately completed, and its contents new arranged by Nichols, whose supplement to the edition of 1610 is entitled “A Winter Night’s Vision,” To this likewise is improperly subjoined “England’s Eliza; or the victorious and triumphant reigneof that virgin Empress, &c. Elizabeth, queen of England,” &c. His other writings are, “The Cuckow, a Poem,” London, 1607; “Monodia, or Waltham’s complaint upon the death of the most vertuous and noble lady, late deceased, the lady Honor Hay,” ibid. 1615; a play called “TheTwynnes Tragedye” is attributed to him in the Biog. Dram.; but we can, on better authority, add “London’s Artillery, briefly containing the noble practice of that worthie Society,” &c. &c. 1616, 4to; “The Three Sisters’ Tears, shed at the late solernne Funerals of the royal Henry, prince of Wales,” &c. 1613, 4to; and “The Furies, with Vertue’s encomium, &c. in two books of epigrammes, satirical and encomiastic,” 1614, 8vo. Ample specimens of his poetry are given in Headley’s “Beauties,” and the “Bibliographer.”

"I was in hopes that her majesty would have bestowed the prebend of Westminster upon me, being the place where I live, and that I might be nearer to books, _to finish my work on the liturgy and articles, for which she was pleased to tell to me, with her own mouth, she would consider me. My good lord, I have taken more pains in this matter than any divine of our nation, whjch I hope may bespeak the favour of a church-of-England ministry. Therefore I most humbly beseech your lordship for your interest for the next prebend of that church (if this be disposed of) that shall be void; for if I had merited nothing, my circumstances want it. I am now forced on the drudgery of being the editor of Mr. Selden’s books, for a little money to buy other books to carry on my liturgical work. I have broken my constitution by the pains of making my collections myself throughout that large work, without the help of an amanuensis, which I am not in a condition to keep, though the disease of my stomach (being a continual cholic of late, attended by the rupture of a vein) might plead pity, and incline my superiors not to suffer me all my days to be a Gibeonite in the church without any regard or relief. Pray f my lord, represent my case to the queen; and I shall never be wanting to make my most ample acknowledgment for so great a favour. I could long since have made my way to preferment without taking all this pains, by a noisy cry for a party; but as this has been often the reproach, and once the ruin of our clergy, so I have always industriously avoided it, quietly doing what service I could to the church I was born in, and leaving the issue thereof to God’s Providence, and to the kind offices of some good man, who some time or other might befriend me in getting some little thing for me to make my circumstances easy, which is the occasion that your lordship has the trouble of this application, from,

That he deserved more attention, will appear from the following list of his useful publications. 1. “An Answer to an Heretical Book called `The naked Gospel,' which was condemned and ordered to be publicly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxon, Aug. 19, 1690, with some Reflections on Dr. Bury’s new edition of that book,” 1691, 4to. 2. “A short History of Socinianism,” printed with the answer before-mentioned; and dedicated to his patron the earl of Montague. 3, “A Practical Essay on the Contempt of the World,” 1694, 8vo, inscribed to “sir John Trevor, master of the rolls,” to whom the author acknowledges his obligations for “a considerable preferment, bestowed in a most obliging and generous manner.” 4. “The Advantages of a learned Education,” a sermon preached at a school-feast, 1698, 4to. 5. “The Duty of Inferiors towards their Superiors, in five practical discourses; shewing, I. The Duty of Subjects to their Princes. II. The Duty of Children to their Parents. III. The Duty of Servants to their Masters. IV. The Duty of Wives to their Husbands. V. The Duty of Parishioners and the Laity to their Pastors and Clergy. To which is prefixed a dissertation concerning the divine right of Princes,” 1701, 8vo. 6. “An Introduction to a Devout Life, by Francis Sales, bishop and prince of Geneva; translated and reformed from the Errors of the Romish edition. To which is prefixed, a Discourse of the Rise and Progress of the Spiritual Books in the Romish. Church,” 1701, 8vo. 7. “A Treatise of Consolation to Parents for the Death of theirChildren written upon the occasion of the Death of the Duke of Gloucester and addressed to the most illustrious Princess Anue of Denmark,” 1701, 8vo. 8. “God’s Blessing on Mineral Waters;” a Sermon preached at the chapel at Tunbridge Wells,“1702, 4to. 9.” A Conference with a Theist, in five parts; dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,“1703, 8vo; of which a third edition, with the addition of two Conferences, the one with a Machiavelian, the other with an Atheist, all carefully revised and prepared for the pres$ by the author, was published in 1723, 2 vols. 8vo. This was particularly designed, says Leland, by the learned and ingenious author, in opposition to the” Oracles of Reason,“published by Blount; and he has not left any material part of that work unanswered. 10.” A Practical Essayon the Contempt of the World; to which is prefixed, a Preface to the Deists and vicious Libertines of the Age,“1704, 2d edit. 8vo. 11.” The Religion of a Princes shewing that the Precepts of the Holy Scriptures are the best maxims of Government,“1704, 8vo, in opposition to Machiavel, Hobbes, c. and written when the queen gave up the tenths and first fruits to the inferior clergy. 12.” Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae,“1707, 12mo. 13.” A Paraphrase on the Common Prayer, with Notes on the Sundays and Holidays,“1708, 8vo. 14.” Afflictions the lot of God’s children, a Sermon on the Death of Prince George,“1709, 8vo. 15.” A Comment on the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments,“&c. 1710, folio. This volume has the royal licence prefixed, and a list of more than 900 subscribers. In his dedication to the queen, he notices, as what never happened before, that all the copies were bespoke or paid for before the day of publication. It still continues to be printed in 8vo. The late sir James Stonhouse, in a letter to the rev. Thomas Stedman, dated 1793, says of this work,” I would have you recommend it to every family in your parish as it will shew them the use of the common prayer and psalms, as read in our churches, and be a standard book from father to son.“16.” A Supplement to the Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer,“1711, folio. In the preface to this supplement, Dr. Nichols mentions” a long fit of illness with which God had pleased to visit him, and a very unestablished state of health both before and after it.“This illness appears soon to have ended in his death. 17.” Historic Sacroe Libri VII. Ex Antonii Cocceii Sabellici Eneadibus concinnatum, in usum Scholarurn et Juventutis Christianae,“1711, 12mo. 18” A Commentary on the first fifteen, and part of the sixteenth Articles of the Church of England,“1712, fol. 39.” A Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; first written in Latin, for the use of foreigners, by William Nichols, D. D. and translated into English by himself,“1715, 12mo. Dr. Nichols was reckoned a very excellent scholar, and was known abroad as well as at home by the learned correspondence he kept with foreigners of eminence. A volume of such correspondence with JaUlonski, Osterwald, Wetstein, &c. was presented by his widow Catharine Nichols to the archbishop of Canterbury, Oct. 28,* 1712, to be deposited either in Lambeth or St. Martin’s library, and is now among the valuable Mss. at Lambeth, No. 676. He died in the end of April 1712, and was buried in St. Swithin’s church May 5. It may not be improper to distinguish this pious divine from his name-sake William Nichols, M. A. and rector of Stockport, in Cheshire, who was a student of Christ church, Oxford, and. published, 1.” De Literis jnventis Libri sex ad illustrissinuum Principem Thomam, Herbertum, Pembrokiae Comitem,“&c. 1711, 8vo. 2.” Oratio corarn venerabili Spcietate promovenda Religione Christiana habita Londini, Dec. 29, 171.&,“12mo; and, 3.” Περι Αρχων Libri Septem. Accedunt Liturgica," 1717, 12mo.

His works, which were all inserted in the different volumes of the Memoirs of the academy of sciences, are: 1. A general method for determining the nature of curves formed by the rolling of other curves upon any given curve; in the volume for the year 1707. 2. A general method for rectifying all roulets upon right and circular bases; 1708; 3. General method of determining the nature of those curves which cut an infinity of other curves given in position, cutting them always in a constant angle, 1715. 4. Solution of a problem proposed by M. de Lagny, 1716. 5. Treatise of the calculus of finite differences, 1717. 6. Second part of the calculus of finite differences, 1723. 7. Second section of ditto, 1723. 8. Addition to the two foregoing papers, 172*. 9. New proposition in Elementary Geometry, 1725. 10. New solution of a problem proposed to the English mathematicians, by the late M. Leibnitz, 1725. 11. Method of summing an infinity of new series, which are not summable by any other known method, 1727. 12. Treatise of the lines of the tliird order, or the curves of the second kind, 172.9. 13. Examination and resolution of some questions relating to play, 1730. 14. Method of determining the chances at play. 15. Observations upon the conic sections, 1731. 16. Manner of generating in a solid body, all the lines of the third order, 1731. 17. Manner of determining the nature of roulets formed upon the convex surface of a sphere; and of determining which are geometric, and which are rectifiable, 1732. 18. Solution of aproblem in geometry, 1732.

He lived all his life with great simplicity, loved retirement and quiet, and was very little versed in the manners of the world, in which, however, he acquired great fame for his excellence in metaphysics. His judgment was solid; and he was more than commonly learned. Yet he is said to have been so credulous, that he believed every thing he heard, however improbable, being unable to imagine that any one would deceive him. His conversation was agreeable, but not prompt; he was slow in producing reasons for what he advanced. This occasioned him to say of M. de Treville, a man of genius, and a fluent speaker, *' He is too hard for me in the chamber, but by the time I get to the stairs-foot, I have puzzled him." Nicole was also a man of such timidity, that he scarcely dared to stir from his house, for fear of unforeseen accidents, by which thousands, he said, had been killed or wounded.

After a short tour into France, he returned to college, and completed his degree of M. A. July 23, 1679, and in the. same year was elected and admitted fellow of Queen’s college. He received deacon’s orders in December. In 1680, he furnished an account of the kingdoms of Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, for the first volume of Pitt’s English Atlas, and he compiled also the principal part, if 'not the whole, of the second and third volumes. In February of the same year, he was sent by the vicechancellor to wait on George Lewis., prince of Brunswick, afterwards George I. who was then at Tetsworth, in his way to the university, where next day his highness was complimented with the degree of LL. D. In Sept. 1681, Mr. Nicolson was ordained priest, and was in that year collated by bishop Rainbow to a vacant prebend in the cathedral church of Carlisle, and also to the vicarage of Torpenhow, and in the year following to the archdeaconry of Carlisle, vacant by the resignation of Mr. Thomas Musgrave. His attachment to the study of antiquities began to appear early, and although we cannot minutely trace the progress of his studies at Oxford, it is evident from his correspondence, that in addition to the ordinary pursuits of classical, philosophical, and theological information, he had accumulated a great stock of various learning. He had, among other branches, studied botany with much attention, and had paid particular attention to the natural history of the earth, the effects of the deluge, the authority of the scripture account of that event, and other subjects connected with it, which at that time were agitated by Dr. Woodward and his contemporaries. He made also great proficiency in ancient northern literature; and in matters of antiquarian research, had a great portion of that enthusiasm, without which no man can form an accomplished or successful antiquary. In one place we find him, speaking of a journey to Scotland, where “he met with a most ravishing Runic monument;” and it indeed appears that he spared neither labour or expence in investigating the remains of antiquity wherever they could be found. In 1685 he wrote a letter to Mr. Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford, concerning a Runic inscription at Bewcastle in Cumberland, which is printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 178, and in Hutch inson’s Hist. of Cumberland, with the opinions of subsequent antiquaries. He likewise sent a letter to sir William Dugdale, printed in the same number of the Transactions, concerning a Runic inscription on the font in the church of Bride-kirk. Dr. Hickes, in the preface to his “Thesaurus,” acknowledges the able, polite, and prompt aid he received from Mr. Nicolson in preparing that great work. In 1696 he published the first part of his “English Historical Library,” a work intended to point out the sources whence all information respecting English history and aniiqu ties,- whether printed or in manuscript, was to be derived. The whole, in three parrs, was completed in 1699, and was followed by a similar “Library” for Scotland, in 1702; and for Ireland in 1724. These were published together in folio, and more recently in what, if not the best, is the most convenient edition, in 1776, 4-to, by T. Evans. Of the controversy which arose from this work, some notice will be taken hereafter.

In November 1705, bishop Nicolson was elected F.R.& and published his “Leges Marchiarum, or Border Laws; with a preface, and an appendix of Charters and Records relating thereto,” Lond. 8vo, reprinted in 1747. In 1713 he wrote an essay, or discourse, to be affixed to Mr. Chamberlayne’s collection of the Lord’s prayer in one hundred different languages. Dr. Hickes bestows the highest praises on this essay: “I know not,” says he, “which is most to be admired in it, the vast variety of reading, or the putting all his observations together in so short, clear, and easy a discourse, which mightily confirms the history of Moses, and refutes the vain cavils which atheists, and deists, and latitudinarians are wont to make against the truth of it.” In 1718 he wrote a preface to the third edition of Dr. Wilkins’s “Leges Anglo-Saxonicae.” This appears to be the last of his literary performances, to the list of which may be added. seven occasional sermons, published in the course of his life.

The publication of the first part of his “Historical Library” involved him in the first literary controversy in which he was engaged. Two of his antagonists were Dr, Hugh Todd, and Dr. Simon Lowth, against whom he appears to have defended himself with much reputation, as they were both far beneath him in talents and learning. In Atterbury, who likewise attacked him, he had an antagonist more worthy of his powers; but even against him he was very successful, although not very temperate, in the long letter addressed to Dr. Kennett, which was originally a separate publication, and has since been prefixed with some alterations to the various editions of the “Historical Library.” This, however, perhaps laid the foundation for that degree of animosity which prevailed between our prelate and Dr. Atterbury. The latter, unfortunately for both parties, considering their hostile tempers, was made dean of Carlisle while Nicolson was bishop. In any other arrangement of preferments, their passions might have had leisure to cool, but they were now brought together, with no personal respect on either side, and the consequences were what might have been expected. Nicolson, it must be allowed, had some reason to complain, or some apology for his feelings concerning Atterbury: Atterbury had made an, attack on his “Historical Library,” in very contemptuous language; but what was worse, Atterbury appears to have been the cause of Nicolson 9 s being for some time refused a degree at his own university, when, on his promotion to the bishopric of Carlisle, he applied for that of D. D. For an explanation of this we must refer to the principles of the times, as well as of the men; and both perhaps will be sufficiently illustrated by the following paper which was sent to Mr. Nicolson (in answer to his request of having a doctor’s degree by diploma) by the vice-chancellor, Dr. Mander, “Whereas the members of the university of Oxford, in a very full convocation held the (fifth) day of (March) 1701, did unanimously agree to confer the degree of Doctor of Divinity upon the reverend Mr. Francis Atterbury, as a testimony of the sense which they had of the signal service he had done the church, by his excellent book entitled The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, 7 &c. (See Atterbury, vol. III. p. 113, &c.) And whereas W. Nicolson, archdeacon of Carlisle, in a pamphlet, entitled ‘ A Letter to Dr. White Kennett, in defence of the English Historical Library against the unmannerly and slanderous objections of Mr. Francis Atterbury, preacher at the Rolls,’ &c. and printed in 1702, doth, in and through the said pamphlet, term the said doctor Mr. Atterbury only, in a seeming contempt of the honour done him by the said university: And whereas the said archdeacon (in the thirty-fourth page of the said pamphlet) hath these words: viz.” I need not, Sir, acquaint you what a toil and expence the very collecting of those materials hath brought upon me; nor how much trouble I have had in the composure. And it is but a discouraging prospect (after all) to see so many men of gravity and good learning, to whom I thought my labours might have been chiefly useful, caressing an empty misrepresenter of our antiquities, histories, and records; and patronizing an ambitious wretch in his insolent attempts against our ancient and apostolical church-government; which words are conceived to contain a severe and undecent reflection upon the proceedings of the university; it is humbly proposed to Mr. Vice-chancellor, by several members of your venerable convocation, whether it can be consistent with the honour of the university to bestow any mark of favour upon the said archdeacon, before he shall have made suitable satisfaction for so high an indignity, and open an affront, as he hath hereby put upon her."

The vice-chancellor, who communicated this paper to bishop Nicolson, added that he would notwithstanding propose the degree, if “he would please to order him what to say in answer.” Nicolson, however, irritated at the superiority thus given to his antagonist, determined to send no answer. His own words on this occasion are: “Mr. Vice-chancellor not having acquainted me who the masters or members of the venerable convocation are, that presented this libellous memorial to him: the most civil treatment, which (as I thought, by advice of my friends) could be given to it, was, to take no manner of notice of its coming to my hand.” He accordingly applied to Cam-­bridge, where the degree in question was readily granted; and, what must have been yet more gratifying, he received the same honour from the university of Oxford, on July 25 following. The former refusal seems to have been that of a party, and not of the convocation at large. In one of his letters written at this time to Dr. Charlett, master of University-college, he enters upon a defence of his vindication of the “Historical Library,” and not unsuccessfully. The objection that he had called the doctor Mr. Atterbury was certainly trifling and unjust, for he was Mr. Atterbury when he wrote against Nicolson. He also alludes to the coarse treatment of himself in the above paper, where he is styled only William Nicolson, although at that time a bishop elect. But whatever may be thought of bishop Nicolson’s conduct, or that of these members of the convocation, it was not to be expected that when Atterbury was made dean of Carlisle, there could be much cordiality between them. Nicolson knew to whom he had been indebted for the affront he had received from the university; and Atterbury was equally out of humour with the bishop, in addition to his usual turbulence of disposition. In 1707, when the bishop found that Atterbury was continually raising fresh disputes with his chapter, he endeavoured to appease them once for all, by visiting the chapter in pursuance of the power given by the statutes of Henry VIII. at the foundation of the corporation of the dean and chapter. But Dr. Todd, already mentioned, one of the prebendaries, was instigated by Atterbury to protest against any such visitation, insisting upon the invalidity of Henry VIII's statutes and that the queen, and not the bishop, was the local visitor. Nicolson, conscious of his strength in a point which he had probably studied more deeply than any of the chapter, during the course of his visitation suspended and afterwards excommunicated Dr. Todd on which the latter moved the court of common pleas for a prohibition, and obtained it unless cause shown. In the mean time such proceedings alarmed the whole bench of bishops; and the archbishop of Canterbury, Tenison, wrote a circular letter on the subject to all his suffragans, considering the cause of the bishop of Carlisle as a common cause, and of great concern to the church, which, he added, “will never be quiet so long as that evil generation of men who make it their business to search into little flaws in ancient charters and statutes, and to unfix what laudable custom hath well fixed, meet with any success.” Soon afterwards a bill was carried into parliament, and passed into a law, which established the validity of the local statutes given by Henry VIII. to his new foundations. Bishop Nicolson published on this occasion, “Short Remarks on a paper of Reasons against thepassing of a bill for avoiding of doubts and questions touching the statutes of divers cathedrals and collegiate churches,” 4to, in one half sheetj without date. His triumph was now compleat, and a fevr years afterwards, when Atterbury was preferred to the deanry of Christ-church, his old friends of the university of Oxford had reason to change their sentiments of him.

In some accounts of bishop Nicolson it has been said that he was deeply engaged in the Bangorian controversy. In one sense this could not be true, for although his opinions were in opposition to those which produced that memorable controversy, we cannot find that he wrote any thing expressly on the subject. In another sense he may be said to have been too deeply concerned, for on the very commencement of the controversy, he became involved in a dispute with Dr. Kennett, which threatened to affect his veracity, and from which it certainly did not escape without some injury. We have already noticed that he addressed his letter in vindication of his “Historical Library” to Dr. Kennett, and it may be added that they had lived for many years in habits of mutual respect and friendship, which were now to be dissolved by violence. It is not necessary to enter into a long detail of this affair; referring, therefore, to Newton’s Life of bishop Kennett, we shall confine ourselves to the following simple statement of the fact. Bishop Nicolson had asserted that some words in Dr. Hoadly’s memorable sermon were not originally in it, but were inserted by the advice of a friend, and by way of caution; and upon being called upon to give up his authority, mentioned Dr. White Kennett, not only as his authority, but as the person who advised Hoadly to leave out the objectionable words. Dr. Kennett, in the most solemn and positive manner, denied, either that he had given Dr. Nicolson such information, or that he had ever seen Dr. Hoadly’s sermon before it was preached, or that it had ever been submitted to his correction. In rejoinder, Dr. Nicolson re-affirmed as before in the most decided manner. Many letters passed between the parties (in the newspapers) which our prelate published in 1717, under the title of “A Collection of Papers scattered lately about the town in the. Daily Courant, St. James’s Post, &c. with some remarks upon them in a letter to the bishop of Bangor,” 8vo; and after this he determined to take no farther notice of the matter. His antagonists came at length to the conclusion that he stood convicted at least of forgetfulness “in charging a fact upon the bishop of Bangor which was not true, and quoting a witness for it who knew nothing of the matter.” And this is certainly the conclusion which every one will wish to draw who respects his characv ter, or forms a judgment of it from his “Letters” lately published by Mr. Nichols, a collection to which we have been greatly indebted in drawing up our account, and rectifying the errors of his preceding biographers* Many of his sentiments are given without disguise in these letters, and prove him to have been a steady friend to the civil and ecclesiastical government of his country, and a man of liberality and candour. That he was not uniformly accurate in his historical researches has been oftenrepeated, but he appears to have been always ready to correct what errors were pointed out. In one letter, after defending some apparent mistakes noticed by his correspondent, he adds, “but nothing can be pleaded, except ignorance, in excuse for the rest.” It must still be admitted, what is equally evident from his correspondence, that his temper was somewhat irritable, and that, living in days of bitter controversy, he admitted in his disputes too much of that style which has in all ages been the reproach of literature.

, a learned Frenchman, was born at Nismes in the beginning of the sixteenth century. He came to Paris early in life, and acquired the esteem of the learned men of that time. He was also so favourably received at court, that in 1559 he was made master of requests in the lung’s household, and the same year was sent as ambassador to Portugal. Of the nature of his embassy, or his talents in executing its duties, we have no information; but he was the means while in that country of introducing the use of tobacco in Europe. Of this herb, then called Petun, he received some seeds from a Dutchman, who had them from Florida. It then became an object of cultivation or importation in France, and the name Nicotiana was given to it in honour of him. This, it has been observed by Dr. Johnson, is a proper compliment, for a plant is a monument of a more durable nature than a medal or an obelisk; and yet, he adds, “as a proof that even this is not always sufficient to transmit to futurity the name conjoined with them, the Nicotiana is now scarcely known by any other term than that of tobacco.”

