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

How long he lived is not known. His fame was at itj highest from 1610 or sooner to 1643. In this last year, when probably very old, he published at Amsterdam his famous drawing book in Italian, French, High and Lovr Dutch, a folio, with forty-eight plates. His next work, according to lord Orford, was entitled “Instruction du roy en Texercise de monter a cheval, par Messire Antoine de PJuvinel,” a work in dialogues, French and Dutch, foolish enough in itself, but adorned with many cuts admirably designed and engraved, and with many portraits. Holland’s “HerooJogia” was executed at his expence, for which he employed the best Flemish engravers, but does not mention any share he had himself in that collection of portraits. Crispin Passe’s works are so numerous that it would be difficult to obtain a complete catalogue. Lord Orford and Mr. Strutt have mentioned the principal, as connected with the English series; but they have omitted his Virgil, Homer, and Ovid, and his “Hortus Floridus,” the latter a folio, and the other in 4to, which are much valued abroad, but very scarce. There is, or was, a complete collection of his illustrated books, and single plates, in the royal library at Paris, and many of them are in every English collector’s portfolio or library.

, a celebrated painter, was a native of France; but neither his Christian name, his age, nor the master under whom he studied, are known to the writers on these subjects. He has sometimes been called the French Claude, from his successful imitation of that master. In his figures he is clearly superior to him. The forms of his trees are elegant and free, his scenery rich, and his buildings and other objects designed in a very pleasing manner. His touch is light, yet firm; his colouring generally clear and natural. Two of his works have been engraved by Strange, and all of them prove that he studied nature with nice observation, and his choice from her productions was always agreeable. In France he is sometimes called, Paid le tue, or le bon Patd; and there was also a Patet le Jeune, of whom still less is known.

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

Mr. Paterson was a writer of some consideration, and from time to time indulged in several publications, to none of which he ever put his name. The first, in order of time, is, to our knowledge, “Another Traveller; or, Cursory Remarks made upon a Journey through Part of the Netherlands, by Coriat, jun. in 1766,” in three volumes 12mo; the second is “The Joineriana or, The Book of Scraps,” in two volumes 8vo, 1772, consisting of philosophical and literary aphorisms; the third is “The Templar,” a periodical paper, of which only fourteen numbers appear to have been published, and the last of them in December 1773, intended as an attack on the newspapers for advertising ecclesiastical offices, and places of trust under government; and the last is “Speculations on Law and Lawyers,” 1778, tending to evince the danger and impropriety of personal arrests for debt previous to any verification, At the pressing solicitations of his friends, he consented, as soon as the Fagel catalogue was completed, to undertake some “Memoirs of the Vicissitudes of Literature in England during the latter Half of the Eighteenth Century;” of which it is not improbable some materials may be found among his papers.

, a learned English prelate, successively bishop of Chichester and Ely, was born at Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, Sept. 8, 1626. His father was a mercer of good credit in that place, and sent him to a school, with a view to a learned education, which was kept by one Merry weather, a good Latin scholar, and the translator of sir Thomas Browne’s “Religio Medici.” In 1644, June 25, he was admitted as a sizar of Queen’s college, Cambridge, and was elected fellow March 1, 1648. He took the degree of B. A. in 1647; that of M. A. in 1651; and that of B. D. in 1658. Previous to this period he received holy orders from the celebrated Dr. Hall, bishop of Norwich, then ejected from his bishopric by the usurping powers, and living at Higham. This was probably about 1651, as in 1652 Mr. Patrick preached a sermon at the funeral of Mr. John Smith, of Queen’s college, who died Aug. 7, 1652, and was buried in the chapel of that college. He was soon after taken as chaplain into the family of sir Walter St. John of Battersea, who gave him that living in 1658. This vacated his fellowship, and the same year he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and published his first work (if we except the funeral-sermon above mentioned), entitled “Mensa Mystica: or a Discourse concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; to which is added, a Discourse concerning Baptism,” Lond. 8vo. In the following year he published “The Heart’s Ease, or a remedy against all troubles; with a consolatory discourse, particularly directed to those who have lost their friends and dear relations,” ibid. 1659, 12mo; this went through many editions. In 1660 appeared “Jewish hypocrisy; a caveat to the present generation,” &c.