After his return from Portugal, in 1561, Nicot retired from public, and devoted himself to literary employment. In 1567 he published an edition of the life of Aimon, a Benedictine of the abbey of Fleury, which Dupin has improperly attributed to Pichon. He also improved Aimar de Rangonnet’s French Dictionary, so as to render it almost a new work. It did not appear, however, until after his death, when it was entitled “Tresor de la langue Frangaise tant ancienne que moderne,” 1606, fol. and was reprinted at least four times. Nicot died at Paris May 5, 1600. He left several Mss. particularly a kind of history or dictionary of navigation.

, an eminent Dutch philosopher and mathematician, was born Aug. 10, 1654, at Westgraafdyk in North Holland, of which place his father vvas minister. He discovered a turn for learning in his first infancy, and his father designed him for the ministry; but when he found him averse from this study, he suffered him to gratify his own taste. He then applied himself to logic, and the art of reasoning justly; in which he grounded himself upon the principles of Des Cartes, with whose philosophy he was greatly delighted. Thence he proceeded to the mathematics, where he made a great proficiency; and added so much to his stock of various knowledge, that he was accounted a good philosopher, a great mathematician, a celebrated physician, and an able and just magistrate. Although naturally of a grave and serious disposition, yet his engaging manner in conversation made him be equally admired as a companion and friend, and frequently drew over to his opinion those who, at first, differed very widely from him. Thus accomplished, he acquired great esteem and credit in the council of the town of Purmerende, where he resided; as he did also in the states of that province, who respected him the more, as he never interfered in any cabals or factions. His disposition inclined him to cultivate the sciences, rather than to obtain the honours of the government and he therefore contented himself with being counsellor and burgomaster of the town, without wishing for more bustling preferments, which might interfere with his studies, and draw him too much out of his library. He died May 30, 1718, in the sixty-third year of his age. His works are, 1. “Considerationes circa Analyseos ad Quantitates infinite parvas applicator principia,” &c. Amst. 1694, 8vo. 2. “Analysis infinitorum seu curvilineorum Proprietates ex Polygpnorum natura deductse,” ibid. 1695, 4to. 3. “Considerationes secundoe circa differentialis Principia r & Responsio ad Yirum nobilissimum G. G. Leibnitium,” ibid. 1696, 8vo. This piece was attacked by John Bernoulli and James Hermant, celebrated geometricians at Basil. 4. “A Treatise upon a New Use of the Tables of Sines and Tangents.” 5. “Le veritable Usage de la Contemplation de TUnivers, pour la conviction des Athees & des Incredules,” in Dutch. This is his most esteemed work; and went through four editions in three or four years. It was translated into English by Mr. John Chamberlaine, and printed three or four times under the title of the “Religious Philosopher,” &c. 3 vols. 8vo. This was, until within these forty years, a very popular book in this country. We have also, by our author, one letter to Bothnia of Burmania, upon the 27th article of his meteors, and a refutation of Spinosa, 1720, 4to, in the Dutch language.

, professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Leyden, was born at Diemermeer, a village near Amsterdam, Nov. 5, 1764. His father, by trade a carpenter, having a great fondness for books, and being tolerably well versed in the mathematics, instructed his son himself till he attained his eleventh year, who appears to have exhibited very extraordinary proofs of genius long before that time. When only three years old, his mother put into his hand some prints, which had fifty verses at the bottom of them by way of explanation. These verses she read aloud, without any intention that her son should learn them, but was much surprized some time after to hear him repeat the whole from memory, with the utmost correctness, on being only shown the prints. Before he was seven years old he had read more than fifty different books, and in such a manner that he could frequently repeat passages from them both in prose and in verse. When about the age of eight, Mr. Aenese of Amsterdam, one of the greatest calculators of the age, asked him if he could tell the solid contents of a wooden statue of Mercury which stood upon a piece of clock-work. “Yes,” replied young Nieuwland, “provided you give me a bit of the same wood of which the statue was made for I will cut a cubic inch out of it, and then compare it with the statue.” Poems which (says his eulogist) display the utmost liveliness of imagination, and which he composed in his tenth year, while walking or amusing himself near his father’s house, were received with admiration, and inserted in different poetical collections. Such an uncommon genius must soon burst through those obstacles which confine it. Bernardus and Jeronirao de Bosch, two opulent gentlemen of Amsterdam, became young Nieuwland’s patrons, and he was taken into the house of the former in his eleventh year, and received daily instruction from the latter for the space of four years. While in this situation he made considerable progress in the Latin and Greek languages, and studied philosophy and the mathematics under Wyttenbach. In 1733 he translated the two dissertations of his celebrated instructors Wyttenbach and de Bosch, on the opinions which the ancients entertained of the state of the soul after death, which had gained the prize of the Teylerian theological society. From September 1784 to 1785 he studied at Leyden, and afterwards applied with great diligence at Amsterdam to natural philosophy, and every branch of the mathematics, under the direction of professor Van Swinden. He had scarcely begun to turn his attention to chemistry, when he made himself master of Lavoisier’s theory, and could apply it to every phenomenon.

Nieuwland’s talents and diligence recommended him to the notice of his country. In 1786, he was appointed a member of the commission chosen by the college of admiralty at Amsterdam, for determining the longitude, and improving marine charts. On this labour he was employed eight years, and had also a considerable share in preparing a nautical almanack. While at Amsterdam, where he had been invited to give lectures on mathematics, he wrote his useful and excellent treatise on navigation, the first part of which was published there in 1793. In 1789 he was chosen member of a learned society, distinguished by the motto of Felix Mentis, whose object was chemical experiments; and contributed many very valuable papers to it. In July 1793 he was invited to the university of Leyden, to be professor of philosophy, astronomy, and the higher mathematics, in the room of the celebrated Damen; and the admiralty of Amsterdam requested him to continue his nautical researches, which he did with great assiduity till the period of his death. The only variation which he now made in his studies related to natural philosophy, for with the mathematics he was already sufficiently acquainted. He applied himself, therefore, to the experimental part, and spared no pains or labour to become perfect in it; which would certainly have been the case, had he not been snatched from science and his friends at the early age of thirty. He died of an inflammation in his throat, accompanied with a fever, Nov. 13, 1794.

, a French academician and dramatic writer, was born at Paris in 1692. Being the nephew of a farmer-general, he might have acquired opulence, by so valuable a connection, but he preferred the study of polite literature. His first work was a criticism on the fables of La Motte, who was his friend, but who never objected to any liberties of that kind which his friends might take with him. When La Motte advanced his famous paradox on the in utility of versification in tragedy, &c. Nivelle joined la Faye as one of his opponents, and published an “Epitre a Clio,” 1733, 12mo, which was much admired, and in which he has taken considerable freedoms with La Motte. As a dramatic writer, Nivelle brought into fashion what the French call the comedies larmoy antes, or comedies in which there are more scenes of tenderness than of wit and humour. Of these his “Prejuge a la mode” “Ecole des Amis,” and “Melanide,” are still much admired in France as are his “Ecole des Meres,” and “La Gbuvernante,” although not received at first so favourably. He wrote many other dramatic pieces, with moderate success, which with his other works, were published at Paris, in 1762, 5 vols. 12mo. La Harpe ranks him among the authors who have done honour to the French theatre. He died May 14, 1754, in the sixty-second year of his age.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born in 1498, at Bresdiello, on the Po, in the duchy of Modena. He appears to have been first patronized by the counts Gambara of Brescia, with whom he lived for some years, amply provided with the means of study and improvement. When his writings had made him known, he was invited by the princes Farnese to Parma, to give public lectures on rhetoric, which he continued for many years. Prince Vespasian Gonzaga, a great patron of literature, having founded an university at Sabionetta, appointed Nizolius chief director or principal. In 1562 this university was opened, at which ceremony Nizolius delivered a speech, which was printed at Parma the following year. Some years after, being now advanced, he lost his sight, and retired to his native place, where he died in 1575.

This celebrated bull brought our cardinal into a great deal of trouble on this account. Pasquin Quesnel, one of the fathers of the oratory, publishing his New Testament, with moral reflections upon every verse, in 1694, our cardinal, then bishop of Chalons, gave it his approbation, and recommended it to his clergy and people in 1695; and, after his removal to Paris, procured a new edition, corrected, to be printed there in 1699. But as the book contained some doctrines in favour of Jansenism, the Jesuits took the alarm, and, after writing several pieces, charging the author with heresy and sedition, obtained, in 1708, a decree of pope Clement XI. condemning it in general. Although this decree could neither be received nor published in France, not being conformable to the usage of that kingdom, the book was condemned, without mentioning the decree, by some French bishops, at whose solicitation Lewis XIV. applied to his holiness to condemn it by a constitution in form, which was granted; and, in 1715, appeared the famous constitution “Unigenitus,” condemning the “Moral Reflections,” and 101 propositions extracted from the work. The pope also condemned all such writings as had been already published, or should hereafter be published in its defence. But the king’s letters patent, for the publication of this bull, were not registered in the parliament without several modifications and restrictions, in pursuance of a declaration made by a great number of bishops, that they accepted it purely and simply, although at the same time they gave some explications of it in their pastoral instructions. Cardinal Noailles, and some other prelates, not thinking these explications sufficient, refused absolutely to accept it, till it should be explained by the pope in such a manner as to secure from all danger the doctrine, discipline, and liberty, of the schools, the episcopal rights, and the liberties of the Gallican church. The faculty of divines at the Sorbonne declared, that the decree which was made March 5, 1714, for accepting the bull, was false. The four bishops also of Mirepoix, Seine’s, Montpelier, and Boulogne, appealed from it, March 4, 1717 and the same day the faculty of divines at Paris adhered to their appeal. This example was followed by several faculties of divines, monasteries, curates, priests, &c, and cardinal deNoailles, having appealed, about the same time, with the four bishops, published his appeal in 1718. However, he retracted this appeal, and received the constitution some time before his death, which happened in his palace at Paris, May 4, 1729.

, one of the most indefatigable writers of his time, was born in 1643, at Troyes, of a good family. He soon made himself known in the literary world by ingenious pasquinades, and other jeux d'esprit. He was once attorney-general to the parliament of Metz but his bad conduct having involved him in difficulties, he was accused of drawing up false acts for his own advantage, confined at the Chatelet, and there sentenced to make amende honorable, and to be banished nine years. From this sentence he appealed, and being removed to the Conciergerie, became there the lover and advocate of Gabrielle Perreau, commonly called la belle Epiciere (the handsome grocer’s wife), whom her husband had shut up in that prison for her irregular conduct, and wrote several memoirs and other pieces in her favour, which were much read. Le Noble finding means to get out of the Conciergerie, 1695, lived a long time concealed with this woman, who had escaped from a convent to which she had been transferred, and had three children by her; but, being retaken, was condemned, notwithstanding his eloquent speech to his judges, while at the bar, March 24, 1698. The sentence passed upon him was for forgery, and condemned him to make an amende seche, privately, in the hall of the Chatelet, and to be banished for nine years. He left his prison four days after, and obtained a repeal of the sentence of banishment the next year, on condition that he should exercise no judicial office. His mistress was tried in May following, and le Noble was charged, by her sentence, with the three children, who were declared bastards. He died at Paris, January 31, 1711, aged 68, so poor, that the alms-house, in the parish of St. Severin, was obliged to bury him. His works have been printed at Paris, 19 vols. 12mo. The principal are, “Dialogues sur les affaires du Terns.” “Le Bouclier de la France, ou les Sentimens de Gerson et des Canonistes touchant les diflerends des Rois de France avec les Papes.” A prose “Translation of the Psalms.” “Relation de PEtat de Gnes.” Hist, de PEstablissement de la Republique d'Hollande.“This is little more than an extract from Grotius. He wrote also tales and fables; and romances, or historiettes, founded on facts;” L'Ecole du Monde,“4 vols. 12mo, consisting of twenty-four dialogues; and published a translation of the” Travels of Gemelli Carreri," Paris, 1727, 6 vols. 12mo.

, a learned physician at Antwerp, who flourished in the seventeenth century, was the author of a curious treatise, entitled “Pieteticon, sive de Re cibaria;” containing several remarks illustrative of those passages in the Latin Roman poets, particularly Horace, Juvenal, and Persius, which relate to the luxury of the old Roman tables. It was published in 4to in 1646, at Antwerp. He renewed the opinion of the ancient physicians, who have written “De salubri Piscium alimento,” or the wholesomeness of a fish diet; and endeavoured to shew, that, according to them, fish is especially a proper aliment for sedentary persons, for the aged, sick, and such as are of a weak constitution, as it generates blood of a moderate consistence, which suits their habit. In this work Nonius complains of the Arabians, who, in translating the Greek physicians, have omitted all passages relating to fish; because the Arabs eat little of this kind of aliment, which in that hot and dry country is rarely to be met with. Nonius also printed a very large commentary in 1620, upon the Greek medals, and those of Julius Caesar, Augustus, and Tiberius, which had been engraved about fifty-five years before by Goltzius, and published in folio at that time by James de Bye, another celebrated engraver. Besides these, he wrote “Hispania; seu de Oppidis Fluminibusque Hispanise,” 1607, 8vo; “Icthyophagia, seu de Usu Piscium,” and “Epicaedium Justo Lipsio,” &c.

Nonius was the author of several ingenious works and inventions, and justly esteemed one of the most eminent mathematicians of his age. Concerning his “Art of Navigation,” father Dechaies says, “In the year 1530, Peter Nonius, a celebrated Portuguese mathematician, upon occasion of some doubts proposed to him by Martinus Alphonsus Sofa, wrote a treatise on Navigation, divided into two books; in the first he answers some of those doubts, and explains the nature of Loxodromic lines. In the second book he treats of rules and instruments proper for navigation, particularly sea- charts, and instruments serving to find the elevation of the pole” but says he is rather obscure in his manner of writing. Furetiere, in his Dictionary, takes notice that Peter Nonius was the first who, in 1530, invented the angles which the Loxodromic curves make with each meridian, calling them in his language Rhumbs, and which he calculated by spherical triangles. Stevinus acknowledges that Peter Nonius was scarce inferior to the very best mathematicians of the age. And Schottus says he explained a great many problems, and particularly the mechanical problem of Aristotle on the motion of vessels by oars. His Notes upon Purbach’s Theory of the Planets, are very much to be esteemed: he there explains several things, which had either not been noticed before, or not rightly understood.

In 1542 he published a treatise on the twilight, which he dedicated to John III. king of Portugal; to which he added what Alhazen, an Arabian author, has composed on the same subject. In this work he describes the method or instrument erroneously called, from him, a Nonius. He corrected several mathematical mistakes of Orontius Finasus. But the most celebrated of all his works, or that at least he appeared most to value, was his “Treatise of Algebra,” which he had composed in Portuguese, but translated it into the Castilian tongue when he resolved upon making it public, which he thought would render his book more useful, as this language was more generally known than the Portuguese. The dedication to his former pupil, prince Henry, was dated from Lisbon, Dec. 1, 1564. This work contains 341 pages in the Antwerp edition of 1567, in 8vo. The catalogue of his works, chiefly in Latin, is as follows: 1. “De Arte Navigandi, libri duo,” 1530. 2. “De Crepusculis,” 1542. 3. “Annotationes in Aristotelem.” 4. “Problema Mechanicum de Motu Navigii ex Remis.” 5. “Annotationes in Planetarum Theorias Georgii Purbachii,” &c. 6. “Libro de Algebra en Arithmetica y Geometra,” 1564. We have said that his name was erroneously given to the method of graduation now generally used in the division of the scales of various instruments; for Vernier was the real inventor The method of Nonius, described in his treatise “De Crepusculis,” consists in describing within the same quadrant, 45 concentric circles, dividing the outermost into 90 equal parts, the next within into 89, the next into 88, and so on, till the innermost was divided into 46 only. By this means, in most observations, the plumb-line or index must cross one or other of those circles in or very near a point of division: whence by calculation the degrees and minutes of the arch might easily be obtained. This method is also described by him in his treatise “De Arte Navigandi,” where he imagines it was not unknown to Ptolomy. But as the degrees are thus divided unequally, and it is very difficult to attain exactness in the division, especially when the numbers, into which the arches are to be divided, are incomposite, of which there are no less than uine, the method of diagonals, first published by Thomas Digges, esq. in his treatise “Alae seu Scaloe Mathematicae,” printed at Lond. in 1573, and said to be invented by one Richard Chanseler, a very skilful artist, was substituted in its stead. However, Nonius’s method was improved at different times; but the admirable division now so much in use, is the most considerable improvement of it.

During the congress held there in 1677, his talents became known to several of the foreign ministers, and the plenipotentiary from the elector of Brandenburg tempted him with the offer of a professorship in the university of Duysbourg, which he refused, although that of Nimeguen was approaching to dissolution. William de Haren, however, third ambassador plenipotentiary from the States General, succeeded afterwards in inducing him to accept the law-professor’s chair at Franeker. Of this, accordingly, he took possession in 1670, and made his inauguration-speech Oct. 6. In 1683 his increasing reputation procured him an offer from the magistracy of Utrecht of a professorship there which, after some demur, he accepted, and made his inauguration-speech in 1684, “De causis corrupts Jurisprudentise.” In 1686 he married; and, the same year, complied with an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, where he fixed for life, and published several treatises. In 1698 he was made rector of that university in 1699 he lost his wife, with which he was greatly affected, and sought to console himself by employing his thoughts upon that important question relating to the practice of exposing children, in use among the Greeks and Romans. In 1705 he was a second time chosen rector of the university, and continued his dilU gence in writing and publishing books in his profession. During the last three years of his life, his health and strength continued to decay, although without any visible disorder or pain, and after some slight attacks of the apoplectic kind, from which he was relieved by the skill of the celebrated Boerhaave, he sunk under one of greater violence, Aug. 15, 1725, aged almost seventy-eight.

He published a collection of his works in 1713, 4to, containing, 1. “Probabilia Juris,” in three books; the first of which was printed in 1674, and the other two in 1679, and again, altogether, in 1691. 2. “De civili Prudentia Oratio inauguralis, 1679.” 3. “De causis Corruptse Jurisprudentiae, Oratio inauguralis,” 1684. In this speech he opens his method of studying and explaining the Roman law. 4. Two tracts, one entitled “De Jurisdictione et Imperio” the other, “Ad Legem Aquileiam Liber singularis;” both subjoined to a new edition of his “Probabilia Juris,” 1691. 5.“De Fcenore et Usuris,” 1698. In this piece he shews that money lent out to usury is neither against the law of nature or nations. 6. “De Jur6 summi Imperii et Lege regia, Oratio habita,” 1698. 7. “Julius Paulus sive, de Partus Expositione et Nece apud veteres, Liber singularis,” 1699. 8. “Diocletianus et Maximianus; sive, de Transactione et Pactione Criminum,” 1704. 9. “De Religione ab Imperio Jure Gentium libera Oratio,” 1706. 10. “Observationum Libri duo,” 1706. 11. “De Forma emendandi doli mali in contrahendis negotiis admissi apud Veteres,” 1709. 12. Two treatises one, “de Usufructu;” the other, “de Pactis et Transactionibus,” &c. 1713. Another edition of his works was published in 1724, in 2 vols. folio; containing, besides those in the former edition, the following pieces: 1. “Commentaria in Pandectas, in 27 Libros,” 4 of which had been published in 1716. 2. “Arnica Responsio ad Difficultates in Julio Paulo, sive Libro de Partus Expositione, motas a, Viro amplissimo Van Bynkershoek,” 1722. Our author also wrote, in Flemish, “An Opinion upon a case relating to Matrimony,” which was translated into Latin by M. Alexander Arnold Pargenstecher, and printed in a treatise of that translator, entitled, “Imperius injuria vapulans.” A third edition of his works was published in 1735, 2 vols. fol. by Barbeyrac, with a life of the author, which Barbeyrac had originally published in 1731. There is also an edition printed at Naples in 1786,4 vols. 4to. Noodt is said to have been a man of great probity, and of a placid disposition. He was free from conceit and arrogance, and never engaged in any controversy except one with M. Bynkershoek, who complained that he had been a little too free in his expressions. The character of his genius is seen in his works; which shew that he quitted the common method of the civilians, treading in the steps of Cujacius, and introduced much of a liberal and philosophic spirit into the law, although perhaps with too great a tendency to theory, or to what is practicable only in theory. He lectured at all the academies to which he succeeded, on Grotius “De Jure Belli et Pads.”

Christian VI. was desirous of having a circumstantial account of a country so distant and so famous from an intelligent man, and one whose fidelity could not be questioned; and no one was thought more proper than Norden. He was then in the flower of his age, of great abilities, of a good taste, and of a courage that no danger or fatigue could dishearten; a skilful observer, a great designer, and a good mathematician: to all which qualities may be added an enthusiastic desire of examining, upon the spot, the wonders of Egypt, even prior to the order of his master. How he acquitted himself in this business appears amply from his “Travels in Egypt and Nubia.” In these countries he stayed about a year and, at his return, when the count of Danneskiold-Samsoe, who was at the head of the marine, presented him to his majesty, the king was much pleased with the masterly designs he had made of the objects in his travels, and desired he would draw up an account of his voyage, for the instruction of the curious and learned. At this time he was made captain-lieutenant, and soon after captain of the royal navy, and one of the commissioners for building ships.

, an industrious topographer, classed by Wai pole and Strutt among engravers, seems to have been horn in Wiltshire about 1548, and admitted of Hartball, Oxford, in 1564. He proceeded A. M. in 1573. He bad patronage, but little else, from the great Burleigh; and in his old age obtained jointly with his son the place of surveyor to the prince of Wales. He lived in narrow circumstances at Fulham and Hendon, and died about 1626. Wood ascribes to him fifteen devotional pieces, though he doubts if they were really written by him, and Granger, who describes a print of him, thinks they must have been his father’s. As a topographer, however, we are more certain of his productions. He surveyed the county of Essex in 1584, and Hertfordsire and Middlesex in 1593; and besides these, he executed the maps of Cornwall, Hampshire, Surrey, and Sussex, all which, except those of Herts and Hants, were copied, with additions, into “Speed’s Theatre.” He was the first that inserted the roads. His map of Surrey was much larger and more exact than any of his others. Among his published works are, “England; an intended guyde for English travailers, &c.” Lond. 1625, 4to; “Speculum Britanniae, a topographical and historical description of Cornwall,” 1728, 4to. It was published from a very old ms. in the British Museum, Mss. Karl. 6252. Mr. Gough says that the better part of this most finished of Norden’s works is a mere transcript of Carew; from the other parts very little of moment is to be learned; and no stress is to be laid on his drawings. Norden wrote also an account of the estate of the dutchy of Cornwall, the right by which the duke holds his estates, and many of the customs of the manors; which was once deposited in the duchy office. Another of his publications, is “Speculum Britanniae, or an historical and chorographical description of Middlesex and Hertfordshire,” 1573, 4to, reprinted 1637. and 1723. The Middlesex part was the first of his labours there is a copy of it among the Harleian Mss. No. 570, supposed to be in Norden’s own writing, which differs from the printed books both in the arrangement and the additions made to it. The last of this kind was his “Speculum Brit, pars altera, or a delineation of Northamptonshire,” Lond. 1720, 8vo. This is the most superficial of all his surveys, except in a few towns; nor were the map and plans of Peterborough and Northampton referred to in it ever engraved. Norden was not only a practical surveyor, but wrote a good treatise on the subject, entitled “The Surveyor’s Dialogue, &c.” 1607, 4to. Of this an account, with extracts, is given in the Cens. Lit. vol. I. There are some Mss. by Norden in the British Museum and other public libraries.

In much of this panegyric we cordially agree, but doubt whether the revival of Mr. Norris’s works would be benerjcial either to religion or philosophy. It cannot, however, be denied, that men of a similar cast of mind may be greatly benefited by some of his works; and we know that some of our most eminent divines have formed their theological studies upon them. Mr. Norris left a widow, two sons and a daughter. His eldest son was rector of Little Langford, and vicar of the two Chilterns, in Wiltshire. His second son, Thomas, was also a clergyman, and some time minister of Stroud, in Gloucestershire. They have both long been dead, as well as their mother, who died at the house of Mr. Bowyer, vicar of Martock, in Somersetshire, who married her daughter.

His works were, 1. “The picture of Love unveiled,” already mentioned. 2. “Hierocles upon the golden verses of the Pythagoreans,” Oxford, 1682, 8vo. 3. “An idea of Happiness, in a letter to a friend, inquiring wherein the greatest happiness attainable by man in this life doth consist,” London, 1683, 4to. 4. “A Murnival of Knaves; or Whiggism plainly displayed and burlesqued out of countenance,” London, 1683, 4to. 5. “Tractatus adversus Reprobationis absolutae Decretum, nova methodo & snccinctissimo compendio adornatus, & in duos libros digestus,” London, 1683, 8vo. What follows in this treatise after the third chapter of the second book, is a declamation spoken in the public schools, commending the Roman senate for banishing all mathematicians out of their dominions. 6. “Poems and discourses occasionally written,” Lond. 1684, 8vo. 7. An 'English translation of the four last books of “The institution and life of Cyrus,” from Xenophon, Lond. 1685, 8vo. The four first books were translated by Mr. Francis Digby, of Queen’s college. 8.“A collection of Miscellanies, consisting of Poems, Essays, Discourses, and Letters occasionally written,” Oxford, 1637, 8vo. The fifth edition, carefully revised, corrected, and improved by the author, was printed at London, 1710, in 8vo. - This has been the most popular of all his works, and affords the picture of a truly amiable mind. 9. “The theory and regulation of Love, a moral essay,” Oxford, 1688, 8vo. 10. “Reason and Religion; or the grounds and measures of Devotion considered from the nature of God and the nature of man, in several contemplations. With exercises of devotion applied to every contemplation,” Lond. 1689, 8vo. 11. “Reflections upon the conduct of human life with reference to the study of learning and knowledge; in a letter to the excellent lady, the lady Mashana,” Lond. 1690, 8vo. To which is subjoined a “Visitation sermon on John xi. 15. preached at the Abbey Church at Bath, July the 30th, 1689. The” Reflections*' were reprinted with large additions, in 1691, 8vo. 12. “Christian blessedness; or discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour 4 Jesus Christ,” Lond. 1690, 8vo; to which he subjoined, “Cursory reflections upon a book called e An Essay concerning Human Understanding.'” 13. “The charge of Schism continued; being a justification of the author of * Christian Blessedness,' for his charging the Separatists with Schism, notwithstanding the toleration. In a letter to a city friend,” Lond. 1691, 12mo. 14. “Practical discourses upon several divine subjects, vols. II. and III.” The third volume was printed in 1693, 8vo. 15. “Two treatises concerning the divine light. The first being an answer to a letter of a learned Quaker (Mr. Vickris), which he is pleased to call A just reprehension to John Morris for his unjust reflections on the Quakers in his book entitled Reflections upon the conduct of human life, &c. The second being a discourse concerning the grossness of the Quakers’ notion of the light within, with their confusion and inconsistency in explaining it,” Lond. 1692, 8vo. 16. “Spiritual counsel; or the father’s advice to his children,” Lond. 1694, 8vo; which was at first composed, as he observes in the Advertisement before it, for the use of his own children. 17. “Letters concerning the Love of God, between the author of the `Proposal to the Ladies,' and Mr. John Norris wherein his Jate discourse, shewing that it ought to be intire and exclusive of all other loves, is further cleared and justified,” Lorid. 1695, 8vo. The second edition, corrected by the authors, with some few things added, was printed at London, 1705, fcvo. The lady, whose letters are published in this collection, was Mrs. Astell. 18. “Practical Discourses; vol. IV.” Lond. 1698, 8vo. To which he subjoined “An Admonition concerning two late books, called ‘ A Discourse of the Love of God,’” &c. 19. “An Essay towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World; considering it absolutely in itself. Part I.” Lond. 1701, 8vo. “The Second Part, being the relative part of it; wherein the intelligible World is considered with relation to human understanding; whereof some account is here attempted and proposed,” was printed at London, 170*, 8vo. 20. “A Philosophical Discourse concerning the Natural Immortality of the Soul, wherein the great question of the Soul’s Immortality is endeavoured to be rightly stated and cleared,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Mr. Dodweli returned an Answer to this piece, in the Appendix to his book entitled “The natural Mortality of the Human Souls clearly demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures, and the concurrent Testimonies of the Primitive Writers,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. 21. “A Treatise concerning Christian Prudence; or the Principles of Practical Wisdom fitted to the use of Human Life, designed for the better Regulation of it,” Lond. 1710, 8vo. 22. “A Practical Treatise concerning Humility; designed for the Furtherance and Improvement of that great Christian Virtue, both in the Minds and Lives of Men,” Lond. 8vo. There are some of his letters to Mrs. Thomas, in “Pylades and Corinna,” vol. II. p. 199.

, who appears to be the first of this family entitled to notice in a work of this description, was born in 1581, and succeeded his grandfather Roger, second lord North, in 1600. From the biographer of the family, we learn that “he was a per on full of spirit and flame, yet after he had consumed the greatest part of his estate in the gallantries of king James’s court, or rather his son, prince Henry’s, retired, and lived more honourably in the country, upon what was left, than ever he had done before.” He is said, however, in another authority, to have carried into the country with him the dregs of an old courtier, and was capricious, violent, vindictive, tyrannical, and unprincipled. In 1645 he pears to have acted with the parliament, and was nominated by them to the administration of the admiralty, in conjunction with the great earls of Northumberland, Essex, Warwick, and others. He died Jan. 16, 1666, being then eighty-five years of age, and was buried at Kertling, or Cartlage. He lived to see his grandchildren almost all grown up, and Francis, the second of them, beginning to rise at the bar. He was the author of a miscellany in prose and verse, entitled “A Forest of Varieties, first part,” 1645 a second part had the title of “Exonerations” and a third part included “Privadoes, or Extravagants.” The whole were reprinted in 1659. The prose, says lord Orford, which is affected and obscure, with many quotations and allusions to Scripture and the classics, consists of essays, letters, characters in the manner of sir Thomas Overbury, and devout meditations on his misfortunes.' The verse, though not very poetic, is more natural. Sir E. Brydges, in his “Memoirs of the English Peerage, has given considerable extracts from this publication,” as it is by no means common, and as it lays open many traits of the noble author’s life and character, with much energy, feeling, ability, and eloquence." He appears likewise from these essays and letters to have been perfectly conscious of the errors of his early life, although he might not be able to conquer his temper in old age.

, son of the preceding, had a learned education in the university of Cambridge. He had been made knight of the Bath as early as 1616, at the creation of Charles prince of Wales, and had stood as the eldest son of a peer, at the state in the house of lords, at sixty-three, and was an eminent instance of filial duty to his father, before whom he would not put on his hat, or sit down, unless enjoined to do it. He was bred in the best manner; for besides the court, and choicest company at home, he was sent to travel, and then into the army, and served as a captain under sir Francis Vere. He sat in many parliaments, until secluded by that which condemned the king. After this he lived privately in the country, at Tostock, in Suffolk; and towards the latter end of his life, entertained himself with justice-business, books, and (as a very numerous issue required) oeconomy. He published a little tract on that subject, entitled “Observations and advices Œconomical,” Lond. 1669, 12mo. Afterwards he published another tract, entitled “Passages relating to the Long Parliament,” with an apologetic, or rather recantation preface; for he had at first been active against the King. He wrote also the “History of the Life of Edward Lord North, the first Baron,” Lord Orford says, “sensibly, and in a very good style,” though this critic seems to think he fails in impressing the reader with much respect for his ancestor. After his death appeared a volume of essays, entitled “Light in the way to Paradise; with other occasionals,” Lond. 1682, 8vo. These essays shew that he was steadfast in his religion, that of the established church, and led an exemplary life. He outlived his father ten years, and died June 24, 1677. By his wife Anne, daughter and co-heir to sir Charles Montagu, he had a numerous family, of which six sons and four daughters lived to maturity. Three of his sons form the subject of the ensuing articles.

, lord Guilford, lord keeper of the great seal in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. was the second son of the preceding, and was born about 1640. He had his grammar learning, in which he was a great proficient, at Bury-school, whence he was admitted a fellowcommoner of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1653. His conversation is said to have been remarkably agreeable and facetious, while his diligent advancement in his studies afforded him more solid claims on the esteem of the society. But, as he was originally designed for the law, after two or three years spent at the university, he was removed to the Middle Temple. Here he applied with great diligence to the main object, yet continued to improve himself in history, classics, and languages. He acquired French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch, and became not only a good lawyer, but was esteemed very accomplished in mathematics, philosophy, and music. He used to say, that, if he had not diverted his attention by these studies, and by the practice of music particularly, he should never have been a lawyer. He used to spend much of his early vacations with his grandfather, who loved to hear him talk of philosophy, and the news of London. The biographer of the Norths informs us that he made him “play at backgammon, and fid lie, whenever he thought fit; and the course of life altogether was not displeasing to a young person, for here was fishing, billiards, hunting, visiting, and all the country amusements.”

On commencing business at the bar, the friendship and instructions of sir Jeffery Palmer, attorney-general, and the Hydes, greatly contributed to his proficiency, and advanced his practice. By means of the first named gentleman he had a favourable opportunity of shewing his abilities. The story of the five members in king Charles the First’s time, is well known, who, being prosecuted for the riot committed in the house of commons, in holding the speaker down in his chair, were convicted. After the restoration, the commons thought that the records of this conviction might be prejudicial to the privilege of that house, and ordered a writ of error to be brought; and Mr. Attorney was to find counsel to argue for the king, against the lord Hollis, who was one of the five, and first named in the record. Mr. Attorney being an assistant in the house of lords, could not argue, nor could he prevail upon any of the Serjeants, or other practisers to do it; for they said it was against the commons of England, and they durst not undertake it. At last he appointed Mr. North, "who prepared his argument, which was delivered at the bar of the house of lords; and though the commons carried the cause, yet his argument was approved, and particular notice was taken of his comely youth, and of his modest but forcible reasoning. The duke of York was pleased to inquire who that young gentleman was, who had argued so well; and prevailed with the king to encourage him by making him one of his counsel.

He usually attended the Norfolk circuit, and was soon employed as counsel in every important cause. When the great level of the fens was to be divided, he was appointed chairman in the commission, and directed the execution in such a manner as greatly to augment his fame. Dr. Lane, then bishop, likewise constituted him judge of the royal franchise of Ely; a creditable employment, which increased his business in the country. He was also appointed to assist the earl of Oxford, lord chief justice in eyre, in a formal iter, or justice-seat of the forests, which was of great pecuniary advantage to him, and gave him an idea of the ancient Jaw in the immediate practice of it He was promoted to be the king’s solicitor- general, in the room of sir Edward Turner, made lord chief baron, and was knighted the same day, May 23, 1671. He now dropt the circuit, and was chosen to represent the borough of Lynn, in the house of commons. In 1673 he was appointed attorney-general, on the promotion of sir Heneage Finch to the great seal. In former times, when he applied close to his studies, and spent his days in his chamber, he was subject to the spleen, and apprehensive of many imaginary diseases; and by way of prevention, wore warm cloathing, and leather skull-caps, and inclined much to quackery; but as business flowed in, his complaints vanished, and his skull-caps were destined to lie in a drawer, and receive hjs money. Though his profits were now very great, while the king approved his judgment and fidelity, and the chiefs of the law were mostly his friends, yet he soon grew weary of his post, and wished for another, though less profitable, in a calmer region. The court was sunk in pleasure and debauchery; averse to, and ignorant of all business. The great men were many of them corrupt, false, and treacherous; and were continually tormenting him with improper projects and unreasonable importunities. Among all the preferments of the law, his thoughts were most fixed upon that of lord chief justice of the common pleas; the business there being wholly matter of pure law, and having little to do in criminal causes, or court intrigues: and, on the death of lord chief justice Vaughan in 1674 he succeeded to his wishes. While he presided in this court, he was very attentive to regulate what was amiss in the law, arising either from the nature of things changing, or from the corruption of agents: when any abuse or necessity of regulation appeared, he noted it down, and afterwards digested his thought, and brought it into the form of a tract, from which he might prepare acts of parliament, as he had encouragement and opportunity. He had a great hand in “The Statute of Frauds and Perjuries,” of which the lord Nottingham said, that every line was worth a subsidy. In 1679, the king, being under great difficulties from the parliament, in order to bring them to better temper, and that it might not be said he wanted good counsellors, made a reform of his privy-council, dissolved the old, and constituted a new one, which took in the lord Shaftsbury as president, and the heads of the opposition in both houses; but that he might not be entirely at their mercy, he joined some of his friends, in whose fidelity and judgment he had an entire confidence, among whom lord chief justice North had the honour to be one. Not long after this, he was taken into the cabinet, that he might be assistant, not only in the formal proceedings of the privy-council, but also in the more private consultations of his majesty’s government. He was also often obliged to fill the office of speaker, and preside in the House of Lords, in the room of the chancellor Nottingham, who, towards the latter end of his time, was much afflicted with the gout and other infirmities. From his interest with the king he was considered as probable successor to Nottingham, and accordingly, on his death, in 1683, the great seal was committed to his custody, on which occasion he was created a peer, by the title of lord Guilford, barori of Guilford, in the county of Surrey, by patent bearing date Sept. 27th, 1683.

The death of king Charles involving him in much business, and his enemies Sunderland and Jefferies acquiring considerable influence in the new court, he took a resolution to quit the seal, and went to lord Rochester to intercede with his majesty to accept it. But that noble lord, who considered his opposition to the popish inclinations of the court as of great importance, diverted him from his purpose; but, as his health was visibly impaired, lord Rochester obtained of the king, that lord Guilford might retire with the seal into the country, with the proper officers attending, jn hopes that, by proper regimen and fresh air, he might recover his health against the winter. He died, however, Sept. 5, 1685, at his seat at Wroxton, near Ban bury. Burnet and Kennett have given no very favourable character of him; and the author of “The Lives of the Lords Chancellors” accuses him of yielding too much to court-measures. If we may credit his biographer, however, he appears to have exerted considerable independence of mind, and to have disapproved of many of the measures both of Charles II. and James; but such were his notions of loyalty, as to prevent him from an avowed opposition, even when he felt, and to his friends expressed, most disgust. While his private character was strictly virtuous and unexceptionable, he did not, according to his brother’s account, want zeal to promote the good of his country, which he thought would most effectually be done, by supporting the Church and Crown of England in all due and legal prerogatives and from these principles he never swerved. He wrote, 1. a An Alphabetical Index of Verbs Neuter,“printed with Lilly’s Grammar compiled while he was at Bury school. 2. A paper” on the Gravitation of Fluids considered in the Bladders of Fishes,“printed in Lowthorp’s Abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, vol. II. p. 845. It appears that his lordship’s hint was approved, and pursued, by Mr. Boyle and Mr. Ray, whose papers on that subject are entered in the same collection. 3.” An Answer to a paper of Sir Samuel Moreland on his Static Barometer.“This was never published; but we may observe, to his honour, that it was through his means that barometers were first publicly sold in shops, which before were very rare. 4.” A Philosophical Essay on Music, 1677.“Dr. Burney says, that though some of the philosophy of this essay has been since found to be false, and the rest has been more clearly illustrated and explained, yet, considering the small progress which had been made in so obscure and subtil a subject as the propagation of sound, when this book was written, the experiments and conjectures must be allowed to have considerable merit. The Scheme, or Table of Pulses, at the beginning, shewing the coincidence of vibrations in musical concords, is new, and conveys a clear idea to the eye, of what the ratio of sounds, in numbers, only communicates to the intellect. These coincidences, upon which the degrees of perfection in concords depend, being too rapid for the sense of hearing to enable us to count, are here delineated in such a manner as explains the doctrine of vibrations even to a person that is deaf. This pamphlet, containing only 35 pages, was published without the name of the author; but afterwards acknowledged to have been the work of lord keeper North. His delineation of the harmonical vibration of strings seems to have been adopted by Euler, in his” Tentamen novae Theorise musicae.“The keeper was said, in our last edition, to have composed several concerto* in two and three parts; but no composition, in fewer than four or five parts, is ever honoured with the title of concerto; nor was this title given to instrumental music during the life of lord keeper North. Besides the above, we have from his pen some political essays and narratives, published in whole or part, in his Life by Roger North, and in his” Examen," lord Sommers’ tracts, &c.

, fourth son of Dudley lord North, and brother to the preceding lord Guilford, was born in London, Sept. 4, 1645. In his youth he was of a delicate constitution, and serious turn of mind, circumstances which are said to have determined his parents in the choice of the church as a profession. He received the first principles of education at Bury school, and afterwards, while at home, his father initiated him in logic and metaphysics. In 1661 he was admitted a fellow-commoner of Jesus college, Cambridge, but on the barony descending to his father, he appeared in the academic garb of a nobleman, although without varying from his plan of study, or the punctual obedience he gave to every part of college discipline. He is said to have been particularly attentive to the public exercises and lectures, but was one of the first who conceived that the latter mode of instruction was less useful since students had more easy access to books. The collection of these was one of his earliest passions, and we learn from his brother that he had the usual predilections of a collector for the best editions, fine printing, and elegant bindings, and bought many editions of the same author, and many copies of the same edition, and in this way soon became master of a very valuable library, particularly rich in Greek authors, that and the Hebrew being his favourite studies while at college. After taking his degree of B. A. he was admitted fellow of Jesus, Sept. 28, ie66, by the king’s mandate. He afterwards took his master’s degree, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford, June 15, 1669. In 1671 he was admitted to holy orders, and preached his first, or one of “his first sermons, before Charles II. at Newmarket, which was published the same year. About the same time he assisted Dr. Gale with the” Pythagorica Fragmenta,“published in that learned author’s” Opuscula," who handsomely acknowledges the favour in his preface.

, more familiarly known as Lord North, was the eldest son of Francis, first earl of Guilford, and was born April 13, 1732. He commenced his education at Eton school, and completed it at Trinity college, Oxford, of which his father had been a member, and which the family have generally preferred, from their relationship to the founder, sir Thomas Pope. At school and college, where he took both his degrees in arts (that of M. A. in March 1750) he obtained considerable reputation for his proficiency in classical literature; and was not less respected for the vivacity of his conversation, and his amiable temper, qualities which he displayed during life, and for which his family is still distinguished. He afterwards made what used to be called the grand tour, and applied with much assiduity to the acquisition of diplomatic knowledge. He also studied with great success the Germanic constitution, under the celebrated Mascow, one of the professors of Leipsic, whose lectures on the droit publique were at that time much frequented by young Englishmen of fortune and political ambition; and this mode of education being much a favourite with George II. courtiers thought it a compliment to his majesty to adopt his sentiments in this branch of their sons’ accomplishments. Celebrated, however, as professor Mascow once was, when we came to his name we were not able to discover any biographical memoir of him, or any information, unless that he outlived his faculties for some years, and died about 1760.

On lord North’s return home, he commenced his parliamentary career in 1754, as representative for the family borough of Banbury, in Oxfordshire. On June 2, 175y, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, and continued in that office until 1763, in which last year Mr. George Grenville succeeded the earl of Bute, as first lord. In the same year lord North began to contribute his more active services, as a statesman, by taking the management of the measures adopted in consequence of the publication of Mr. Wilkes’s “North Briton,” and other parts of that gentleman’s political conduct, to his final expulsion from the House of Commons. It must be confessed that these measures afford but an inauspicious commencement of his lordship’s political career, for without answering their purpose, or suppressing the spirit of faction, they served only to give that importance to Wilkes which he then could not otherwise have attained. In the same year lord North was a supporter of the right of taxing American commodities, and of the memorable stamp act. In 1765, on the dissolution of Mr. Grenville’s administration, which was succeeded by that of the marquis of Rockingham, lord North retired from office with his colleagues, but persisted in his sentiments respecting the taxation of the colonies, and divided with the minority against the repeal of the stamp act. The Rockingham administration scarcely survived this well-intentioned measure, and when succeeded by that of the duke of Grafton, lord North was, in August 1766, appointed joint receiver (with George Cooke, esq.) and paymaster of the forces; and in Dec. 1767, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer, and a lord of the treasury. The talents he had already displayed were thought to qualify him in an eminent degree for those situations, especially that of chancellor of the exchequer; and his abilities for debate were often displayed to advantage. During a period of considerable political turbulence, he was advanced Jan 28, 1770, to the place of first lord of the treasury, which he held with that of chancellor of the exchequer during the whole of his eventful administration, which finally terminated in March 1782.