In another letter, dated Sept. 21, he resumes the subject of the former, “My deare friend, I must tell you, for you will heare it from other hands, that the plague is again increased, as I suspected it would, according as you would understand by my last. Our only comfort is, that we are in the hands of God, and not in the hands of men; for his mercies are very great. I am very joyfull to heare at last, that you bend your thoughts to resign me up to God. I hope it will make your life more happy, whether I die or live. You do not trouble me by your instances to leave this place, because I think most of your love, which is conspicuous therein: and I should have reflected as much without these intreaties of yours, upon the desirableness of seeing my friends once more, who, I think, I may truly say, have faster hold of me than any thing in this world. But if God will pull me from them, his will be done! I ought to esteem him my best friend, who doth not envy to me any other, and will spare my life, unless it be better for me to die. To him I still referre myself, which I call trusting in God, (as you would hate scene, if it had been fit, before this time: but I doubt you will be afraid to receive papers printed in London): but it is not to accomplish a martyrdome, as you call it (that 's too high a name), but to do a little service to my neighbors, who I think would not be so well if I was not here.”

One more extract will not be thought uninteresting: “There are people who rely upon pitiful things as certain tokens of its (the plague’s) going away shortly. I have been told, more than once, of the falling out of the clapper of the great bell at Westminster, which, they say, it did before the great plague ended; and this they take for a very comfortable sign. Others speak of the dawes more frequenting the pallace and abbey, which, if true, is a better sign, supposing the aire to have been infected. For the bookes I read tell mee, that the goeinge away of birds is the forerunner of the plague, and that one shall see few in a plague -year. The death of birds in houses where they are caged, ordinarily preceeds the death of the inhabitants; for these aiery creatures feel the alteration in that element sooner than wee. Thus you see how desirous all are for some token for good, and how they catch at the smallest shadows for it. But the best sign of all, I doubt, is much wanting and that is, the reformation of men’s manners of which I heare little, unless that those come to church who did not before. I think often of a saying in the second book of Esdras, which describes the temper of the world exactly, chap. xvi. 19, 20. A sad thing that the event of these judgments proves no better; but so it commonly falls out, and men soon forget both their smart, and also the good resolutions which it formed. I hope, my friend, the hand of God will not be without its instruction to us, and that we shall be careful, if he let us live, to improve it as we ought. I cannot but acknowledge a great wisdom, as well as justice, in this restraint which I now suffer; and therefore I thankfully accept it, and intreat you to assist me with your prayers, that I may both understand the meaning of it, and likewise make the right use which God intends. I must ever also acknowledge a wonderful kindnesse of God to me, mixed with this for I am well and chearful to my admiration and astonishment, when I seriously think of it.” Two of the papers mentioned in the above letters, which he circulated during the plague, were printed in the latter editions of his “Heart’s Ease.” Having some reason to be offended with the treatment he met with at Cambridge, he went to Oxford for his degrees in divinity; and entering himself of Christ-church, was incorporated B. D. and completed his doctor’s degree in 1666, about which time he was made chaplain in ordinary to the king. In 1668 he published his “Parable of the Pilgrim,” 4to, which some have thought the precursor of Bunyan’s more popular work; but the difference is too strikingly marked in the reception these two “Pilgrims” have met with to admit of any comparison, or detract from the genius that predominates in the humble tinker’s performance. This was followed by Dr. Patrick’s “Exposition of the Ten Commandments,” 1668, 8vo, and by a controversial work of some importance, printed the following year, with the title “A friendly debate betwixt two neighbours, the one a conformist, the other a non-conformist, about several weighty matters. Published for the benefit of this city. By a lover of it, and of pure religion.” This consisted of two parts, to which a third was added in 1670, and was answered by some of the non-conformist writers, who were much exasperated at it . Dr. Patrick’s next publication, of the more practical kind, was his “Christian Sacrifice; a treatise showing the necessity, end, and manner of receiving the Holy Communion, &c.” 1671, 8vo. This was followed by his “Devout Christian,” a book of forms of prayer, 1672; “Advice to a Friend,” 1677, 12mo; “Jesus and the Resurrection justified by witnesses in Heaven and Earth,” 1677, 8vo; “The Glorious Epiphany,” 1678, 8vo; a translation of Grotius, “De Veritate,” 1680, 8vo; and various pious tracts of the popular kind, published from this date to 1703, and a considerable number of occasional sermons.