To detail his lordship’s political conduct during these twelve years would be to give the voluminous history of the contest with America, and the war with France, Spain, and Holland, and the Northern confederacy, which arose from it. With every part of this series of difficulties, every step which led to them, and every measure by which they were to be opposed, his lordship was intimately connected, either as prime mover, or defender. It has often indeed been said, that in some of the worst parts of his administration, where his measures appeared most erroneous, and his obstinacy in defending them most unaccountable, he acted under a certain species of secret influence, or controul. Whether this was intended as a compliment to his understanding at the expence of his independence, or was one of those insinuations, very common during his administration, against the first personage of the state, has not yet been decided; and as the best informed seem to be of opinion that the private history of his administration, which on all occasions is different fro that which appears on the surface, is not yet ripe for di closure, we may be excused from entering on the di cussion.

Some facts, however, may be added, which are admitted on all sides, and on which future information can throw very little new light. It may be added that lord North entered upon the war with America upon a principle recognized not only by the most decided majorities in parliament, but by the voice of the nation. To this last there was no exception but in the proceedings of a party in the metropolis, whose dissatisfaction arose from other causes, and who embraced this favourable opportunity to mix something national with the petty concerns of John Wilkes. On the other hand, no minister had ever to contend with so many difficulties; a question of right, which many disputed; the disaffection of the colonies, which was applauded and encouraged within his hearing in the house of commons; an army which, even if it had appeared at once in the field of battle, had to encounter physical difficulties; but which was sent out with hesitation, and in such divisions that the portion to be assisted was generally defeated before that which was to assist had arrived; a navy likewise incapable of coping with the numerous European enemies that combined against Great Britain, and as yet in the infancy only of that glory to which we have seen it arrive. Added to these, lord North had to contend in parliament with an opposition more ample in talents and personal consequence than perhaps ever appeared at one time, and with the uninterrupted hostility of the corporation of London to all his measures, and to the court itself. For such a force of opposition lord North was not in all respects qualified. Even Burke, whose irritating language during tfye American war seemed beyond all endurance, could allow, that “lord North wanted something of the vigilance and spirit of command that the time required.” Yet with all these discouragements, it was only the actual failure of the measures of subjugation that lessened his majorities, and turned the tide of popular sentiment. It was not conviction, but disappointment, which made the war obnoxious; and the “right of taxation,” the “ingratitude of the colonies,” “unconditional submission,” ana even the epithet “rebellion,” applied to their resistance, never ceased to be urged until repeated failures prescribed a different language, and made thousands question the principle as well as the policy of the war, who at its commencement did not entertain a doubt on the subject. It was now that the ministry of lord North was charged with misconduct and incapacity; and such misconduct and incapacity being but too obvious in the blunders of those who had to execute his orders, it was not wonderful that the supporters of the war should gradually desert the ministerial standard, and that ministers should sink under the accumulated weight of parliamentary and popular odium. After a few faint efforts, therefore, to which he seemed rather impelled than inclined, lord North gave in his resignation in March 1732. That he had lately acted under the influence to which we formerly alluded, seemed to he about this time more generally believed, for some of the last endeavours of the opposition to procure his dismissal, had the “influence of the crown” for their avowed object; and as they approached nearer the accomplishment of their wishes, their threats to bring this guilty minister to his trial became louder. When, however, he made way for his successors, they not only granted him fu-ll indemnity for the past, but at no great distance of time, associated with him in a new administration, a measure to which the public could never be reconciled. The coalition which placed lord North and Mr. Fox in the same cabinet was more repugnant to general feeling than any one, or perhaps the aggregate, of lord North’s measures, when in the plenitude of his power. When the voice of the nation, and the spirit of its sovereign, had dismissed this administration, lord North returned no more to power, and took 110 very active part in politics, except on two occasions, when he maintained the consistency of his former political life, by opposing the repeal of the test act, and a scheme for the reform of parliament. In 1790 he succeeded his father in the earldom, but survived him only two years, during which he had the misfortune to lose his sight. He passed his last days in the calmness and endearments of domestic privacy, to which his cheerful and benign temper m was peculiarly adapted. His lordship died August 5, 1792. He was at this time, ranger and warden of Busby Park; chancellor of the university of Oxford; a knight of the garter; lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Somerset; recorder of Gloucester and Taunton, one of the elder brethren of the Trinity-house; president of the Foundling-hospital and the Asylum, and governor of the Turkey company and Charter-house.

In March 1756, he married Anne, daughter and co-heir of George Speke, of White Lackington, in the county of Somerset, esq. by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his eldest son, George Augustus, who dying without male issue in 1794, was succeeded by his brother Francis, present and fourth earl of Guilford. Of the talents of lord North, much was said during his administration, and it is perhaps his highest praise, that against such a force of opposition, he could act so well upon the defensive. With many personal defects, he contrived to exhibit a species of eloquence which seemed easy and habitual, and always commanded attention. On subjects of finance, his abilities were generally acknowledged^ he reasoned closely and he replied with candour and temper, not unfrequently, however, availing himself of his wit. But as an orator, there were men of far more brilliant talents opposed to him; and as a statesman in general, he cannot be compared to his successor Pitt. He perhaps approaches the nearest to sir Robert Walpole, and like him seldom displayed the commanding energies of mind, but was content to follow the track of official duties, and to defend individual measures, arising out of temporary necessities, without professing any general system applicable to all occasions. But whatever were the errors or defects in lord North’s public conduct,' there lies no impeachment on his integrity. He neither enriched himself nor his family, nor was he ever accused of turning ministerial information. or influence to the purposes of pecuniary emolument. To the last moment of his life, he reviewed his conduct and his principles with satisfaction, and professed his readiness to defend them against any inquiry that could be instituted. What such inquiry can produce, must be the subject of future discovery. All we know at present is, that the moment he resigned, his public accusers became silent.

In 1743 he was presented to the vicarage of Codicote, and in 1744 was appointed chaplain to lord Cathcart. In the same year he took his degree of M. A. and drew up a catalogue of Mr. West’s series of coins, intending a prefatory account of them, and a catalogue of Dr. Ducarel’s English coins. With this last gentleman he continued his correspondence in 1748 and 1749, copious extracts from which are given in our authority. In the spring of 1750 he made a tour into the West; and on his return communicated very freely to Dr. Ducarel his ideas of the proceedings respecting a charter, then in agitation at the Society of Antiquaries, and of which he appears to have entertained very groundless fears. By one of his letters, in August 1750, it appears that he had not enjoyed three days of good health for more than a year; and was then labouring under several bodily complaints, and apprehensive of an epilepsy. He continued, however, as often as he was able, to indulge in literary pursuits, and extend his researches into every matter of antiquity that engaged the attention of his contemporaries and correspondents. In 1751, the rev. Charles Clarke, of Baiiol college, Oxford, published “Some Conjectures relative to a very antient Piece of Money lately found at Eltham in Kent, endeavouring to restore it to the place it merits in the Cimeliarch of English Coins, and to prove it a coin of Richard the first king of England of that name. To which are added, some Remarks on a dissertation (lately published) on Oriuna the supposed wife of Carausius, and on the Roman coins there mentioned,” 1751, 4to. To this Mr. North published an answer, entitled “Remarks on some Conjectures, &c. shewing the improbability of the notion therein advanced, that the arguments produced in support of it are inconclusive or irrelative to the pointin question,” 1752, 4to. In this answer, which was the first piece published by any of the society after their incorporation, Mr. North considered at large the standard and purity of our most ancient English coins, the state of the mints, and the beginning of sterling, from the public records; and added to it, “An Epistolary Dissertation (addressed to Mr. Vertue) on some supposed Saxon gold coins; read before the Society of Antiquaries, Dec. 19, 1751.” No man could be better qualified for this task than Mr. North, who, by his intimacy with Mr. Holmes and Mr. Folkes (the latter of whom he mentions in the highest terms), became perfectly acquainted with the records and whole state and history of the English coinage. Mr. Charles Clarke, however, a member of the Society, announced a design of proving Mr. North wrong in his “Epistolary Dissertation” but luckily for himself, discovered that his own premises would not support any such conclusion, and therefore his publication never appeared.

In 1752 Mr. North had made a considerable progress in “Remarks on the Money of Henry III.” which had then engaged his attention for more than three years, and for which he had actually engraved two plates, and hoped to have it ready for publication in the ensuing winter; but nothing on the subject was found among his Mss. after his death. The plates, however, which were purchased at Dr. Lort’s sale by Mr. Gough, who worked off a few impressions for his friends, are now in the possession of the . rev. Rogers Ruding, F. S. A. vicar of Maldon in Surrey, from whom the public may soon expect a very elaborate work on English coinage. In 1752 Mr. North was involved in law suits with his parishioners, some of whom had not paid him for tithes or offerings for many years, and obliged him to take the harshest steps to obtain justice, which was the more hard upon him, as his living was a very small one. 6n this painful subject he had frequent occasion to consult with Dr. Ducarel, to whom he also this year addressed several letters relative to the proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries; and others respecting the tour which Dr. Ducarel made to Normandy, for the purpose of inspecting its antiquities. In this correspondence, much of which is inserted in Mr. Nichols’s valuable work, the reader will find many curious remarks on subjects of architecture, and on scarce books and coins. To such matters his whole attention was devoted, except in one instance, in which he appears to have been under the influence of a more tender passion, and addressed some lines entitled Welwyn Spaw," lamenting the cold disdain of some apparently real Celia. These are inserted in the Literary Magazine for 1755, p. 209; in which year also he drew up the catalogue of Dr. Mead’s coins for public sale; and in the following year meditated some account of the Cromwell family.

, esq. an inhabitant, if not a native, of Sharpen haule, or Sharpenhoe, in Bedfordshire, was a barrister at law, and a zealous Calvinist in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, as appears by several tracts, printed together in 1569, 8vo. He was counsel to the Stationers’ company, in whose books we find accounts of the fees paid to him set down, the last of which was between 1583 and 1584, within which period we imagine he died. He was contemporary with Sternhold and Hopkins, and assistant to them in their noted version of the Psalms, twenty-seven of which he turned into English metre, and in all the editions of them, the initials of his name are prefixed. He also translated into English, an epistle from Peter Martyr to Somerset the protector, in 1550; and under the same patronage, Calvin’s Institutes. Being a close intimate and fellow-student with Thomas Sackville, esq. afterwards earl of Dorset, he is said to have joined with him in the composing one dramatic piece, of which Mr. Norton wrote the three first acts, entitled “Ferrex and Porrex;” afterwards reprinted, with considerable alterations, under the title of “Gorboduc;” but Mr. Warton seems to doubt his having any, or at least much share in this drama.

In 1546, Aix being afflicted with the plague, he went thither, at the solicitation of the inhabitants, and was of so great service, by a powder of his own invention, that the town gave him a considerable pension for several years after the contagion ceased. He appears to have been equally successful in 1547, when the city of Lyons, being visited with the same distemper, had recourse to him; but upon his return to Salon, found that his popularity had decreased. This occasioned his having more leisure to apply to his studies; and now he began to think himself inspired, and miraculously illuminated with a prospect into futurity, notions which he had partially entertained for some time. When these pretended illuminations discovered to him any future evenl, he entered it in writing, in prose, but he afterwards thought the sentences would savour more of a prophetic spirit, if they were expressed in verse. This opinion determined him to throw them all into quatrains, and he afterwards ranged them into centuries. When this was done, he resolved to print them, with a dedication addressed to his son Caesar, an infant only some months old, in the form of a letter, or preface. This first edition, which is included in seven centuries, was printed by Rigault at Lyons in 1568, 8vo. He prefixed his name in Latin, but gave to his son Caesar the name as it is pronounced, Notradame. This work was reprinted twice in the same year, and while some considered him as an impostor, there were others, and among them persons of considerable rank aud influence, who believed him to be really endued with the supernatural gift of prophecy. However, Henry II. and queen Catharine of Medicis, his mother, very graciously received him at court; and, besides other marks of respect paid to him, he received a present of 200 crowns. He was sent afterwards to Blois, to visit his majesty’s children there, and report what he should be able to discover concerning their destinies; and thence he returned to Salon loaded with honours and presents. Animated with this success, he augmented his work from 300 quatrains to the number of a complete miliiade, and published it with adedication to the king in 1558. That prince dying the next year of a wound which he received, as is well known, at a tournament, the book of our prophet was immediately consulted; and this unfortunate event was found in the 35th quatrain of the first century, in these lines:

Dans cage d'or les yieux lui cr^vera,

, or Novatus, a priest of the church of Carthage, flourished in the third century, and was the author of a remarkable schism called after his name, or rather after the name of his associate Novatian, who, however, is also called Novatus by many ancient writers. He is represented by the orthodox as a person scandalous and infamous for perfidy, adulation, arrogance, and so sordidly covetous, that he even suffered his own father to perish with hunger, and spared not to pillage the goods of the church, the poor, and the orphans. It was in order to escape the punishment due to these crimes, and to support himself by raising disturbances, that he resolved to form a schism; and to that end entered into a cabal with Felicissimus, an African priest, who opposed St. Cyprian Novatus was summoned to appear before the prelate in the year 249; but the persecution, begun by Decius the following year, obliging that saint to retire for his own safety, Novatus was delivered from the danger of that process; and, not long after associating himself with Felicissimws, then a deacon, with him maintained the doctrine, that the lapsed ought to be received into the communion of the church without any form of penitence. In the year 2.51, he went to Rome, about the time of the election of pope Cornelius. There he met with Novatian, a priest, who had acquired a reputation for eloquence, and presently formed an alliance with him; and, although their sentiments with regard to the lapsed were diametrically opposite, they agreed to publish the most atrocious calumnies against the Roman clergy, which they coloured over so artfully, that many were deceived and joined their party. This done, they procured a congregation consisting of three obscure, simple, and ignorant bishops; and, plying them well with wine, prevailed upon them to elect Novatian bisuop of Rome. After this irregular election, Novatian addressed letters to St. Cyprian of Carthage, to Fabiuu of Antioch, and to Dionysius of Alexandria; but St. Cyprian refused to open his letter, and excommunicated his deputies: he had likewise sent to Rome before, ia order to procure the abolition of the schism. Fabius made himself pleasant at Novatian’s expence; and Dionysius declared to him, that the best way of convincing the world, that his election was made against his consent, would be to quit the see, for the sake of peace. On the contrary, Novatian now maintained his principal doctrine, that such as had fallen into any sin after baptism ought not to be re*­ceived into the church by penance; and he was joined in the same by Novatus, although he had originally maintained the contrary while in Africa. Novatian had been a Pagan philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and it does not appear that he and his party separated from the church, on any grounds of doctrine, but of discipline, and it is certain, from some writings of Novatian still extant, that he was sound in the doctrine of the Trinity. He lived to the time of Valerian, when he suffered martyrdom. He composed treatises upon the “Paschal Festival, or Easter,” of -the “Sabbath,” of “Circumcision,” of the “Supreme Pontiff,” of “Prayer,” of the “Jewish Meats,” and of “the Trinity.” It is highly probable, that the treatise upon the “Trinity,” and the book upon the “Jewish Meats,” inserted into the works of Tertullian, were written by Novatian, and they are well written. There is an edition of his works by Whiston, 1709; one by Welchman; and a third, of 1728, with notes, by Jackson. With respect to the followers of Novatian, at the first separation, they only refused communion with those who had fallen into idolatry: afterwards they went farther, and excluded, for ever, from their communion, all such as had committed crimes for which penance was required; and at last they took away from the church the power of the keys, of binding and loosing offenders, and rebaptised those who had been baptised by the church. This sect subsisted a long time both in the east and west; but chiefly became considerable in the east, where they had bishops, both in the great sees and the small ones, parish-churches, and a great number of followers. There were also Novatians in Africa in the time of St. Leo, and in the east some remains continued till the eighth century.

, an eminent English divine, and the last surviving father of the English Reformation, descended from an ancient family of Norman origin, was the son of John Nowejl, esq, of Read, in the parish of Whailey, a,nd county of Lancaster. This gentleman, who was twice married, had, by his first wife, Dowsabel, daughter of Robert Hesketh, esq. of Rufford, in Lancashire, an only son, Roger Noweli, whose issue male, in a direct line, enjoyed the family estates for more than two centuries. By his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Kay of Rachdale, he had four sons, Alexander, the subject of this article, Laurence, Robert, and Nicholas; and several daughters. Alexander was born in 1507 or 1508, at Readhall, anciently Rivehead or Riverhead, a mansion on the Calder, a tributary branch of the Ribble. A view of this his birth-place, as it stood in 1750, is given in Mr. archdeacon Churton’s “Life of Alexander Noweli,” a work which has furnished the substance of this sketch.

He was educated at Middleton, about six miles from Manchester; but who was his preceptor there we have not learnt. That his elementary progress was rapid, we may reasonably presume, as he was deemed ripe for the university, where, however, early entrances were then more frequent, at the age of thirteen. Respecting this number a singular coincidence is mentioned, whether it were the result of choice, or of accident. He became a member of Brasen-nose college at the age of thirteen; he resided there thirteen years and he afterwards bestowed on the society thirteen scholarships. He is said to have been chamber-fellow with Fox, the martyrologist, and had perhaps the same tutor, Mr. John Hawarden, or Harding, who was afterwards principal of the college. We are assured that he was a public reader of logic in the university, and taught the famous book of Rodolphus Agricola, when he was in the twentieth year of his age. He was then (and there seem to be examples of the same delay at that time), only an undergraduate, and was not admitted B. A. until May 29, 1536, when he was of ten or twelve years standing. He was elected fellow, of the college shortly afterwar, is, and proceeded M. A. June 10, 1540.

He had directed his intent to the church ever since he was sixteen years old; but it is not known when or bv whom he was admitted into holy orders. When he left the university he came to London, and obtained the office of second master of Westminster-school, on the new foundation, appointed in 1543. While he filled this important post, he is said to have been diligent in teaching his pupils pure language and true religion: using for the former purpose Terence, and for the latter St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, in the original Greek. He appears to have been licensed as a preacher in 1550, but where he exercised his talent we are not particularly informed: except that he preached, during this reign, “in some of the notablest places and auditories df the realm.” The first production of his pen that we have met with was some lines in honour of the memory of Bucer, who died at Cambridge in 1551, which shew that he was of congenial sentiments on the subject of religion with that celebrated reformer; and the same year he held an interesting conference with Redmayne, master of Trinity college, Cambridge, then on his death-bed, respecting the principal articles which separated the English from the Romish church. In that year also he succeeded Redmayne as one of the prebendaries of Westminster.

In the first parliament of queen Mary, in 1553, Nowell was returned one of the burgesses for Loo, in Cornwall; but a committee being appointed to inquire into the validity of the return, they reported that *' Alexander Nowell being a prebendary of Westminster, and thereby having a voice in the convocation-house, cannot be a member of this house,“and a new writ was directed to” be issued accordingly. Nowell quietly submitted to this decision, although it was not correct as to the law; for none below the dignity of dean or archdeacon were bound to personal appearance in the convocation; but these were not times for men desirous of retaining peace and a good conscience, to insist rigidly on their right, against the prevailing party; and he soon afterwards found it necessary to join his countrymen who were exiles in Germany, from the persecuting spirit of popery. Of this event we are only told, that Bonner, having intended him as one of his victims, he was assisted in his escape by Francis Bowyer, at that time a merchant, and afterwards sheriff of London. In 1554, we find him at Strasburgh, with Jewell, Poinet, Grindal, Sandys, and other men of future eminence in the Reformed Church. In the unfortunate disputes which afterwards took place among these exiles, respecting church discipline, Nowell took a moderate part, sometimes, for the sake of peace, conceding to the presbyterian party: but at last, with equal wisdom and firmness, pressing unity in essentials, and’submission in smaller matters to authority duly appointed and legally exercised.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth, Nowell returned to England, and was soon fixed upon, with Parker, Bill, Whitehead, Pilkington, Sandys, &c. to be promoted to the chief preferments then vacant. His first employment seems to have been that of one of the commissioners for visiting the various dioceses, in order to introduce such regulations as might establish the Reformation. One of these commissions, in which NowelL's name appears, was dated July 22, 1559. In December of that year, he was appointed chaplain to Grindal, and preached the sermon on the consecration of that divine to the bishopric of London. Preferments now began to flow in upon him. On Jan. 1, 1559-60, Grindal collated him to the archdeaconry of Middlesex; in February, archbishop Parker gave him the rectory of Saltwood, with the annexed chapel of Hythe, in Kent, and a prebend of Canterbury. Saltwood he resigned within the year, as he did a prebend of St. Peter’s Westminster, then erected into a collegiate church; but was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s in November 1560, and about the same time was collated to the prebend of Wildland or Willand in the same church.

He now became a frequent preacher at St. Paul’s cross, and on one occasion, a passage of his sermon was much talked of, and grossly misrepresented by the papists, as savouring of an uncharitable and persecuting spirit. He had little difficulty, however, in repelling this charge, which at least shews that his words were considered as of no small importance, and were carefully watched. One of his sermons at St. Paul’s cross was preached the Sunday following a very melancholy event, the burning of St. Paul’s cathedral by lightning, June 4, 1561. Such was. his reputation now, that in September of this year, when archbishop Parker visited Eton college, and ejected the provost, Richard Bruerne, for nonconformity, he recommended to secretary Cecil the choice of several persons fit to supply the place, with this remark, “that if the queen would have a married minister, none comparable to Mr. Nowell.” The bishop of London also seconded this recommendation; but the queen’s prejudice against the married clergy inclined her to give the place to Mr. Day, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was a bachelor, and in all respects worthy of the promotion. In the course of the ensuing year, 1562, No well was frequently in the pulpit on public occasions, before large auditories; but his labours in one respect commenced a little inauspiciously. On the new-year’s day, before the festival of the circumcision, he preached at St. Paul’s, whither the queen resorted. Here, says Strype, a remarkable passage happened, as it is recorded in a great man’s memorials (sir H. Sidney), who lived in those times. The dean having met with several fine engravings, representing the stories and passions of the saints and martyrs, had placed them against the epistles and gospels of their respective festivals, in a Common Prayer-book; which he caused to be richly bound, and laid on the cushion for the queen’s use, in the place where she commonly sat; intending it for a new-year’s gift to her majesty, and thinking to have pleased her fancy therewith. But it had a quite contrary effect. For she considered how this varied from her late injunctions and proclamations against the superstitious use of images in churches, and for the taking away all such reliques of popery. When she came to her place, and had opened the book, and saw the pictures, she frowned and blushed; and then shutting the book (of which several took notice) she called for the verger, and bade him bring her the old book, wherein she was formerly wont to read. After sermon, whereas she used to get immediately on horseback, or into her chariot, she went straight to the vestry, and applying herself to the dean, thus she spoke to him: “Mr. Dean, how came it to pas’s, that a new service-book was placed on my cushion r” To which the dean answered, “May it please your majesty, I caused it to be placed there.” Then said the queen, “Wherefore did you so” “To present your majesty with a new year?s gift.” “You could never present me with a worse.” “Why so, madam?” “You know I have an aversion to idolatry, to images, and pictures of this kind.” “Wherein is the idolatry, may it please your majesty?” “In the cuts resembling angels and saints; nay, grosser absurdities, pictures resembling the blessed Trinity.” “I meant nq harm; nor did I think it would offend your majesty, when I intended it for a new-year’s gift.” *“You must needs be ignorant then. Have you forgot our proclamation against images, pictures, and Romish reliques, in the churches? Was it not read in your deanery?” “It was read. But be your majesty assured I meant no harm when I caused the cuts to be bound with the service-book.” “You must needs be very ignorant to do this after our prohibition of them.” “It being my ignorance, your majesty may the better pardon me.” “I am sorry for it; yet glad to hear it was your ignorance rather than your opinion.” “Be your majesty assured it was my ignorance.” “If so, Mr. dean, God grant you his spirit, and more wisdom for the future.” “Amen, I pray God.” “I pray, Mr. Dean, how came you by these pictures who engraved them” “I know not who engraved them I bought them.” “From whom bought you them” “From a German.” “It is well it was from a stranger. Had it been any of our subjects, we should have questioned the matter. Pray let no more of these mistakes, or of this kind, be committed within the churches of our realm for the future.” “There shall not.” Strype adds to this curious dialogue, that it caused all the clergy in and about London, and the churchwardens of each parish, to search their churches and chapels; and to wash out of the walls all paintings that seemed to be Romish and idolatrous; in lieu whereof, suitable texts of Holy Scripture were written.

Towards the close of 1562, his patron Grindall, bishop of London, collated him to the valuable rectory of Great Hadham, in Hertfordshire, where the ample tithe-bara which he built still remains. Nowell was one of those eminent men mentioned by Isaac Walton, who were fond of angling; and to enable him more commodiously to indulge in this amusement, Dr. Sandys, the succeeding bishop of London, conferred on him a grant of the custody of the river, within the manor of Hadham, with leave to take fish, and to cut down timber, to make pits and dams, free of all expence whatsoever. When the memorable convocation, in which the Articles of Religion were revised and subscribed, met in 1563, Nowell was chosen prolocutor of the lower house. Among other more important matters, rites and ceremonies were warmly agitated in this house. On this occasion, Nowell, with about thirty others, chiefly such as had been exiles during queeu Mary’s reign, proposed that some other long garment should be used instead of the surplice, or that the minister should, in time of divine service, use the surplice only; that the sign of the cross should be omitted in baptism, and that kneeling at the holy communion should be left to the discretion of the ordinary; that saints’ days should be abrogated, and organs removed. But the majority would allow of no alterations in the liturgy or rules of Edward the Sixth’s service-book (knowing the wisdom, deliberation, and piety, with which it had been framed) as it was already received and enforced by the authority of parliament, in the first year of the queen. During the plague, the ravages of which this year were very extensive, he was appointed to draw up a homily suitable to the occasion, and a form of prayer for general use, both of which were set forth by the queen’s special commandment, July 10, 1563.

Nowell, who continued to be a very frequent, and one of the most approved of the public preachers at Paul’s Cross, introduced in one of his sermons, Harding’s answer to Jewell, reading some passages of it, and confuting them. This was no uncommon practice in those days, during the activity of the popish party, and before matters of controversy could be usefully committed to the press. In the same year he“noticed, in another of his sermons, Dorman’s answer to Jewell, and appears from this time to have employed his leisure in preparing a more formal answer to that heap of misrepresentations. It was in 1560 that Jewell made his famous challenge to the papists, that none of the peculiar and discriminating dogmas of popery could be proved, either by warrant of scripture, or by authority of the fathers or councils, during six hundred years from the birth of Christ. Attempts were made to answer this challenge by Rastell, and Harding, (see their articles) and now Mr. Dorman published what he called” A Proof of certain articles in Religion, denied by Mr. Jewell.“Against this, Nowell published,” A Reproof of a book, entitled “A Proof,' &c.” 1565, 4to, reprinted, with some additions, in little more than a month. In the same year appeared Dorman’s “Disproof of Nowell’s Reproof,” followed in 1566 by Nowell’s “Continuation of his Reproof,” and in 1567, by his “Confutation as well of Mr. Dorman’s last book, intituled * a Disproof,' &c.” as also of Dr. Sanders’s causes of Transubstantiation,“&c. In this controversy Nowell’s learning and deep knowledge of ecclesiastical history were not more conspicuous than the candour with which he treated his adversaries. He appears to have had the aid of the bishop of London and other high characters of the time in the publication of these works, which appeared to his learned contemporaries to be of such importance to the cause of the reformation and the character of the reformed church, as to merit their utmost care, even in the minutiae of typographical correction. This circumstance, says his biographer, shows” how solicitous the persons to whom, under God, we in great measure owe the final reformation of our church, were ut writes ipsa limaretur in disputatione, that genuine truth might be fully known, and accurately expressed."

The principal remaining monument of Nowell’s fame is his celebrated “Catechism,” of the history of which and of catechisms in general, his biographer has given a very interesting detail. The precise time when he wrote it has not been discovered; nor whether, as is not improbable, he first devised it (or some such summary) for the use of his pupils in Westminster-school, It is, however, certain that it was composed, and in readiness for publication, before the convocation sat in 1562, for, among the minutes of matters to be moved in that synod, we find two memorable papers, both of them noted by the archbishop of Canterbury’s hand (Parker), and one of them drawn up by one of his secretaries, in both of which there is express mention of Nowell’s catechism. For the proceedings of the convocation on the subject, we must refer to his excellent biographer. The work was not published until June 1570, 4to. This is what is called his “Larger Catechism,” and in the preface it is announced that he intended to publish it, reduced into a shorter compass, as soon as possible. The abridgment accordingly came out the same year, and both in Latin. They were soon after, for the sake of more extensive usefulness, translated into English, by Thomas Norton, of whom we have lately taken notice, and into Greek by the Dean’s nephew, Whitaker, but the Greek translation of the larger, which was first printed (along with the Latin) did not appear until 1573, and that of the smaller in 1575. His biographer gives some account of a third Catechism, attributed to Nowell, but its history seems involved in some obscurity. There seems reason to think that this was, in whole or in part, what is now called “The Church Catechism.” Nowell’s other catechisms were in such request as to go through a great many impressions, and long continued to be used in schools, and the use of them appears to have been frequently enjoined by the founders of schools, and mentioned expressly in the statutes drawn up for such seminaries. What public authority and private influence could do, was not wanting to recommend these catechisms as the foundation of religious knowledge. In fact, the church catechism, the homilies, and Nowell’s catechisms, appear to have long been the standard books, which were quoted as authorities for all that the church of England believed and taught; and Nowell’s were within these few years reprinted in the “Enchiridion Theologicum,” by Dr. Randolph, late bishop of London, and by Dr. Cleaver, late bishop of St. Asaph.

In 1572 he completed the endowment at one and the same time, of a free- school at Middleton in Lancashire, and of thirteen scholarships in Brazen-nose college and as these benefactions were both of them established by royal patent (her majesty also of her free bounty encouraging and assisting him), he chose that the school should be called queen Elizabeth’s school, and the scholars queen Elizabeth’s scholars. This benefaction to the college was peculiarly seasonable, as in consequence of a severe plague at Oxford, in the preceding year, and for want of exhibitions to assist them in their studies, some of the scholars were compelled to go about requesting alms, having licence so to do, as an act of parliament required, under the common seal of the university. Nowell was at all times a zealous patron of learning, and was much looked up to in that character, as appears not only by his being frequently consulted on schemes for the promotion of liberal education, but also by the numerous dedications of learned books to him. Books that had a tendency to inculcate the principles of the reformation were also frequently published under the protection of his name, as one acknowledged “to be a learned and faithful preacher of God’s word, and an earnest furtherer of all godliness.” In 1580 the queen granted him a licence of non-residence for three months and fourteen days, that he might visit his scholars of Brasen-nose, and the school at Middleton, her majesty “having long, by sure proof, known his experience and skill in business, as well as earnest desire and constant solicitude for the training up of youth in learning and virtue.” It was indeed his great success as a preacher, and his eminence as an opponent of popery, that procured him the honour of having his works proscribed in the “Index librorum prohibitorum;” and his name, together with that of Fox, Fleetwood the recorder, and others; inserted at Rome in a “bede-roll,” or list of persons, that were to be dispatched, and the particular mode of their death, as by burning or hanging, pointed out. Campion, the great emissary from Rome, being apprehended, Nowell, and May dean of Windsor, held, in August 1581, a conference with him in the Tower, of which an account was afterwards published under the title of “A True Report of the disputation or rather private conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Jesuite, &c.” Lond. 1583, 4 to. In 1588 Nowell quitted the prebend (Willand) he had so long held in St. Paul’s for another, that of Tottenham in the same church, and upon this occasion resigned his living of Hadham. In the following year the queen gave him the next presentation to a canonry of Windsor, “in consideration of his constant preaching of the word of God, during the space of almost forty years;” and because he had lately resigned the rectory of Hadham and prebend of Willand, as being, through age and imbecility of body, not equal to the duties of them; nor likely, on account of his extreme age and infirm health, long to enjoy either his present or any future preferment. He lived, however, to succeed to a canonry of Windsor in 1594. In 1595, on the death of Mr. Harris, the fourth principal of Brasennose college, Nowell was chosen to succeed him. This election of a man now on the verge of ninety was perhaps intended or accepted rather as a compliment, than with a view to the performance of much actual service, and ac-r cordingly he resigned it in a few months.

, younger brother to the preceding, and dean of Lichfield, was entered of Brasen-nose college, Oxford, in 1536, the same year in which his elder brother in the same college became B. A. After a little while, Wood says, he went to Cambridge, was admitted to the degree of B. A. in that university, and reincorporated at Oxford in July 1542, where he proceeded M. A. March 18, 1544. In 1546 he was appointed master of the grammar-school at Sutton Colfield, in Warwickshire; but was not yet, as Wood makes him, in sacred orders; for he was not ordained a deacon till 1550. He was not suffered to continue long in quiet possession of the school; for articles of complaint were exhibited against him by the corporation, as patrons of the school, in the court of chancery, upon a pretence of neglect of duty; though the real ground of offence appears to have been his zeal for the reformation; and therefore, on appeal to the king in council, he justified his character and conduct so well, that letters were issued to the warden and fellows of the King’s town of Sutton, not to remove him from his place of schoolmaster, nor to give him any farther molestation or disturbance.

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.

The king is said to have been much affected with attorney-general Noy’s death, and Laud paid him this compliment in his. “Diary:” “I have lost a near friend of him, and the Church the greatest she had of his condition, since she needed any such.” But the commons in general rejoiced; and the vintners, says Wood, or rather Howell, drank carouses, in hopes to dress meat again, and sell tobacco, beer, &c. which by a sullen capricio Noy restrained them from. The players too, for whom he had done no kindness, introduced him on the stage, and made him the subject of ridicule, in a comedy entitled, “A Projector lately dead, &c.” He was allowed, however, to have been a very profound lawyer . This character of him appears justifiable from the writings he left behind, and from the following books afterwards published, mostly during the common-wealth, when their merit only could have recommended them. 1. “A Treatise of the principal Grounds and Maxims of the Laws of England,” 1641, 4to, afterwards 8vo, and 12mo. 2. “Perfect Conveyancer; or, several select and choice Precedents,” 1655, 4to. “Reports of Cases in the time of Queen Elizabeth, K. James, and K. Charles the First; containing the most excellent Exceptions for all manner of Declarations, Pleadings, and Demurs, exactly examined and laid down,” 1656, fol. and reprinted in 1669. 4. “Complete Lawyer or, a Treatise concerning Tenures and Estates in Lands of Inheritance for Life, and other Hereditaments and Chattels real and personal,” c. 1661, 8vo. 5. “Arguments of Law and Speeches.”

Warwickshire, and secondly of John Knight, esq. of Bellowes, or Belhouse, or Gosfield-hall, in Essex. Much of Pope’s correspondence with this lady is inserted in the supplementary volume of the last edition of that poet’s works. Earl Nugent died Oct. 13, 1788.

, a miscellaneous writer and translator of the last century, was a native of Ireland, who merits some notice, although we have not been able to recover many particulars of his history. He appears to have resided the greater part of his life in London, and employed his pen on various works for the booksellers, principally translations. In 1765 he received the degree of LL. D. from the university of Aberdeen. He died at his apartments in Gray’s Inn, April 27, 1772, with the character of a man of learning, industry, and contented temper. The first of his translations which we have met with, was that of Burlamaqui’s “Principles of Politic Law,” 1752, 8vo. This was followed by the abbe de Condillac’s “Essay on the origin of Human Knowledge,” 1756, 8vo. Macquer’s “Chronological abridgment of the Roman History,” 1759, 8vo; and Henault’s “Chronological abridgment of the History of France,” 1762, 2 vols. 8vo. In 1766 he travelled on the continent for the purpose of collecting materials for his “History of Vandalia,” which he completed in 3 vols. 4to, in 1776. This tour also occasioned his publishing “Travels through Germany,” &c. 2 vols. 8vo. We find him afterwards appearing as compiler or translator of a “Historyof France” “New Observations on Italy;” “The present state of Europe;” the “Life of Benv^nuto Cellini” Grossley’s “Tour to London” a French Dictionary, &c. &c. His translations were generally admired for elegance and accuracy; his principal faifure was in tjr^translation of Rousseau' “Emilius,” but it seems doubtful whether he translated this, or only permitted his name to be used.

, one of the restorers of literature in Spain, flourished in the sixteenth century, and was born at Vailadolid, in Latin Pinciuniy whence he was sometimes called Pingianus. His father, of the illustrious family of Guzman, was superintendant of the finances, or treasurer to Ferdinand the catholic. As entitled by birth, he received, when of proper age, the honour of knighthood of St. Jago; but his earliest taste being decidedly for literature, he put himself under a regular course of instruction for that purpose, and having a particular desire to become acquainted with the Greek language, then little known in Spain, after some elementary instruction in grammar under Antonio Lebrixa, he went to Bologna, and applied with the greatest ardour to Greek and Latin under Jovian of Peloponesus, and Philip Beroaldus. Having learned what these celebrated masters were able to teach, he determined to improve himself by every means, and laid out large sums in the purchase of Greek books and Mss. with which he returned to Spain, and devoted the whole of his time and attention to the studies he had begun with so much success. He appears to have been first employed by cardinal Ximenes on his celebrated Polyglot, and executed the greater part of the Latin version. He then succeeded Demetrius Luca of Crete, as Greek professor in the university of Alcala, then founded by the cardinal; but some disputes which occurred in this university obliged him to seek a situation of more tranquillity. This he found at Salamanca, the most famous university of Spain, where he was appointed Greek professor, and also taught rhetoric, and lectured on Pliny’s natural history. Here he formed many distinguished scholars, acquired the esteem of the learned men of his time, and was for many years the great patron and teacher of classical studies. He assisted likewise in the correction and revision of some of the ancient authors. He died about the age of eighty, in 1553, according to Antonio, or 1552, according to Thuanus and others, bequeathing his valuable library to the university of Salamanca, and his other property to the poor. His private character appears to have been estimable; he kept a plain but hospitable table, at which he loved to see his friends and scholars, whom he delighted and edified by his conversation. Among his works are, 1. “Annotationes in Senecae Philosophi Opera,” Venice, 1536, which Lipsius calls a model of just criticism. 2. “Observationes in Pomponium Melam,” Salamanca, 1543, 8vo. 3. “Observationes in loca obscura et depravata Hist. Nat. C. Plinii, cum retractationibus quorundam locorum Geographiae Pomponii Melae, locisque aliis non paucis in diversis utriusque linguae authoribus castigatis et exposuis,” Antwerp,1547, fol. Antonio thinks there was a previous edition at Salamanca in 1544, as there certainly was a subsequent one at Francfort in 1596, fol. but Saxius calls the Antwerp edition an octavo. 3. “Glosa sobre las obras de Juan de Mena,” Saville, 1528, fol. and Toledo, 1547, fol. This^is a commentary in the Spanish language on the works of John de Mena, a poet of Cordova. 4. A collection of Spanish proverbs, beguti in his old age, and published under the title “Refranes, o Proverbios en Romance,” Salamanca, fol. 1555. Of this edition there is a copy in the British Museum with ms notes. It was reprinted at Madrid in 1619, 4to.

, a very ingenious man, was the son of Robert and Sarah Nutt, and born at Hinckley in September 1700. He was educated at the free grammar-school in that town, where he made a very considerable progress in learning; and at a proper age, was put apprentice to Mr. John Parr of Hinckley, an eminent apothecary; in, which station, by his diligence and industry, he gained great confidence and respect from his master and the whole family. After this, he attended the hospitals in London; and on his return to Hinckley, carried on for many years a considerable business with reputation and success. Some time about the middle of life he was chosen one of the surveyors of the highways for the parish, when he adopted a new method for improving the same, by turning over the roads the water that came from the town; which being considerably enriched by washing the streets and public sinks, what he could spare from the roads, or rather after it had done the business there, he conveyed upon the lands of those who approved of his proceedings. The consequence was, the land was greatly enriched. The effect of the water upon the road, in that part below the town that is now the Coventry turnpike-road, was, that it served like a boultingmill; the muddy foul parts upon the land being carried off, and the sandy, gravelly, and stony parts, remaining by their own gravity, were left firm; for the. road was sometimes wet, and sometimes dry, as he let it out of a reservoir for that purpose at pleasure. By this method it became good for saddle and pack-horses; the last of which were much used upon the roads at that time, the pit-coal from the Warwickshire mines being brought by them in considerable quantities. It was also much better for the draft horses; though when much used by these, especially in the coal business, the wheels of these carriages being at that time very narrow, and generally laying on great loads, were apt to disturb and cut the roads; for the materials used were commonly sand dug by the road side, which was done at a moderate expence. If upon this more gravelly or stony materials had been applied, there is no doubt, though the expence would have been greater, the road would have been much better. This, being a new way of proceeding, met with a difference of reception in the parish; and some enemies were ready on every occasion to insult and ridicule their surveyor. He spent much of his time in the valuation of land, and many persons entertained a good opinion of his abilities in this branch, particularly sir Dudley Ryder, when attorney-general, the ancestor of the present lord Harrowby.

He testified in his last will, his desire of doing good to his native town where he lived, by giving (upon condition that a new school should be built within 40 years after his decease) five oak-trees then standing the best in the hedge-row, except one which he willed and directed should not be felled, or cut down, or lopped within 100 years. He died in 1775. Since then this tree has not been lopped; and is now standing (1812).

, is the name of a family of painters, of whom Panfilo, the father, a Cremonese, was the favourite scholar of Trotti, and for some time the imitator of his style, but afterwards relinquished it for one more solid, though less alluring. Placentia and Milan possess his best works. He flourished about 1608. His eldest son, Charles Francis, was born in 1608, at Milan, and left the principles of G. C. Procaccino for the graces of Guido with a success that still insures him the name of the Lombard Guido. More choice than copious in composition, he forms his figures with grace and delicacy, and sweetly animates their countenances; hence his Madonnas always occupy a distinguished place in galleries. He died in. 1651. His younger brother, Joseph, who was born in 1619, with more fire and fancy, delighted in numerous composition, and sacrificed choice and delicacy to energy and effect. He painted much more than his brother, not only in Lombardy, but through theVenetian state and in various churches of Brescia. The large picture of a dead man resuscitated by S. Dominic, at Cremona, for expression and magnificence of arrangement, may be considered as one of his most powerful productions totally exempt from those symptoms of decay which disfigure or debilitate many of his later works; for he lived to a great age, and continued to paint till death surprised him in 1703.

In 1643, he was appointed one of the assembly of divines, became a great champion of the Presbyterians, and a zealous assertor of the solemn league and covenant; and was sent, with Stephen Marshall, whose daughter he,had married, the same year, to procure the assistance of the Scotch, and join with them in their favourite covenant: and when r after his return, both houses of parliament took the covenant in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster, he was the person who read it from the pulpit, and preached a sermon in defence of it, shewing its warrant from scripture, and was rewarded for his good service with the rectory of Acton near London. He was also one of the committee who drew up the preface to the “Directory,” which was ordered to be substituted for the Book of Common Prayer; but, when the majority of the assembly of divines determined on establishing the Presbyterian form of churchgovernment, he dissented from them; and, closing with the Independents, when they became the reigning faction, paid his court to the grandees of the army, who often made use of his advice. In December 1647, he was sent by them, with Stephen Marshall, to the king, at Carisbrookcastle, in the Isle of Wight, in attendance upon the commissioners then appointed to carry the four dethroning votes , as they are now called for which service they were rewarded with no less than 500l. a-piece. About the same time also Nye was employed by the same masters to get subscriptions from the apprentices in London, &c. against a personal treaty with the king, while the citizens of that metropolis were petitioning, for one. In April of the next year, he was employed, as well as Marshall and Joseph Caryl, by the Independents, to invite the secluded members to sit in the house again; but without success. In 1653, he was appointed one of the triers for the approbation of public preachers; in which office he not only procured his son to be clerk, but, with the assistance of his father-in-law, obtained for himself the living of St. Bartholomew, Exchange, worth 400l. a-year. In 1654, he was joined with Dr. Lazarus Seaman, Samuel Clark, Richard Vines, Obadiah Sedgwick, Joseph Caryl, &c. as an assistant to the commissioners appointed by parliament to eject such as were then called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters in the city of London. After Charles the Second’s restoration, in 1660, he was ejected from the living of St. Bartholomew, Exchange; and it was even debated by the healing parliament, for several hours together, whether he, John Goodwin, and Hugh Peters, should be excepted for life: but the result was, that if Philip Nye, clerk, should, after the 1 st of September, in the same year 1660, accept, or exercise, any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, he should, to all intents and purposes in law, stand as if he had been totally excepted for life.

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.