During the reign of James II. Dr. Patrick wag one of those able champions, who defended the protestant religion against the designs of the court, and published some pieces, which were afterwards reprinted in the collection- of “Controversial Tracts,” 3 vols. fol. But his most remarkable service in this way was his conference with two Romish priests, of which we have the following account “Great endeavours were used to bring Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, lord high treasurer in king James’i reign, to embrace popery; but in vain. At length his lordship being pressed and fatigued by the king’s intreaties, told his majesty, that to let him see it was not through any prejudice of education, or obstinacy, that he persevered ia liis religion, he would freely consent to hear some protestant divides dispute with some popish priests, and promised to side with the conquerors. On this the king appointed a conference to be held at Whitehall, at which his majesty and several persons of rank were present. The protestant champions were Dr. Patrick and Dr. William Jane, the two chaplains then in waiting. Those on the popish side were Gifford, a doctor of the Sorbonne, probably the same whom king James wished to obtrude upon Magdalen-college, and a Mr. Tilden, who, having turned papist at Lisbon, went by the name of Dr. Godden. The subject of their dispute was the ‘ rule of faith,’ and ‘ the proper judge in controversies.’ The conference was very long; and at last the Romish doctors were pressed with so much strength of reason and authority against them, that they were really put to silence. On this the earl of Rochester declared ‘ that the victory the protestant divines had gained made no alteration in his mind, being beforehand convinced of the truth of his religion, and firmly resolved never to forsake it.’ The king, going off abruptly, was heard to say, he never saw a bad cause so well, nor a good one so ill maintained.”

, the Deacon, or Paulus Diaconus, so called because he had been a deacon of the church of Friuli, though some call him by his father’s name Warmafridcs, and others, from the profession he took up in his latter years Paulus Monachus, was originally a Lombard, born in the city of Friuli, in the eighth century, and educated in the court of the Lombard kings at Pavia. After Desiderius, the last king of the Lombards, was taken prisoner by Charlemagne, and carried to France, tired of the tumult of the public world, he retired from the busy scenes he had been engaged in, and became a monk in the famous monastery of Monte Casino, where he wrote his history of the Lombards, in six books, from their first origin down to the reign of Luitprandus, who was their eighteenth king that reigned in Italy, and died in the year 743. He was an eye-witness of many of the transactions he relates; and as he was a Lombard, we may suppose him well informed of the affairs of his own nation, and had read the history of the Lombards, written in the same century in which they began to reign in Italy, by Secundus Tridentinus, originally a Lombard, but a native of the city of Trent, who flourished, according to Baronius, in the year 615; but his history is now lost. He often quotes his authority, and though he sometimes falls into trivial mistakes, about foreign affairs, and such as happened long before his time, as Grotius learnedly evinces, yet, in the transactions of his own nation, he is, generally speaking, very exact. He died in the year 799.His history was printed at Hamburgh in 1611, and is besides to be found in the eighteenth volume of Muratori’s Rerum Italic. Scriptores.