, a learned German, was descended from a family, which came originally from Schlestadt, and had been raised to nobility in the person of his great-grandfather by the emperor Rodolphus II. in 1604. Ulric was born, July 23, 1646, at Strasburg, where he had the first part of his education, and then proceeded to study the sciences at Montbelliard and Altorf. He inherited both the inclination and taste of his ancestors, who were all distinguished by the posts they held, either in the university, or in the senate of Strasburg. The study of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues was almost the first amusement of his infancy; and he learned, with equal facility, French, Spanish, and Italian. At fifteen^ he was so good a rhetorician, that he composed and pronounced a Latin speech in public, with universal applause. The method prescribed by his preceptors was, to suffer him to read only the ancient authors, and to derive the principles of eloquence from the purest sources, Demosthenes, Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus, &c. He also pursued the same plan, in his course of philosophy; Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, being principally recommended to him. His general knowledge at length settled in jurisprudence and history: in both which he excelled, and filled the chairs of both in the university with great distinction, being admired, not more for the great extent of his knowledge, than for his perspicuity in communicating it. He gave an account of all ages as if he had lived in them; and of all laws as if he had been the maker of them. With all this, he spoke of such subjects as he knew best, like a man who sought rather to be informed than to decide. As soon as he had taken his licentiate’s degree, he resolved to travel for farther improvement. In this view, he went first to Vienna in Austria, with Mr. Kellerman, the Muscovite ambassador, and visited the libraries and learned men wherever he came. He commenced author at nineteen, when he published a kind of “Commentary upon Scipio’s Dream,” and “A Dissertation upon the Principles of Civil and Political Prude-nee.”

In the mean time, his growing reputation increased the number of his scholars from all parts of Germany, to whom he read lectures in law and history. This employment left him few spare moments to his own studies; and he never thought of offering anything to the public but from necessity, or in compliance with the intreaties of his friends. Having made great proficiency in the study of medals, there was presented to him a very curious one of Domitiai upon the reverse of which appeared a goddess, which he conjectured to be the figure of Isis; and on this occasion he published his “Conjectures,” in 1675, with the title of “Epistola de Nummo Domitiani Isiaco.” After this, he turned his thoughts to the “Augustan History,” and collected and arranged all its writers in a new edition, accompanied with important notes: accordingly, the piece appeared in print, under the title of “Prodromus rerum Alsaticarum,” in 1680. It was, indeed, only an introduction to a larger work which he was meditating upon Alsace, in order to discover the origin, limits, rights, customs, wars, revolutions, &c. of that country; but the multiplicity of his employments obliged him to lay this aside. He printed, however, some detached treatises, as that upon the right of bearing the standard of the empire, “De Vexillo Imperil” to which honour the republic of Strasburg claimed an equal share with the dukes of Wirtemberg, who were in possession of it. He published also another piece, concerning the treaties which the states and princes of the empire make in their own names, “De Imperil Germanic! ejusque Statuum fcederibus” and, lastly, one more upon the rights of war, and the guarantees of peace, “De jure belli, et sponsoribus pacis.”

Hitherto Obrecht had professed the Protestant religion; but the king of France having made himself master of Strasburg, he was induced, by the persuasions of the Jesuits, who were established at Strasburg by Lewis XIV. to abjure his religion in 1648, at Paris. Upon his return to Strasburg, he w resumed his profession in the law; and it was about this time that he wrote the notes which we see in some editions of Grotius, “De jure belli ac pacis.” In 1685, the king of France nominated him to preside, in his majesty’s name, in the senate of Strasburg, with the title of praetor-royal, in imitation of the old Romans; and from that time Obrecht applied himself entirely to public affairs. The judges of Strasburg, according to the principles of the reformed religion, were empowered to dissolve marriages in case of adultery, and to enable the injured party to marry again. In opposition to this custom, Obrecht translated, into the German tongue, St. Austin’s book of adulterous marriages; and obtained from the king a prohibition, upon pain of death, either to tolerate or solemnize the marriage, for the future, of any persons that were separated or divorced for adultery. This edict was made in 1687; and, in 1688, Obrecht translated into High Dutch the treatise of Father Dez Primier, rector of the Jesuits at Strasburg, entitled “The Re-union of the Protestants of the Church of Strasburg to the Catholic Church.”

Although, by the rights of his praetorship, every thing done in the senate must necessarily pass through his hands, yet he was so expeditious, and so good a manager of time, that there was some left for his studies, which served to him. as a relaxation from public business. During these intervals. he published an edition of “Dictys Cretensis,” with notes, in 1691. He afterwards intended to give a more correct edition of “Quintilian,” by the help of an excellent manuscript which he had recovered. He finished it, and had prepared the notes for the press, which were afterwards added to BurmanrTs valuable edition of 1720, 2 vols. 4to. In 1698, Obrecht was deputed to the court of France, to manage the interests of the city of Strasburg, and the king appointed him in 1700 his commissary and envoy to Francfort, upon affairs relating to the succession of the duchess of Orleans. Here also he undertook a most arduous task, respecting the eventual succession of the duke of Anjou to the crown of Spain; and made it his business to collect all the pieces that had been written, either by civilians or historians, upon the subject of establishing or regulating the rights of succession to that vast monarchy: all with a design to prove that the pretensions of the house of Austria were not well founded. The title of his work was “Excerptorum historicorum et juridicorum dre natura successionis in Monarchiam Hispaniae, mense Dec. 1700,” in 4to. Our author likewise drew up the plan of a particular treatise upon the succession to the duchy of Milan: the impression of which waited only for the publication of the emperor’s manifesto. His last publication was “A Translation of the life of Pythagoras,” from the Greek of Jamblichus. The multiplicity of these labours at length impaired his health, and after he had passed sentence upon the rights of the duchess of Orleans, he ordered himself to be conveyed to Strasburgh, where he died Aug. 6, 1701.

He was styled by the pope “The invincible doctor;” by others “The venerable preceptor;” “The singular doctor;” and “The unparalleled doctor.” He was chosen minister provincial of the friars minors of England, and afterwards diffinitor of the whole order of St. Francis, and in that capacity was present at the general chapter held at Perusium in Tuscany in 1322, where the fathers declared their adherence to the decree of pope Nicholas III. maintaining the poverty of Christ and his apostles, and that they had “nihii propria.” This doctrine gave rise to that pleasant question called the bread of the Cordeliers; which consisted in determining, whether the dominion of things consumed in the using, such as bread and wine, belonged to them, or only the simple use of them, without the dominion? Their rule not permitting them to have any thing as property, pope Nicholas III. who had been of their order, devised a method to enrich them, without breaking their rule. To this end he made an ordinance, that they should have only the usufruct of the estates which should be given to them, and that the soil and fund of all such donations should belong to the church of Rome. By this means he put them into possession of an infinite number of estates in the name of the church of Rome: but, for that reason, pope Nicholas’s bull was revoked by John XXII. who condemned the use without the dominion, by his “Extravaganta ad Conditorem.” He also condemned, by another “Extravaganta cum inter,” the doctrine concerning the possession of estates by Christ and his apostles, Occam, however, persisted in defending his opinions, and so greatly offended the pope that he was obliged to fly from Avignon, in 1328, to Lewis of Bavaria, who assumed the title of emperor, and refusing the pope’s order to return, was excommunicated in 1329. Lewis, his protector, was under the same circumstance, aud Occam is reported to have said to him, “Oh emperor, defend me with your sword, and I will defend you with my pen.” He at last, it is said, returned to his duty, and was absolved. He died at Munich, the capital of Bavaria, and was buried in the convent of his order, as appears by the following inscription on his tomb in the choir, on the right hand of the altar; viz. “Anno Domini 1347, 7mo Aprilis obijt eximius Doctor Sacrae Theologise Fr. Gulielmus dictus Occham de Anglia.” He wrote a Commentary upon the Predicables of Porphyry, and the Categories of Aristotle, and many treatises in scholastic theology and ecclesiastical law; which, if they be admired for their ingenuity, must at the same time be censured for their extreme subtlety and obscurity. But whatever may be thought of these, he deserves praise for the courage with which he opposed the tyranny of the papal over the civil power, in his book “De Potestate Ecclesiastica et Seculare.” Of this, or a part of it, “A dialogue between a knight and a clerke, concerning the Power Spiritual and Temporal,” the reader will find an account in Oldys’s “Librarian,” p. 5. It was printed by Berthelet, with Henry VIII.'s privilege. Fox, in his Martyrology, says that Occam was “of a right sincere judgment, as the times would then either give or suffer.” He was the only schoolman whom Luther studied, or kept in his library.

, surnamed Lucanus, as being a native of Lucania, was a philosopher of the Pythagorean school, and lived about the time or soon after Pythagoras first opened his school in Italy, 500 B. C. He wrote a book “On the Universe,” which is still extant, and from which Aristotle seems to have borrowed freely in his treatise on generation and corruption. It is not, indeed, written after the usual manner of the Pythagoreans, in the Doric dialect; but probably it has undergone a change, and, at the period when the writings of the Pythagoreans became obscure on account of the dialect in which they were written, was converted, by the industry of some learned grammarian, from the Doric to the Attic dialect. That it was originally written in the Doric, appears from several fragments preserved by Stobaeus. Little attention, therefore, Brucker thinks is due to the opinion, that this book was compiled from the writings of Aristotle, and is to be considered only as an epitome of the Peripatetic doctrine concerning nature. Whatever Aristotelian appearance the treatise in its present form may bear, is to be ascribed to the pains taken by transcribers to elucidate the work. If its doctrine be carefully compared with what has been advanced concerning the Pythagorean system, there will be little room left to doubt that it was written by a disciple of Pythagoras. The fundamental dogmas of Ocellus perfectly agree with those of the Italic school. His subtle speculations concerning the changes of the elements are consonant to the manner of the Pythagoreans, after they exchanged the obscure method of philosophising by numbers into a less disguised explanation of the causes of natural phenomena. As this book passed out of the hands of Archytas into those of Plato, it is evident that it was in being before the time of Aristotle; and it becomes probable that the Stagyrite, after his usual manner, borrowed many things from Ocellus, but in a sense very different from that of their first author. This remnant of philosophical antiquity is therefore to be received as a curious specimen of the Pythagorean doctrine, mixed, however, with some tenets peculiar to the author. Ocellus’s work was first printed in 1539, and editions have since been given by Commelin, Visanius, Gale, the abbe Batteux, and the marquis D'Argens. Of these, the best is that by Gale in his “Opuscula,” with the Latin translation of Nogarola.

Ockley had the culture of Oriental learning very much at heart; and the several publications which he made were intended solely to promote it. In 1706, he printed, at Cambridge, an useful little book, entitled, “Introductio ad Linguas Orientales, in qua iis discendis via munitur, et earum usus ostenditur. Accedit index auctorum, tarn illorum, quorum in hoc libello mentio fit, quam aliorum, qui harum rerum studiosis usui esse possint.” Prefixed is a dedication to his friend the bishop of Ely, and a preface, addressed to the Juventus Academica, whom he labours to excite by various arguments to the pursuit of Oriental learning; assuring them in general, that no man ever was, or ever will be, truly great in divinity, without at least some portion of skill in it: “Orientalia studia, sine quorum aliquali saltern peritia nemo unquam in theologia vere magnus evasit, imo nunquam evasurus est.” There is a chapter in this work, relating to the celebrated controversy between Buxtorf and Capellus, upon the antiquity of the Hebrew points, where Ockley professes to think with Buxtorf, who contended for it: but he afterwards changed his opinion, and went over to Capellus, although he had not any opportunity of publicly declaring it. And indeed it is plain, from his manner of closing that chapter upon the points, that he was then far enough from having any settled persuasion about them “his in praesentia assentior; nolo tamen aliquid temere affirmare, quod, si posthac sententiam meam mutare mihi visum fuerit, nollem ut quispiam ea quse hie scripsi mihi exprobret.”

But the most considerable by far of all the professor’s performances is, “The History of the Saracens;” begun from the death of Mahomet, the founder of the Saracenical empire, which happened in 632, and carried down through a succession of Caliphs, to 705. This “History,” which illustrates the religion, rites, customs, and manner of living of that warlike people, is very curious and entertaining; and Ockley was at vast pains in collecting materials from the most authentic Arabic authors, especially manuscripts, not hitherto published in any European language; and for that purpose resided a long time at Oxford, to be near the Bodleian library, where those manuscripts were reposited. It is in 2 vols. 8vo; the first of which was published in 1708; the second, in 1718: and both were soon after republished. A third edition was printed, in the same size, at Cambridge, in 1757; to which is prefixed, “An Account of the Arabians or Saracens, of the Life of Mahomet, and the Mahometan Religion, by a learned hand:” that is, by the learned Dr. Long, master of Pembroke-hall, in Cambridge.

While at Oxford, preparing this work, he sent a letter to his daughter, part of which is worth transcribing,as characteristic both of him and his labours. " My condition here is this: one of the most useful and necessary authors I have is written in such a wretched hand, that the very reading of it is perfect decyphering. I am forced sometimes to take three or four lines together, and then pull them all to pieces to find where the words begin and end; for oftentimes it is so written, that a word is divided as if the former part of it was the nd of the foregoing word, and the latter part the beginning of another; besides innumerable other difficulties known only to those that understand the language. Add to this the pains of

"People imagine, that it is only understanding Arabic, and then translating a book out of it, and there is an end of the story: but if ever learning revives among us, posterity will judge better. This work of mine (in another way) is almost of as different a nature from translating out of the Greek or Latin, as translating a Poet from one language to another is different from prose. One comfort I have, that the authors I arn concerned with are very good in their kind, and afford me plenty of materials, which will clear up a great many mistakes of modern travellers, who passing through the Eastern countries, without the necessary knowledge of the history and ancient customs of the Mahometans, pick up little pieces of tradition from the present inhabitants, and deliver them as obscurely as they receive them. One thing pleases me much, that we shall give a very particular account of Ali and Hosein, who are reckoned saints by the Persians, and whose names you must have met with both in Herbert and Tavernier; for the sake of whom there remains that implacable and irreconcileable hatred between the Turks and Persians to this very day, which you may look for in vain in all the English books that have hitherto appeared. It would be a great satisfaction to me, if the author I have were complete in all his volumes, that I might bring the history down five or six hundred years but, alas! of twelve that he wrote, we have but two at Oxford, which are large quartos, and from whence I take the chief of my materials.

, or Walter of Evesham, a monk of that monastery in Worcestershire, was eminent in the early part of the thirteenth century, during the reign of Henry III. not only for his profound knowledge in music, but astronomy, and mathematics in general. The translator and continuator of Dugdale’s Monasticon, speaks of him among; learned Englishmen of the order of St. Benedict in the following manner:

“Walter, monk of Evesham, a man of a facetious wit, who applying himself to literature, lest he should sink under the lahour of the day, the watching at night, and continual observance of regular discipline, used at spare hours to divert himself with the decent and commendable diversion of music, to render himself the more cheerful for other duties.” This apology, however, for the time he bestowed on music, was needless; for it was, and is still, so much the business of a Romish priest, that to be ignorant of it disqualifies him for his profession. And at all times, where an ecclesiastic thought it necessary to trace the whole circle of the sciences, music having the second or third rank, could not be neglected. But what this author adds farther concerning Odington is still less defensible: “Whether,” says he, “this application to music drew him off from other studies I know not, but there appears no other work of his than a piece entitled ‘Of the Speculation of Music’.” Yet we are told by Pits, Bale, Tanner, Moreri, and all his biographers, that he wrote fc De Motibus Planetarum, et de Mutatione Aeris," as well as on other learned subjects. His treatise on music is preserved in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge, and is, in the opinion of Dr. Burney, so copious and complete, with respect to every part of music when it was written, that if all other musical tracts, from the time of Boethius to Franco and John Cotton, were lost, our knowledge would not be much diminished, if this ms. was accessible. The musical examples, adds Dr. Burney, as usual in old manuscripts, are incorrect, and frequently inexplicable, owing to the ignorance of music in the transcribers; but if this tract were corrected, and such of the examples as are recoverable, regulated, and restored, it would be the most ample, satisfactory, and valuable, which the middle ages can boast; as the curious inquirer into the state of music at this early period may discover in it not only what progress our countrymen had made in the art themselves, but he chief part of what was then known elsewhere.

, the second abbot of Clugni in France, illustrious for his learning and piety, and certainly as learned and pious as the ignorance and superstition of the times would permit, was born at Tours in 879. He was educated by Foluques, count of Anjou, and became a canon of St. Martin, at Tours, at nineteen years of age, after which he went to Paris, and was the disciple of St. Remy of Auxerre. He was fond of solitude, and took the monk’s habit in the convent of Beaume, in the diocese of Besangon. After which, he became prior and abbot of St. Clugni, in 927, where he introduced a new discipline, or set of ceremonies of a severe and rigorous kind, which, however, with the sanctity of his life contributed greatly to increase the congregation of Clugni; and such was the influence of his personal character, that popes, bishops, and secular princes, usually chose him for the arbitrator of their disputes, and the order or discipline of Clugni attained a very high degree of eminence and authority. He died about 943. He applied himself to study as well as to the aggrandizing of his order; but his original works are filled with the grossest superstitions. While he was canon, he abridged the “Morals of St. Gregory,” and the “Hymns in honour of St. Martin.” While a simple monk, he composed three books of “The Priesthood;” and another upon the “Prophecy of Jeremy,” dedicated to Turpion bishop of Limoges, which bore the title of “Collations or Conferences, or Occupations.” After he became abbot, he wrote the “Life of St. Gerard,” and of “St. Martial of Limoges,” and several sermons, and a “Panegyric upon St. Benedict.” All these are prinfed in the.“Bibliotheque of Clugni,” together with some “Hymns upon the Sacrament,” and “The Magdelain;” but the “History of St. Martyn’s Translation” is improperly ascribed to him. It appears also that he understood music; and besides some hymns, chaunts, and anthems, still preserved in the Romish church, there are two copies of a ms tract on music, of his writing, in the royal library of Paris, and one in Bene't college, Cambridge. This is noticed by Dr. Burney in his History of Music.

, or of Kent, so called because he was a native of that county in England, where he flourished in the twelfth century, was a Benedictine monk, of which order his learning and eloquence raised him to be prior and abbot, first of St. Saviour’s, and afterwards of Battleabbey. He died in March 1200. Thomas a Becket was his friend, and his panegyric was made by John of Salisbury. He composed several works, as “Commentaries upon the Pentateuch;” “Moral Reflections upon the Psalms, the Old Testament, and the Gospels;” a treatise entitled, “De onere Philistini;” another, “De raoribus ecclesiasticis” a third, “De vitiis & virtutibus animae,” &c. Besides these, a “Letter to a brother novitiate,” in the abbey of Igny, is printed by Mabillon in the first tome of “Analects;” and another “Letter to Philip earl of Flanders,” about 1171, upon the miracles of St. Thomas, is in the “Collectio amplissima veterum monumentorum,” p. 882, published by the fathers Martenne and Durand, Benedictines.

Here he translated “St. Chrysostom’s Commentaries upon Genesis” into Latin, and was made professor of divinity and city-preacher by the council; by whose consent he began the execution of his trust, with abolishing several usages of the Roman church. In particular, he commanded the sacrament of baptism to be administered in the mother-tongue, and that of the Lord’s supper to be received in both kinds, He taught that the mass was not a sacrifice for the living and the dead, or for those who were in purgatory, hut that perfect satisfaction was made for all believers by the passion and merits of Christ. He dissuaded them from the use of holy water, and other superstitious observances, and was thus employed when the dispute about the Eucharist commenced between Luther and Zuinglius. In that controversy, he strenuously defended the opinion of the lat.ter, in a piece entitled, “De vero intellectu verborum Domini, Hoc est corpus meum,” which did him great honour. But although he agreed with Zuinglius in the nature of the doctrine, he gave a different sense of our Lord’s words. Zuinglius placed the figure of these words, “This is my body,” in the verb is, which he held to be taken for signifies. Oecolampadius laid it upon the noun, body, and affirmed that the bread is called, the body, by a metonymy, which allows the name of the thing signified to be given to the sign. Such were the arguments by which transubstantiation was combated at that distant period. The Lutherans in Suabia and Bavaria, decried the doctrine of Oecolampadius in their sermons, which obliged him to dedicate a treatise upon the words of the institution of the Lord’s supper to them, printed at Strasburg in 1525. Whether this was a different work from the “De vero, &c.” or only a new edition, does not appear, as his biographers have not affixed dates to all hispublications. Erasmus, however, speaking of this book, says, “That it was written with so much skill, such good reasoning, and persuasive eloquence, that, if God should not interpose, even the elect might be seduced by it.” As soon as it appeared, the magistrates of Basil consulted two divines and two lawyers, to know whether the public sale of it might be permitted. Erasmus, who was one of these divines, says, “That, in giving his answer upon the point, he made no invectives against Oecolampadius” and so the book was allowed to be sold. The matter, however, did not rest so. The Lutherans answered our author’s book in another, entitled “Syngrarnma;” to which he replied in apiece called “Antisyngramnra.” In proceeding, he disputed publicly with Eckius at Baden, and entered also into another dispute afterwards at Berne.

His writings evince a vast compass of learning. Among the principal are, “Annotations on many books of the Holy Scriptures.” His controversial treatises “on the real presence.” An exhortation to the reading of God’s word.“” Of the dignity of the Eucharist.' 1 “Of the joy of the Resurrection.” “A speech to the Senate of Basil.” t A Catechism.“” Annotations on Chrysostom.“” Enchiridion to the Greek tongue.“” Of Alms-deeds.“”Against Julian the Apostate.“” Of tnle faith in Christ.“”Of the praises of Cyprian.“” Of the life of Moses.“”Against usury" with many controversies against the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anabaptists, who appeared in his time under Stork and Muncer, and created not only a controversy, but a rebellion attended with desolation and bloodshed. He published also a great many translations from the Fathers; and his own works, originally in Latin, were translated by his friends into German. He left several manuscripts behind him, which are probably in some of the German libraries. His exposition of Daniel, and two or three small tracts, were translated into English in the sixteenth century. He appears to have been held in high estimation even by some of his adversaries, as he had the proper temper as well as the abilities and zeal of a reformer.

, archbishop of Tuam, was otherwise called Maurice de Portu, from having been born near the port of Baltimore, in the county of Cork, though others say he was born at Down, or Galway. He was some time a student at Oxford, where he became a Franciscan. He afterwards travelled to Italy, and studied philosophy, and school-divinity at Padua. About 1480 he removed to Venice, where he was employed by Octavian, Scott, and Locatelli, as corrector of the press, which was then considered as an employment worthy of the greatest scholars. In 1506, after he had taken his degree of D. D. at Padua, pope Julius II. made him archbishop of Tuam in Ireland. In 1512 he assisted at the first two sessions of the Lateran council, and in the following year set out for Ireland, but died at Galway, May 25, 1513, where he landed, before he could take possession of his archbishopric. He was at this time not quite fifty years of age. He was buried in a church at Galway, where his humble monument is yet shown. He was a learned, pious, and amiable prelate, and held in such veneration by some authors, that they have given him the name of “Flos Mundi,” the flower of the world. His works are, 1. “Expositio in questiones dialecticas Divi Joan. Scoti in Isagogen Porphyrii,” Ferrara, 1499; Venice, 1512, fol. 2. “Commentaria doct. subtilis Joan. Scoti in XII. lib. metaphysics Aristotelis,” &c. Venet. 1507, fol. 3. “Epithemata in insigne formalitatum opus de mente doctoris subtilis,” &c. Venice, 1514, fol. This is what Possevin calls “Theorems for the explanation of the sense of Scotus.” 4. “Dictionarium sacra? scripturee,” &c. Venice, 1603, fol. which reaches no farther than the word extinguere, but there is said to be a complete ms. of it in the Bodleian, as far as the word zona. 5. “Enchiridion fidei,” 1509, 4to. &c. &c.

, an English divine, was born at Manchester, in 1716, and was educated at the free-school there. In 1733 he was admitted a poor scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, whence he removed for a Manchester exhibition to St. John’s in 1736. In the following year he took the degree of B. A. and in 1739 was elected fellow. He was ordained deacon at Chester in 1740; and in the following year he took his degree of M. A. and was ordained priest by the bishop of Lincoln. In 1744 he was elected master of the free-school at Halifax in Yorkshire. In 1753 he resigned his school, and went to reside at Cambridge; and at the ensuing commencement he took the degree of D. D. The late duke of Newcastle, who was chancellor of the university, having been present at the exercise he performed for the degree, was so much satisfied with it, that he soon after presented him with the vicarage of Damerham in Wiltshire, which was tenable with his fellowship. In 1764, Dr. Ogden was appointed Woodwardian professor. In June 1766 he was presented to the rectory of Lawford in Essex, and in the following month to that of Stansfield in Suffolk. He died March 23, 1778, in the sixty-second year of his age, and was buried in St. Sepulchre’s church, Cambridge, of which he had the cure, and where he preached most of his published sermons. In common life there was a real or apparent rusticity attending Dr. Ogden’s address, which disgusted those who were strangers to his character; but this prejudice soon wore off, as the intimacy with him increased; and, notwithstanding the sternness, and even ferocity, he would sometimes throw into his countenance, he was in truth one oC the most humane and tender-hearted men ever known. To his relations who wanted his assistance, he was remarkably kind in his life, and in the legacies he left them at his death. His father and mother, who both lived to an exceeding old age, owed almost their whole support to his piety. During the latter part of Dr. Ogden’s life he laboured under much ill health. About a year before he died he was seized with a paralytic fit as he was stepping into his chariot, and was judged to be in immediate and extreme danger, but he sustained this shock with cheerfulness, and calmly gave the necessary orders on the event of his dissolution. Such is the character given of Dr. Ogden by his learned friend Dr. (afterwards bishop) Halifax, Originally prefixed to an edition of his “Sermons, with a Vindication of his Writings against some late Objections,” 1780, 2 vols. 8vo. It seems to be fully confirmed by the testimony of two Cambridge gentlemen of very opposite sentiments, Mr. Cole, to whom we are so often indebted for memoranda of the eminent men of that university, and Mr. Gilbert Wakefield. The latter, who heard Dr. Ogden preach most of the discourses since published, says that “his person, manner, and character of composition, were exactly suited to each other. He exhibited a large Black, scowling, grisly figure, a ponderous body with a lowering visage, embrowned by the horrors of a sable perriwig. His voice was growling and morose; and his sentences desultory, tart, and snappish.” Mr. Wakefield adds that his “uncivilized appearance, and bluntness of demeanour, were the grand obstacles to his elevation in the church.” The duke of Newcastle would have brought him to court to prefer him; but found, as he expressed it, that the doctor was not a producible man. In all these particulars Mr. Cole agrees, as in some other singularities. Mr. Cole informs us that Dr. Ogden’s father had been in the army, and when he retired lived at Mansfield, where he married. Some time before his death he went to Mansfield, and put up, a monument to his father, in gratitude for having given him a good education, as he expressed it, and left the bulk of his fortune to the family into which his father married. His Arabic books he left to Mr, Craven, of St. John’s, the Arabic professor, who very disinterestedly refused the residuary legateeship, which Dr. Ogden had long designed for him. Dr. Ogden’s reputation as a divine rests on two small volumes of sermons, collected by Dr. Halifax, whose “Vindication” of them, above mentioned, respects the remarks of Mr. Mainwaring, in a “Dissertation” on the composition of sermons, prefixed to his own sermons, 1780, 8vo. Dr. Halifax’s vindication is warm, zealous, and friendly, like his character of Dr. Ogden, but not altogether satisfactory as to the principal objections to the style of his author; and even if allowed to be elegant, Dr. Ogden’s sermons are of very slight texture, and rather hortatory than instructive or doctrinal.

, a very industrious adventurer in literary speculations, was born in or near Edinburgh in November 1600. He was of an ancient family in that country; but his father, having spent the estate, became a prisoner in the King’s Bench, and could give his son but little education. The youth, however, being very industrious, acquired some little knowledge of Latin grammar; and afterwards got so much money, as not only to release his father from the gaol, but also to bind himself apprentice to one Draper, a dancing-master in London. He had not been long under this master before he made himself perfect in the art, and by his obliging behaviour to the scholars, acquired money enough from them to buy out the remainder of his time. He now began teaching on his own account, and being soon accounted one of the best masters in the profession, he was selected to dance in the duke of Buckingham’s great masque; in which, by an unlucky step in high capering, the mode of that time, he hurt the inside of his leg, which occasioned some degree of lameness, but did not prevent his teaching. Among others, he taught the sisters of sir Ralph, afterwards lord Hopton, at Wytham in Somersetshire and at leisure hours he learned of that accomplished knight how to handle the pike and musket. In 1633, when Wentworth earl of Stafford became lord deputy of Ireland, he took him into his family to teach his children; and Ogilby, writing an excellent hand, was frequently employed by the earl to transcribe papers for him.

About 1654 he learned the Greek tongue of one of his countrymen, David Whitford, or Whitfield, at that time usher to James Shirley, who then taught school in White Friers. This was a remarkable instance of indefatigable industry at his age; and he made the best use of his new acquisition, by translating into English verse “Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey” J *, in which, however, he was assisted by his friend Shirley. This was printed in a most pompous manner, with a dedication to Charles II. in 1660; and the same year he edited at Cambridge, with the assistance of Dr. John Worthington, and other learned men, a finer edition of the “English Bible” than had been extant before. This he adorned with chorographical and other sculptures, and presented a sumptuous copy of it to his majesty, on his first coming to the royal chapel at Whitehall, He presented another copy to the House of Commons, for which he received a gratuity of 50l. from that house; as he did also, not improbably, from the convocation, to whom he presented a petition, with the king’s recommendatory letters concerning the expence of printing the book. He also petitioned the House of Commons that his Bible “might be recommended to be made use of in all churches.” It was printed by Field.

In the same year (1661) he received orders from the commissioners for the solemnity of his majesty’s coronation, to conduct the poetical part, viz. the speeches, emblems, mottoes, and inscriptions upon which he drew up “The relation of his Majesty’s Entertainment, passing through the city of London to his Coronation with a description of the triumphal Arches and Solemnity” in ten sheets folio. This he also published, by his majesty’s command, in a large folio volume, on royal paper, with fine engravings, and speeches at large, in 1662; and it has been made use of in succeeding coronations. His interest was now so powerful with the king, that he obtained this year the patent for master of the revels in Ireland, against sir William Davenant, who was his competitor. This post carried him once more into that kingdom; and, his former theatre in Dublin being destroyed in the troubles, he built a new one, at the expence of 100O/. On his return to London he continued the employment of translating and composing books in poetry , till the fire of London in. 1666, in which his house in White Friers was consumed, and his whole fortune, except to the value of 5l. destroyed. He soon, however, procured his house to be re-built, set up a printing-house, was appointed his majesty’s cosmographer and geographic printer, and printed several great works, translated or collected by himself and his assistance t; all which were printed on imperial paper, adorned with maps and curious engravings, by Hollar and others, and were carried on by way of proposals and standing lotteries. The scheme of one of his lotteries, a very curious article, was lately published in the Gent. Mag. vol. LXXXIV. Part I. page 646. He died September 4, 1676, and was interred in St. Bride’s church, Fleet-street, leaving the character of a very industrious, enterprizing, and honest man.

When reprisals were known to have been published by his Britannic majesty against the king of Spain, a party of the garrison of St. Augustine came up, and surprised two highland ers upon the island of Amelia, cut off their heads, and mangled their bodies with great inhumanity. General Oglethorpe immediately went in pursuit of them, but, though he followed them by land and water above 10O miles in twenty-four hours, they escaped. He, however, by way of retaliation, passed the river St. Mattheo or St. John’s in Florida, drove in the guards of Spanish horse posted upon the river, and advanced as far as a place called the Cavallas; he also took other measures for reconnoitring the country, which he apprehended would be attended with advantage hereafter.

Encouraged by this success, and by the information from some prisoners of the weak condition of Augustine, he meditated the reduction of that place; and accordingly went to Charles-Town to desire assistance of the people of Carolina. His plan, at first, was to block up the place before the Spaniards could receive provisions and relief from Cuba. He also spirited up the Creek Indians to join him, and entered into a correspondence with some discontented chiefs in the service of Spain. He soon after acquainted the Assembly of Carolina, that if they could, by March following, join the troops upon the river St. Mattheo or St. John with 600 white men, a troop of horse, another of rangers, and 600 negroes for pioneers, with a proper train of artillery, and necessaries, there would be a probability of taking the place, or at least of preventing the Spaniards from undertaking anything against Carolina, provided the men of war would block up the ports from receiving succours by sea.

The first interruption this plan met with, was from the Bupineness of the Assembly of Carolina, who delayed the assistance they had promised, until the garrison of Angustine had received both men and provisions from the Havannah. This delay had almost occasioned the destruction of captain Warren, who, not knowing of the succours which the place had obtained, went and lay off it to prevent their coming in; but, in the dark of a calm night, was attacked by six half gallies, whom he engaged with great spirit; and in the end sunk one, and drove the rest into port. General Oglethorpe, disgusted at the inactivity of the people of Carolina, left Charles-town in order to make the best disposition he could amongst his own people: he crossed St. John’s river with a party of his regiment, and landed in Florida on the 10th of May. He immediately invested and took Fort Diego, about ‘three leagues from Augustine. Soon afterwards 400 men arrived from Carolina, but without any horse, rangers, negroes, or pioneers. About the same time came a body of Cherokee Indians, as also captain Dunbar, with a party of Chickesaws, and the rangers and highlanders from Georgia, under captain M’Intosh.

The fleet, in the mean while, arrived off St. Mattheo or St. John’s river, to assist upon the expedition. The general went on board the commodore, where a consultation was held, and it was agreed to anchor off Augustine, and to attempt an entry into the harbour. The general immediately marched by land, and in three days arrived at Moosa, a fort built by the Spaniards for the deserted ne-­"groes from Carolina: from hence he sent a small detachment to take possession of the town, having had a private intimation that it would be delivered up to him but this scheme, by an untimely discovery, was frustrated.

In the mean time, the commodore found that there was a battery upon the island of Anastasia, which defended the entry of the harbour. This obliged the general to march to the coast with a party of 200 men. He had before sent the highlanders, rangers, and a party of Indians under colonal Palmer, with orders to lie in the woods, near Augustine, and hinder the Spanish parties from coming out by land; but with positive orders not to come to any general action, nor lie two nights in the same place. The general then came up to the commodore, and held a consultation: a landing was determined to be attempted, and captain Warren, who on this occasion had a commission given him to command as lieutenant-colonel, offered his service. Anastasia was immediately attacked and taken; for it was soon found that the river which runs between that island and the castle, near which the town lay, was too wide to better in breach. It was then resolved to attempt to cross the river, and land near the town; but now the half-gallies were a floating battery, so that there was no possibility of landing without first taking or driving them away. This, however, the general offered to attempt with the boats of the squadron: but so many obstacles arose to impede the progress of the siege, that general Oglethorpe finally failed in his principal aim, although he succeeded in his other views,- which were to intimidate the Spaniards from invading Georgia and Carolina, They remained inactive within their own territories until 1742, when they collected a body of troops and entered Georgia, where they committed many ravages; but they were obliged to quit their enterprize with disgrace, by the bravery and conduct of general Oglethorpe.

The general continued in his government until March 1743, when, having received information that the Spaniards of St. Augustine were making preparations for a second invasion of Georgia, he set out at the head of a body of Indians, a detachment of his own regiment, the highlanders, and Georgia rangers, and, on the 6th of the same month, landed at Mattheo, or St. John’s river, from whence he proceeded forward to St. Augustine, the Spaniards retiring into the town on his approach; but, after encamping some days, finding the enemy would not venture out in the field, and being in no condition to undertake a siege he had before miscarried in, he returned to Frederica, and in September following he arrived in England,

, a learned, but somewhat enthusiastic divine, was born in 1718, and educated at the Charter-house, and at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. 1739. At this time he appears to have conceived those notions which interrupted his regular ad*­vancement, and was ordained deacon in the Moravian church. He afterwards offered himself as a candidate for priest’s orders in the church of England; but, when the bishop intimated the invalidity of his first orders, Mr. Okely would not be ordained priest on such terms, and therefore adhered, through life, to the Moravian congregations, and was highly esteemed by the few who lived in communion with him, on account of his piety, benign temper, and liberal sentiments. He died at Bedford May 9, 1794, in his seventy-sixth year. The peculiar turn of his mind may be understood from the titles of his publications: 1. A translation from the High Dutch, of “Twenty-one Discourses, or Dissertations, upon the Augsburgh Confession, which is also the Brethren’s Confession of Faith, delivered by the ordinary of the Brethren’s Churches before the seminary,” &c. 1754, 8vo. 2. “Psalmorum aliquot Davidis Metaphrasis Graeca Joannis Serrani,” &c. 1770, 12mo. 3. “The Nature and Necessity of the new creature in Christ, stated and described, according to the heart’s experience and true practice, by Johanna Eleanora de Mellari translated from the German,” 1772, 8vo, 4, “The divine visions of John Englebrecht,” 1781, 2 vols. 8vo. 5. “A faithful Narrative of God’s gracious dealings with Kiel,” 1781, 8vo. 6. “A Display of God’s Wonders, done upon the person, &c. of John Englebrecht,” &c. 1781. 7. “The indispensable necessity of Faith, in order to the pleasing God being the^ substance of a discourse preached at Eydon in Northamptonshire,” 1781, 8vo.

He wrote, “Twelve Conclusions addressed to the parliament of England.” At the end of the first book he wrote some monkish rhymes in Latin, which Bale has preserved, and which, he says, “were copyed out by dyverse men, and set upon theyr wyndowes, gates, and dores, which were then knowen for obstynate hypocrytes and fleshlye livers, which made the prelates madde.” Bale published “A brefe Chronycle concernynge the Examynacyon and death of the blessed martyr of Christ, syr Johan Oldecastell the lorde Cobham,” which was reprinted under the care of Mr. Lewis, of Margate, in 1729. His life has been since elegantly written by Mr. Gilpin. “Lord Cobham, says this biographer,” had been much conversant in the world; and had probably been engaged in the early part of his life, in the licence of it. His religion, however, put a thorough restraint upon a disposition naturally inclined to the allurements of pleasure. He was a man of a very high spirit, and warm temper; neither of which his sufferings could subdue. With very little temporizing he might have escaped the indignities he received from the clergy, who always considered him as an object beyond them; but the greatness of his soul could not brook concession. In all his examinations, and through the whole of his behaviour, we see an authority and dignity in his manner, which speak him the great man in all his afflictions. He was a person of uncommon parts, and very extensive talents; well qualified either for the cabinet or the field. In conversation he was remarkable for his ready and poignant wit. His acquirements were equal to his parts. No species of learning which was at that time in esteem had escaped his attention. It was his thirst of knowledge, indeed, which first brought him acquainted with the opinions of Wickliff.' The novelty of them engaged his curiosity. He examined them as a philosopher, and in the course of his examination became a Christian."

, who wrote his name sometimes Grubendol, reversing the letters, was a learned German, and born in 1626, in the duchy of Bremen, in the Lower Saxony, being descended from the counts of Oldenburg, in Westphalia, whence his name. During the long English parliament in Charles I.'s time, he was appointed consul for his countrymen, in which post he continued at London after the usurpation of Cromwell; but, being discharged from that employment, he was made tutor to the lord Henry Obrien, an Irish nobleman, whom he attended to the university of Oxford, and in 1656 entered himself a student, chiefly for the sake of admission to the Bodleian library. He was afterwards tutor to William lord Cavendish, and was acquainted with Milton, among whose “Epistolae familiares,” are four letters to Oldenburg. During his residence at Oxford he became also acquainted with the members of that little association which gave birth to the royal society; and, upon the foundation of this latter, he was elected fellow; and, when the society found it necessary to have two secretaries, he was chosen assistant to Dr. Wilkins. He applied himself with extraordinary diligence to the business of this office, and began the publication of the “Philosophical Transactions;” with No. 1. in 1664. In order to discharge this task with greater credit to himself and the society, he held a correspondence with more than seventy learned persons, and others, upon a vast variety of subjects, in different parts of the world. This fatigue would have been insupportable, had he not, as he told Dr. Lister, answered every letter the moment he received it, a rule which cannot be too warmly recommended, whether in cases of business, literature, or pleasure. Among Oldenburg’s correspondents may be mentioned the celebrated Robert Boyle, with whom he had a very intimate friendship; and he translated several of that gentleman’s works into Latin.

, a celebrated English actress, and most accomplished woman, was born in Pall-mall, London, in 1683. Her father, once possessed of a competent estate, was then an officer in the guards; but, being improvident, left his family, at his death, almost destitute. In these circumstances, the widow was forced to live with a sister, who kept a tavern in St. James’s market; and the daughter was placed with a sempstress in King-street, Westminster. Miss Oldfield, in the mean time, conceived an extraordinary taste for the drama, and was entertaining her relations at a tavern by reading, or attempting to act, when her voice chanced to reach the eat of Farquhar, the celebrated dramatic writer, who happened to dine in the same house. On being introduced, he was struck with her agreeable person and carriage, and presently pronounced her admirably formed for the stage. This concurring with her own inclinations, her mother opened the matter to sir John Vanburgh, a friend of the family, who having the same favourable opinion of her talents, recommended her to Mr. Rich, then patentee of the king’s theatre. She remained, however, in comparative obscurity, till 1703, when she first appeared to advantage in the part of Leonora in “Sir Courtly Nice;” and established her theatrical reputation, the following year, in th'at of Lady Betty Modish in the “Careless Husband.”

, an English prelate, and an eminent benefactor to Corpus college, Oxford, is supposed to have been born at Manchester, or more probably at Oldham, near Manchester. He was educated at Oxford, whence, after remaining some time, he removed to Cambridge, completed his studies, and took the degree of D. D. In 1493, Margaret countess of Richmond, whose chaplain he was, presented him to the rectory of Swinshead in Lincolnshire, and in July 1494, to the valuable living of Cheshunt, of which he was the last rector, as it was appropriated shortly after to the convent of Westminster. In the same year we find him prebendary of Collwich in the church of Lichfield, and of Freeford in that church in 1501. In 1497, he was prebendary of Leighton-Bosard in the church of Lincoln, and in 1499 prebendary of South Cave in York. In 1504, he was, by the interest of his patroness the countess of Richmond, advanced to the see of Exeter, in which he sat till his death, June 15, 1519. He is said not to have been a man of profound learning, but a great encourager of it. Wood says that he had an intention of joining with bishop Smyth in the foundation of Brazen-^nose college, but mentions no authority, yet since his arms were displayed in the windows of the original library of that college, there can be no doubt that he contributed to finish or furnish the room. His principal benefactions, however, were bestowed on the contemporary foundation of Corpus Christi college. The design of Fox, the founder of Corpus, originally went no farther than to found a college for a warden, and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Swithin in Winchester; but our prelate induced him to enlarge his plan to one of more usefulness and durability. He is said to have addressed Fox thus: “What, my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods for a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see! No, no: it is more meet a great deal that we should have care to provide for, the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” This wise and liberal advice being taken, Oldham became the second great benefactor to Corpus, by contributing six thousand marks, besides lands. He also founded the grammar-school of Manchester, still a flourishing seminary, and connected with the three colleges of Corpus and Brazen-nose in Oxford, and St. John’s in Cambridge,

, 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.

Mr. Oldmixon, though rigid to others, is far from unblameable himself, in the very particulars concerning which he is so free in his accusations, and that sometimes even without the least regard to truth; one remarkable instance of this kind was his infamous attempt to charge three eminent persons with interpolation in Lord Clarendon’s “History.” This, however, was fully and satisfactorily disproved by bp. Atterbury, the only survivor of them; and the pretended interpolation, after a space of almost ninety years, was produced in his lordship’s own hand-writing. Yet, notwithstanding Oldmixon’s indignation against this pretended crime, it is a fact that when employed by bishop Kennet in publishing the historians in his “Collection,” he made no scruple to pervert “Daniel’s Chronicle” in numberless places, which renders Rennet’s first edition of little value. His principal works were, the “History of the Stuarts,” folio, and “the Critical History of England;” besides which he wrote, 1. “Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford about the English Language,” 1712, 8vo. 2. “A volume of Poems,” 1714. 3. “The Life of Arthur Maynwaring, esq.” whose “Posthumous Works” were collected by Mr. Oldmixon in 1715, and whom he had considerably assisted in “The Medley.” 4. “The Life of Queen Anne.” 5. “A Review of Dr. Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern Historians.” He wrote also a tragedy, an opera, and two pastorals; and his name is to one of Curll’s infamous publications, called “Court tales, or a History of the Amours of the present Nobility,” of which a second edition was published in 1731.