, so named from the place of his birth, flourished in the third century, and was among the first who entertained the opinions since known by the name of Socinian, or Unitarian. In the year 260 he was chosen bishop of Antioch, and having begun to preach against the divinity of Jesus Christ, he was admonished, in a council assembled at Antioch, in the year 264: but, in another, held in phe year 269 or 270, sentence of deposition was passed. To this he refused to submit, and was supported in his disobedience by Zenobia the consort of Odenatus, At length, when this queen was driven from Antioch, the emperor Aurelian expelled Paul in the year 272 or 273. Jt is not known what became of him afterwards; nor are any of his writings extant. His morals appear to have been as obnoxious as his doctrines. Dr. Lardner has en4eavoured to defend both, yet it appears evident that he hail the whole Christian world against him, and queen Zenobia only for him. His wealth, says Gibbon, was a sufficient evidence of his guilt, since it was neither derived from the inheritance of his fathers, nor acquired by the arts of honest industry. His followers were for a considerable time called Paulianists, but have since been known by many other names, according to the shades of difference in their opinions.

, an ancient Greek writer, who has left us a curious description of Greece, lived in the second century, but very few particulars of his life are known. Suidas mentions two of this name: one of Laconia, who wrote concerning the Hellespont, Laconia, the Amphyclions, &c. another, who was a sophist or rhetorician of Cicsarea in Cappadocia, lived at the same time with Aristides, and is mentioned by Philostratus, in his Lives of the Orators. This last is supposed to be our Pausanias. He was, according to the same Philostratus, “a disciple of the famous sophist Herodes Atticus, whom he imitated in many respects, but especially in composing without premeditation. His pronunciation was according to the manner of the Cappadocians, who had a way of lengthening short syllables, and shortening long ones. The character of his composition was negligent, yet not without force. He declaimed a long time at Rome, where he died very old, though he continued all the while a member of the college at Athens.” His work is properly an account of a journey through Greece, in which the author noted every thing that was remarkable. All public monuments, as temples, theatres, tombs, statues, paintings, &c. came within his design: he took the dimensions of cities, which had formerly been great and famous, but were then in ruins; nor did he hastily pass over places that were memorable for illustrious transactions of old. By these observations he throws much light upon the history and antiquities of Greece; and clears up many passages in ancient authors, which would otherwise have remained very perplexed and obscure. His work has been recommended to modern travellers, and it is well known that Spon and VVheler made great use of it. Pausanias was first published at Venice in 1516, fol. by Aldus, who was assisted by Marcus Musurus: Muslims wrote a preface in Greek, which is prefixed to this edition, and addressed to John Lascaris, a learned Greek of the same age. Afterwards, in 1547, Romulus Amaseus published a Latin version of this work at Rome; and, three years after, an edition was printed at Basil, with a new Latin version by Abr. Loescherus. A better edition than had yet appeared, with the Greek text of Aldus corrected by Xylander, and the Latin version of Amaseus by Sylburgius, came out ut Francfort, 1583, in folio; from which that of Hanover, 1613, in folio, was printed word for word. But the best of all is that of Leipsic, 1696, in folio, with the notes of Kuhnius. This learned man had already given proof, by his critical labours upon JElian, D. Laertius, and Pollux, that he was very well qualified for a work of this nature and his notes, though short, are very good. When he undertook this edition of Pausanias he proposed great advantages from four manuscripts in the king of France’s library; but, upon consulting them on several corrupt and obscure passages, he found that they did not vary from Aldus’s copy. The main succours he derived were from some manuscript notes of Isaac Casaubon, upon the margin of Aldus’s edition; and, by the help of these, and his own critical skill, he was enabled to correct and amend an infinite number of places. A new edition, in 4 vols. 8vo, was published at Leipsic, in 1794 1797, by Jo. Frid. Facius, which by the few who have had an opportunity of examining it, is thought excellent. It has very correct indexes, and some aid from a Vienna and a Moscow manuscript. An English translation was published in 1794 by Mr. Thomas Taylor.