This Dr. Oldys, who was connected with Dryden and others in a translation of Plutarch’s lives, to which he contributed the life of Pompey, was advocate of the Admiralty to James II. and served king William in the same department, though he was not fully convinced of the validity of that prince’s claim to the crown. When^ he was ordered, in 1693, to prosecute those seamen as pirates who had attacked the English ships by virtue of a commission from James, he refused to obey; alleging, when he was examined by a committee of the privy council, that they were not traitors or pirates, that they had only acted animo hostili, not anitno furandi; that, though James was supposed in England to have abdicated the throne', his authority was still believed to be legitimate by those who had followed him in his exile, as well as by the people of that country from which the commissions had issued; and that, even if his pretensions were false, a reputed power was equivalent to a real one, according to an established maxim communis error facitjus. Sir John Trenchard, the secretary of state, declared, that these reasons amounted to high treason; but Dr. Oldys would not retract his opinion, in which sir Thomas fynfold readily concurred. The doctors Littleton and Tindal, on the contrary, maintained that James had no right to grant such commissions, and that all who acted under them were pirates. Oldys was now deprived of his office, which was given to Littleton, and some of the prisoners were condemned and executed. Though not a favourite at court, Dr. Oldys continued to practice as an advocate with great reputation and success, until his death in 1708. As a scholar, he was respectable; as a civilian, he was learned; as a pleader, eloquent and judicious.

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.

Of the writings of Mr. Oldys, some of which were anonymous, the following account is probably very imperfect: I. In the British Museum is Oidys’s copy of “Langbaine’s _ Lives,” &c. not interleaved, but filled with notes written in the margin, and between the lines, in an extremely small hand. It came to the Museum as a part of the library of Dr. Birch, who bought it at an auction of Oidys’s books and papers for one guinea. Transcripts of this have been made by various literary gentlemen. 2. Mr. Gough, in the first volume of his “British Topography,” p. 567, tells us, that he had “been favoured, by George Steevens, esq. with the use of a thick folio of titles of books and pamphlets relative to London, and occasionally to Westminster and Middlesex, from 1521 to 1758, collected by the late Mr. Oldys, with many others added, as it seems, in another hand. Among them,” he adds, “are many purely historical, and many of too low a kind to rank under the head of topography or histpry. The rest, which are very numerous, I have inserted, marked O, with corrections, &c. of those I had myself collected. Mr. Steevens purchased this ms. of T. Davies, who bought Mr. Oidys’s library. It had been in the hands of Dr. Berkenhout, who had a design of publishing an English Topographer, and riiay possibly have inserted the articles in a different hand. It afterwards became the property of sir John Hawkins.” 3. “The British Librarian, exhibiting a compendious Review of all unpublished and valuable books, in all sciences,” which was printed without his name, in 1737, 8vo, and after having been long neglected and sold at a low price, is now valued as a work of such accuracy and utility deserves. 4, A “Life of sir Waiter Raleigh,” prefixed to his “History of the World,” in folio. 5. “Introduction to Hay ward’s British Muse (1738);” of which he says, “that the penurious publishers, to contract it within a sheet, left out a third part of the best matter in it, and made more faults than were in the original.” In this he was assisted by Dr. Campbell. 6. “His Observations on the Cure of William Taylor, the blind boy at Ightharn, in Kent, by John Taylor, jun. oculist, 1753,” 8vo. Thetide of the pamphlet here alluded to was, “Observations on the Cure of William Taylor, the blind Boy, of Ightham, in Kent, who, being born with cataracts in both eyes, was at eight years of age brought to sight on the 8th of October, 1751, by Mr. John Taylor, jun. oculist, in Hattongarden; containing his strange notions of objects upon the first enjoyment of his new sense; also, some attestations thereof; in a letter written by his father, Mr. William Taylor, farmer, in the same parish: interspersed with several curious examples, and remarks, historical and philosophical, thereupon. Dedicated to Dr. Monsey, physician to theRoyal hospital at Chelsea. Also, some address to the public, for a contribution towards the foundation of an hospital for the blind, already begun by some noble personages,” 8vo. 7. Various lives in the “Biographia Britannica,” with the signature G, the initial letter of Gray’sInn, where he formerly lived. He mentions, in his notes on Langbaine, his life of sir George Etherege, of Caxton, of Thomas May, and of Edward Alleyn, inserted in that work. He composed the “Life of Atherton;” which, if it ever deserved to have had a place in that work, ought not to have been removed from it any more than the “Life of Eugene Aram,” which is inserted in the second edition. That the publishers of the second edition meant no indignity to Oldys, by their leaving out his “Life of Atherton,” appears fram their having transcribed into their work a much superior quantity of his writings, consisting of notes and extracts from printed books, styled “Oldys’s Mss.” Of these papers no other account is given than that “they are a large and useful body of biographical materials;” but we may infer, from the known industry and narrow circumstances of the writer, that, if they had been in any degree prepared for public consideration, they would not have so long lain dormant. 8. At the importunity of Curll, he gave him a sketch of the life of Nell Gvvin, to help out his V History of the Stage.“9. He was concerned with Des Maizeaux in writing the” Life of Mr. Richard Carew,“the antiquary of Cornwall, in 1722. 10.” Observations, Historical and Critical, on the Catalogue of English Lives.“Whether this was ever printed we know not. 11.” Tables of the eminent persons celebrated by English Poets.“This he seems to quote in a manuscript note on Langbaine, but it does not appear to have been printed. 12. He mentions, ibidem, the first volume of his” Poetical Characteristics,“on which we may make the same remark. If these two works continued in ms. during his life-time, it is probable that they were not finished for publication, or that no bookseller would buy them. 13. O,idys seems to have been concerned likewise as a writer in the” General Dictionary,“for he mentions his having been the author of” The Life of sir-John Talbot,“in that work and in Birch’s Mss. is a receipt from him for \.L 5s. for writing the article of Fas tolf 14. He mentions likewise, in his notes on Langbaine, that he was the author of a pamphlet against Toland, called” No blind Guides.“15. He says, ibidem, that he communicated many things to Mrs. Cooper, which she published in her” Muse’s Library.“16. In 1746 was published, in 12mo,” health’s Improvement; or, Rules comprising the nature, method, and manner, of preparing foods used in this nation. Written by that ever famous Thomas Moffett, doctor in physic; corrected and enlarged by Christopher Bennet, doctor in physic, and fellow of the College of Physicians in London. To which is now prefixed, a short View of the Author’s Life and Writings, by Mr. Oldys; and an Introduction by R. James, M. D.“17. In the first volume of British Topography,” page 31, mention is made of a translation of “Gamden’s Britannia,” in 2 vols. 4to, “by W. O. esq.” which Mr. Gough, with great probability, ascribes to Mr. Oldys. 18. Among the Mss. in the British Museum, described in Mr. Ayscough’s Catalogue, we find p. 24, “Some Considerations upon the publication of sir Thomas Roe’s Epistolary Collections, supposed to be written by Mr. Oldys, and by him tendered to Sam. Boroughs, esq. with proposals, and some notes of Dr. Birch.” 19. In p. 736, “Memoirs of the family of Oldys.” 20. In p. 741, “Two small pocket books of short Biographical Anecdotes of many Persons,” and “some Fragments of Poetry,” perhaps collected by Mr. Oldys? 21. In p. 750, and p. 780, are two ms letters “of Mr. Oldys,” 1735 and 1751. 22. It is said, in a ms paper, by Dr. Dticarel, who knew him well, that Oldys had by him, at the time of his death, some collections towards a “Life of Shakspeare,” but not digested into any order, as he told the doctor a few days before he died. 23. On the same authority he is said to be a writer in, or the writer of, “The Scarborough Miscellany,” 1732, and 1734. 24. “The Universal Spectator,” of which he was some time the publisher, was a newspaper, a weekly journal, said; on the top of the paper, which appeared originally in single sheets, to be “by Henry Stonecastle, in Northumberland,” 1730 1732. It was afterwards collected into two volumes 8vo to which a third and fourth were added in 1747. In one of his Mss. we find the following wellturned anagram

, a learned traveller, whose German name was Oelschlager, was born in 1599, or 1600, at Aschersieben, a small town in the principality of Anhalt. 43is parents were very poor, and scarcely able to maintain him, yet by some means he was enabled to enter as a student at Leipsic, where he took his degrees in arts and philosophy, but never was a professor, as some biographers have asserted. He quitted Leipsic for Holsteiu, where the duke Frederic, hearing of his merit and capacity, wished to employ him. This prince having a wish to extend the commerce of his country to the East, determined to send an embassy to the Czar Michael Federowitz, and the king of Persia, and having chosen for this purpose two of his counsellors, Philip Crusius and Otto Bruggeman, he appointed Olearius to accompany them as secretary. Their travels lasted six years, during which Olearius collected a great fund of information respecting the various countries they visited. The Czar of Moscovy on his return wished to have retained him in his service, with the appointment of astronomer and mathematician; not, however, his biographers tell us, so much on account of his skill in these sciences, as because the Czar knew that Olearius had very exactly traced the course of the Volga, which the Russians then wished to keep a secret from foreigners. Olearius had an inclination, however, to have accepted this offer, but after his return to the court of Holstein, he was dissuaded from it, and the duke having apologized to the Czar, attached him to himself as mathematician and antiquary. In 1643, the duke sent him on a commission to Moscow, where, as before, his ingenuity made him be taken for a magician, especially as on this occasion he exhibited a camera obscura. In 1650 the duke appointed him his librarian, and keeper of his curiosities. The library he enriched with many Oriental Mss. which he had procured in his travels, and made also considerable additions to the duke’s museum, particularly of the collection of Paludanns, a Dutch physician, which the duke sent him to Holland ta purchase; and he drew up a description of the whole, which was published at Sleswick in 1666, 4to. He also constructed the famous globe of Gottorp, and an armillary sphere of copper, which was not less admired, and proved how much mathematics had been his study. He died Feb. 22, 1671. He published, in German, his travels, 1647, 1656, 1669, fol. Besides these three editions, they were translated into English by Davies, and into Dutch and Italian. The most complete translation is that, in French, by Wicquefort, Amst. 1727, 2 vols. fol. who also translated Olearius’s edition of Mandelso’s “Voyages to Persia,” c. fol. Among his other and less known works, are some lives of eminent Germans “The Valley of Persian Roses,” from the Persian; “An abridged Chronicle of Holstein,” &c

O'Leary (Arthur), a Roman Catholic clergyman, was a native of Ireland, whence, when young, he embarked for France; studied at the college of St. Malo, in Briianny, and at length entered into the Franciscan order of Capuchins. He then acted, for some time, as chaplain to the English prisoners during the seven years war, for which he received a small pension from the Frenrh government, which he retained till the French revolution. Having obtained permission to go to Ireland, he obtained, by his talents, the notice and recompence of the Irish government; and took an early opportunity of shewing the superiority of his courage and genius, by principally attacking the heterodox doctrines of Michael Servetus, revived at that time hy a Dr. Blair, of the city of Cork. After this, in 1782, when there was a disposition to relax the rigour of the penal laws against the Roman Catholics, and establish a sort of test-oath, he published a tract entitled “Loyalty asserted, or the Test- Oath vindicated,” in which, in opposition to most of his brethren, he endeavoured to prove that the Roman Catholics of Ireland might, consistently with their religion, swear that the pope possessed there no temporal authority, which was the chief point on which the oath hinged; and in other respects he evinced his loyalty, and his desire to restrain the impetuous bigotry of his brethren. His other productions were of a various and miscellaneous nature; and several effusions are supposed to have come from his pen which he did not think it necessary or perhaps prudent to acknowledge. He was a man singularly gifted with natural humour, and possessed great acquirements. He wrote on polemical subjects without acrimony, and on politics with a spirit of conciliation. Peace indeed seems to have been much his object. Some years ago, when a considerable number of nocturnal insurgents, of the Romish persuasion, committed great excesses in the county of Cork, particularly towards the tithe- proctors of the protestant clergy, he rendered himself extremely useful, by his various literary addresses to the deluded people, in bringing them to a proper sense of their error and insubordination. This laudable conduct did not escape the attention of the Irish government; and induced them, when he quitted Ireland, to recommend him to men of power in this country. For many years he resided in London, as principal of the Roman Catholic chapel in Soho-square, where he was highly esteemed by people of his religion. In his private character he was always cheerful, gay, sparkling with wit, and full of anecdote. He died at an advanced age in January, 1802, and was interred in St. Pancras church-yard. His works are, 1. “Several Addresses to the Catholics of Ireland.” 2. “Remarks on Mr. Wesley’s Defence of the Protestant Association.” 3. “Defence of his conduct in the affair of the insurrection in Munster,” 1787. 4. “Review of the important Controversy between Dr. Carrol and the rev. Messrs. Wharton and Hopkins.” 5. “Fast sermon at St. Patrick’s chapel, Soho, March 8, 1797.” 6. A Collection of his Miscellaneous Tracts, in 1 vol. 8vo. 7. “A Defence of the Conduct and Writings of the rev. Arthur O'Leary, &c. written by himself, in answer to the illgrounded insinuations of the right rev. Dr. Woodward, bishop of Cloyne,” 1788, 8vo. The bishop, in his controversy with Mr. O'Leary, acknowledges that he represents matters strongly and eloquently, and that, “Shakspeare like, he is well acquainted with the avenues to the human heart;” and Mr. Wesley calls him an “arch and lively writer.” His style was certainly voluble, bold, and figurative but deficient in grace, manliness, perspicuity, and sometimes grammar; but he was distinguished as a friend to freedom, liberality, and toleration and was highly complimented on this account by Messrs. Grattan, Flood, and other members of the Irish parliament, in their public speeches.

, son and disciple of the preceding, was born in 1601, and by the precepts and example of his father, he arrived at a degree of perfection in miniature portrait painting confessedly superior to his instructor, or any of his contemporaries, as he did not confine his subjects to a head only. His pictures, like his father’s, are spread among the houses of the nobility and gentry, and are alike justly esteemed. The works which he executed upon a larger scale are much more valuable than those of his father, and are also more numerous, though not very frequently to be met with. L6rd Orford mentions that there were thirteen works of Peter Oliver in the collection of Charles I. and of James II.; and that seven of them are preserved in queen Caroline’s closet at Kensington; and he also speaks of a portrait of Mrs. Oliver by her husband, in possession of the duchess of Portland, as his finest work. Lord Orford thinks it extraordinary that more of the works of this excellent master are not known, as he commonly made duplicates of his pictures, reserving one of each for himself. On this subject, he adds, that Russel the painter, related to or connected with the Olivers, told Vertue a remarkable story. The greater part of the collection of king Charles I. being dispersed in the troubles, among which were several of the Olivers, Charles II. who remembered, and was desirous of recovering them, made many inquiries about them after the Restoration; at last, he was told by one Rogers of Islevvorth, that both the father and son were dead, but that the son’s widow was living at Isleworth, and had many of their works. The king went very privately and unknown with Rogers, to see them; the widow shewed several finished and unfinished; with many of which the king being pleased, he asked if she would sell them; she replied she had a mind the king should see them first, and if he did not purchase them, she should think of disposing of them. The king discovered himself; on which she produced some more pictures, which she seldom shewed. The king desired her to set a price she said she did not care to make a price with his majesty she would leave it to him but promised to look over her husband’s books, and let his majesty know what prices his father, the late king, had paid. The king took away what he liked, and sent Rogers to Mrs. Oliver with the options of \OOOl. or an annuity of 30Q/. for her life. She chose the latter. Some years afterwards it happened that the king’s mistresses having begged aril or most of these pietures r Mrs. Oliver said, on hearing it, that if she had thought the king would have given them to such whores and strutn* pets and bastards, he never should have had them. This reached the court, the poor woman’s salary was stopped* and she never received it afterwards. The rest of the Winnings which the king had not taken, fell into the hands of Mrs. Russel’s father. Peter Oliver is supposed to have died before the restoration, probably about 1654. Isaac Oliver, the glass -painter, appears to have been of this family.

His mind becoming easier by degrees, he returned to his favourite studies, and through the course of the year 1751, he published his “Amusements Periodiques,” a monthly publication, in which he entered with great freedom into the controversy between the protestant and Romish churches, and they were therefore soon prohibited both in Portugal and Rome. In 1753 he retired to a house at Kentish town, where he divided his time between the care of a small garden, the pursuit of his studies, and the conversation of several learned friends who frequently visited him. When the news arrived of the dreadful earthquake at Lisbon in December 1755, he published his “Discours Pathetique” early in 1756, addressed to his countrymen, but particularly to the king of Portugal. The rapid sale of several editions of this work, both in French and English, in the course of a few weeks, was no inconsiderable proof of its merit; but while it made him more known and esteemed in this and other countries, it drew upon him the resentment of some of his countrymen, and particularly of the inquisitors, who now laid a prohibition on all his works in geaeral. Even his brother, Thomas de Aquinas, a Benedictine monk, wrote to exhort him to retract his errors. This occasioned the chevalier to publish a second part, or “Suite de Discours pathetique,” 1757, in which he not only answered the objections made to the “Discours,” but inserted his brother’s letter, with a suitable answer.

, a peripatetic philosopher of Alexandria, lived under Theodosius the younger, about the year 430, and wrote Commentaries on part of Aristotle, 1551, fol. and a Life of Plato, which contains many particulars not to be met with in Diogenes Laertius. James "WinJet has translated this Life into Latin, and added notes to it. It seems probable, however, that the commentator on Aristotle, and the author of the life of Plato, were different persons; and there is a third Olympiodorus, a Greek monk, who lived in the fifth or sixth century, and left short and elegant Commentaries on Job and Ecclesiastes, which may be found in the library of the Greek fathers. The little that is known of either of these may be seen in our authorities.

Azarias, the author of a book entitled “Meor Ena'im,” or the Light of the Eyes, tells us, that Onkelos was a proselyte in the time of Hillel and Samnai, and lived to see Jonathan Ben Uzziel one of the prime scholars of Hillel. These three doctors flourished twelve years before Christ, according to the chronology of Gauz; who adds, that Onkelos was contemporary with Gamaliel the elder, St. Paul’s master, who was the grandson of Hillel, who lived twentyeight years after Christ, and did not die till eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the same Gauz, by his calculation, places Onkelos 100 years after Christ; and, to adjust his opinion with that of Azarias, extends the life of Onkelos to a great length. The Talmudists tell us, that he assisted at the funeral of Gamaliel, and was at a prodigious expence to make it most magnificent. Some say, he burnt on the occasion goods and effects to the value of 7000 crowns; others, that he provided seventy pounds of frankincense, which was burnt at the solemnity.

Whatever may be in these reports, we may observe, from Prideaux, that the “Targum” of Onkelos is rather a version than a paraphrase; since it renders the Hebrew text word for word, and for the most part accurately and exactly, and is by much the best of all this sort. It has therefore always been held in esteem among the Jews, much above all the other Targums; and, being set to the same musical notes with the Hebrew text, it is thereby made capable of being read in the same tone with it in their public assemblies. That it was accordingly there read alternately with the text (one verse of which being read first in the Hebrew, the same was read afterwards in the Chaldee interpretation) we are told by Levita; who, of all the Jews that have handled this argument, has written the most accurately and fully. He says, that the Jews, holding themselves obliged every week, in their synagogues, to read that parashah or section of the law which was the lesson of the week, made use of the “Targum” of Onkelos for this purpose; and that this was their usage even down to his time, which was about the first part of the 16th century. And for this reason; that though, till the art of printing was invented, there were of the other Targums scarce above one or two of a sort to be found in a whole country, yet then the “Targum” of Onkelos was every where among them.

From the excellence and accuracy of Onkelos’s “Targum,” Prideaux also concludes him to have been a native Jew; since, without being bred up from his birth in the Jewish religion and learning, and long exercised in all the rites and doctrines thereof, and also thoroughly skilled in both the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, as far as a native Jew could be, he can scarce be thought thoroughly adequate to that work which he performed; and that the representing him as a proselyte seems to have proceeded from the error of taking him to have been the same with Akilas, or Aquila, of Pontus, author of the Greek “Targum,” or version on the prophets and Hagiographia, who was indeed a Jewish proselyte. The first Latin version of the Targum of Onkelos was by Zamora, and published in the Complutensian Polyglot, whence it was copied into others, and is in Walton’s.

, a very excellent artist and professor of painting in the Royal Academy, was born in May 1761, at St. Agnes in Cornwall, a village about seven miles distant from the town of Truro. In his earliest years he was remarkable for the strength of his understanding, and the rapidity with which he acquired all the learning that a village-school could afford him. When ten years old, he was not only able to solve several difficult problems in Euclid, but was thought capable of instructing others: and when he had scarcely reached his twelfth year, he established an evening school at St. Agnes, and taught writing and arithmetic. His father, a carpenter, was desirous to bring him up in his own business; but this was by no means suitable to one whose mind had attained some glimpses of science, and still more of art. He was formed a painter by nature; and had not this been the case, he would probably have excelled in some branch of science or literature: with much comprehension and acuteness, his thirst of information was insatiable, and his ambition to excel, unbounded. But painting was his destination, and after many early and rude efforts, he had hung his father’s house with portraits of his family and friends in an improved style, when he became acquainted with Dr. John Wolcot, then residing at Truro, and since so well known by the name of Peter Pindar: who, having himself a taste for drawing, and a strong perception of character, saw the worth of our artist, and was well qualified to afford him instruction in many requisite points. He also recommended him so effectually that he commenced professed portrait" painter, and went about to the neighbouring towns with letters of introduction to the principal families resident in them, and henceforward entirely supported himself by his own exertions.

At length, in 1781, he came to London, still under the auspicies of Dr. Wolco't, whose powerful pen was not silent in his cause; and his works becoming the theme of fashionable conversation, he was soon employed to paint the portraits of persons of the highest distinction, who were caught by the novelty, and struck with the force of his representations. His talent, however, being more solid than showy, was not calculated to insure him long that exclusive favour which his outset had promised: without taste for elegance and fashionable airs, he could not often please the women; and the men, whom he could not supply with dignity or importance, soon became indifferent to one whom the women did no longer protect. Opie remained the painter of those only who sought characteristic resemblance, stern truth, and solidity of method. But his parts were not limited by portrait; he had Jong and often with felicity represented the incidents of rustic and common life, in picturesque groups; and the plans of historic painting, contrived by commerce at that period, called forth what was latent in him of historic power; the specimens which he had given in the Royal Exhibition were succeeded by a numerous series of religious and dramatic subjects, painted for the Boydell and Macklin galleries. By the establishment of the former, in 1786, Opie was first fully made known to the public, and the latent powers of his mind were called forth. For this gallery he painted five large pictures, of which the finest was from the Winter’s Tale; Leontes administering the oath to Antigenus to take charge of the child. But he produced, about the same time, a work of far more excellent quality in effect and colour, viz. the assassination of James I. of Scotland, now in the Common Council room at Guildhall, a work which, for hue and colour, challenges competition with the best, and is wrought with the greatest boldness and force.