, a Parisian architect of the seventeenth century, and one of a family of artists, excelled in the ornaments and decorations of buildings, and wa& architect to Louis XIV. and monsieur his only brother. He planned the cascades, which are so justly admired, at the castle of St. Cloud, and built the church of the nuns of Port-royal, at Paris, in 1625. Le Pautre was received into the royal academy of sculpture, December 1, 1671, and died some years after. His “CEuvres d' Architecture” are engraved in one vol. folio, sometimes bound up in five. John le Pautre, his relation, born in 1617, at Paris, was placed with a joiner, who taught him the first rudiments of drawing; but he soon surpassed his master, and became an excellent designer, and skilful engraver. He perfectly understood all the ornamental parts of architecture, and the embellishments of country houses, such as fountains, grottos, jets-d‘eau, and every other decoration of the garden. John le Pautre was admitted a member of the royal aca<iemy of painting and sculpture April 11, 1677, and died February 2, 1682, aged sixty-five. His *’ GEuvres d' Architecture," Paris, 1751, 3 vols. fol. contains above 782 plates, which were much valued by the chevalier Bernin. Peter le Pautre, related to the two preceding, was born at Pans, March 4, 1659, and excelled so much in statuary as to be appointed sculptor to his majesty. He executed at Rome, in 1691, the beautiful gronp of <flneas and Anchises, which is in the grand walk at theThuilleries; and completed, in 1716, that of Arria and Paetus (or rather of Lucretia stabbing herself in presence of Collatinus) which Theodon had begun at Rome. Several of his other works embellish Marly. This ingenious artist was professor and perpetual director of St. Luke’s academy, and died at Paris, January 22, 1744, aged eighty-four.

, a native of Amsterdam, who distinguished himself by his philosophical writings, was born there in 1739; no particulars of his early life are given in our authority, but it appears that he was educated for the church, and held a canonry in some part of Germany. He died July 7, 1799, at Xantem, near Aix-laChapelle. He was uncle to the famous, or rather infamous, Anacharsis Cloots, who was the idol of the lowest of the mob of Paris about the time of the revolution, and his opinions were in some respects as singular; but he had far more learning, and more skill in disguising them. He is principally known for his “Recherches philosophiques, 1. surlesGrecs; 2. sur les Arnericains, les Egyptiens, et les Chinois,” Paris, 1795, 7 vols. 8vo. In this his countrymen seem willing to allow that he asserts more than be proves; that his object is to contradict all preceding historians, and to lessen the character of the nations he describes. His style is agreeable, but he is full of paradoxes, and of those bold opinions which were once in vogue in France, and reconamended him much to Frederick the Great of Prussia, while they rendered him obnoxious to the ministers of religion.

He informs us also of his skill in painting; that he could take likenesses, and on one occasion took his majesty’s (James I.) as he sat at dinner. He also made, perhaps engraved, a map of Cambridge. Lord Orford mentions his engraving of a good print, after Holbein, of sir Thomas Cromwell, knight, afterwards earl of Essex. From his “Gentleman’s Exercise” we learn that he either kept school, or had private pupils. Lord Orford says that he was tutor to the children of the earl of Arunde), whom he accompanied to the Low Countries. In the same work, Peacham says he translated king James’s “Basilicon Doron” into Latin verse, and presented it to prince Henry, to whom he also dedicated his “Minerva Britannica” in 1612. He also published in 1615, “Prince Henry revived; or a poem upon the birth of prince H. Frederick, heir apparent to Frederick Count Palatine of the Rhine.” The only other particulars we derive from his own hints are, that he lived for some time in St. Martin’s in the Fields, and was addicted to melancholy. It is said that he was reduced to poverty in his old age, and wrote penny pamphlets for bread. This last is asserted in a ms note by John Gibbon, Bluemantle, on a copy of one of Peacham’s tracts sold at Mr. West’s sale. It is entitled ' A Dialogue between the cross in Cheap and Charing crosse. Comforting each other, as fearing their fall, in these uncertain times. By Ryhen Pameach" (Henry Peacham). The chief merit of this, Mr. Gough says, is that its wooden frontispiece exhibits the ruined shaft of Charing Cross, and the entire cross of Cheap. It has no date. Cheapside cross, we know, was taken down in 1640.

The work by which Peacham is best known is his “Complete Gentleman,” a 4to volume, printed in 1622, and reprinted in 1627, 1634, 1654, and 1661. This last edition received some improvements in the heraldic part from Thomas Blount, author of the “Jocular Tenures.” It treats of “nobilitie in gencrall; of dignitie and necessitie of learning in princes and nobilitie; the time of learning; the dutie of parents in their children’s education; of a gentleman’s carriage in the universitie; of style in speaking, writing, and reading history; of cosmography; of memorable observation in the survey of the earth; of geometry; of poetry; of musicke; of statues and medalls; of drawing and painting in oyle; of sundry blazonnes both ancient and modern; of armory or blazing armes; of exercise of body of reputation and carriage; of travaile; of warre; of fishing”

His other works are, 1. “Minerva Britannica, or a garden of Heroical Devises,” &c. 1612, 4to. This is a collection of emblems in verse, with a plate to each. Mr. Ellis has selected several specimens from this curious volume. 2. “The period of Mourning, in memory of the late prince. Together with Nuptial Hymnes in honour of this happy marriage betweene Frederick count Palatine and Elizabeth daughter of our Sovereigne,” 1613, 4to. 3. “A most true relation of the affairs of Cleve and Gulick,” &c. 1614, 4to, in prose. 4. “Thalia’s Banquet,” a volume of epigrams,“1620, 12mo. 5.” The Valley of Varietie,“1633, 12mo. 6.” The Duty of all true subjects to their king; as also to their native country in time of extremity and danger,“in two books, 1639, 4to. 7.” The worth of a penny, or a caution to keep money; with the causes of the scarcity and misery of the want thereof, in these hard and merciless times; as also how to save it, in our diet, apparel, recreations, &c.“4to. This piece of humour, which appeared first in 1647, was reprinted in 1667, 1677, and 1695, and perhaps oftener. 8.” The Gentleman’s Exercise; or an Exquisite Practise as well for drawing all manner of beasts in their true portraiture, as also the making of colours for limning, painting, tricking, and blazoning of coats of arms, &c.“1630, and 1634, 4to. All these are works of considerable merit, Peacham being a man of general knowledge, good taste, and acute observation, and were very popular during the seventeenth century. His” Complete Gentleman “particularly was in high estimation with the gentry of that age. Sir Charles Sedley, who had been guilty of an offence against good manners, and was indicted for it, was asked on his trial by the chief justice, sir Robert Hyde, whether he had ever read the” Complete Gentleman" P

, bishop of St. Asaph, and Chichester, in the reign of Henry Vj. is supposed to have been born in Wales about 1390. He was educated in Oriel college, Oxford, of which he was chosen fellow in October 1417, in the room of Richard Garsdale, S. T. P. who was then elected provost of the college. Having studied with a view to the church, he was ordained deacon and priest in 1420 by Fleming, bishop of Lincoln. In 1425 he took his degree of bachelor of divinity, and about this time is supposed to have left the university. Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was now protector of the kingdom, and being a great patron of learned men, invited Mr. Peacock to court, where he was enabled to make a very considerable figure by his talents. In 1431, he was elected master of the college of St. Spirit and St. Mary, founded by sir Richard Whittington; and with it was appointed to the rectory of St. Michael in Riola, now St. Michael Royal, situated in the street called Tower Royal in Viutry ward. This situation he resigned in 1444, on being promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph. To whom he owed this preferment seems uncertain, as his patron the duke of Gloucester was now declining in court interest, but perhaps the estimation he was held in at court may account for it. He now was honoured with the degree of D. D. at Oxford, in his absence, and without performing any exercises, an omission for which he was reproached afterwards by his enemies, although it was not then uncommon. In 1447 he preached a sermon at Paul’s cross, in which he maintained that bishops were not under obligation to preach or to take the cure of souls, and that their duties consist entirely in the various acts of church government. This doctrine was not very palatable even then, and he was under the necessity of explaining himself to the archbishop of Canterbury; but it showed, what appeared more clearly afterwards, that he was accustomed to think for himself, and to pay little deference to authority or custom.

"In the year 1755, the bishop of Bangor being with archbishop Herring at Croydon, and walking with him in his garden, he said, ‘ My Lord, you know that the bishop of Rochester, Dr. Wilcocks, is very ill, and probably will not live long; will you accept of his bishopric and the deanry of Westminster, in exchange for yours of Bangor?’ The bishop excused himself, and told him plainly, that his father being dead, and his estate come to him, he had now nothing in view, but to beg his majesty’s leave to resign the see of Bangor, and to retire to a private life in the year 1757; that so long, he was contented to continue in the possession of the bishopric of Bangor; but that then he designed to try if he could obtain leave to resign, and live upon his private fortune. The archbishop replied, ‘ I doubt whether the king will grant it, or that it can be done.’ A second time, at another visit there, he mentioned the same thing, and a second time the bishop gave him the same answer. But in a short time after, upon another visit, when the archbishop mentioned it a third time, he added, ‘ My lord, if you will give me leave to try what I can do to procure you this exchange, I promise you not to take it amiss of you, if you refuse it, though I should obtain the offer for you.’ c This is very generous in your grace,‘ said the bishop, c and 1 cannot refuse to consent to what you propose to do.’

“Sometime after, in the same year (the bishop of Rochester declining very fast), the duke of Newcastle sent to the bishop of Bangor, and desired to see him the n x ext day. He went to him, and the duke informed him, that he was told, -that the chancellorship of Bangor was then vacant, and he pressed the bishop so much to bestow it upon one! whom he had to recommend, that the bishop consented to comply with his request. ‘ Well, my lord,’ said the duke, * now I have another favour to ask of you.‘ * Pray, my lord duke,’ said the bishop, e what is that?‘ c Why,’ said the duke, ‘ it is, that you will accept of the bishopric of Rochester, and deanry of Westminster, in exchange for Bangor, in case the present bishop of Rochester should die.’ * My lord,‘ said the bishop, ’ if I had thoughts of exchanging my bishopric, I should prefer what you mention before any other dignities.‘ ’ That is not,‘ said the duke, * an answer to my question: will you accept them in exchange, if they are offered to you?’ ‘ Your grace offers them to me,’ said the bishop, ‘ in so generous and friendly a manner, that 1 promise you to accept them.’ Here the Conversation ended; and Dr. Wilcocks dying in the beginning of the year 1756, the bishop of Bangor was promoted to the bishopric of Rochester and deanry of Westminster.” On the death of Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, lord Bath spoke to the bishop of Rochester, and offered to use his endeavours with his majesty for appointing him to succeed that eminent prelate; but Dr. Fearce told him, that from the earliest time that he could remember himself to have considered about bishoprics, he had determined nevefc to accept the bishopric of London, or the archbishopric of Canterbury, and he begged his lordship not to make any application in his behalf for the vacant see of London. Lord Bath repeated his offer on the death of Dr. Osbaldiston in 1763, but Dr. Pearce again declined the proposal, and was indeed so far from desiring a higher bishopric, that he now meditated the resignation of what he possessed. This is one of the most remarkable circumstances in the Jife of Dr. Pearce. Being now (1763) seventy-three years old, and finding himself less fit for the duties of bishop and dean, he informed his friend lord Bath of his intention to resign both, and to live in a retired manner upon his own private fortune; and after much discourse upon, the subject at different times, he prevailed upon his lordship at last to acquaint his majesty with his intention, and to desire, in the bishop’s name, the honour of a private audience from his majesty for that purpose. This being granted, Dr. Pearce stated his motives as he had done to lord Bath, adding that he was desirous to retire for the opportunity of spending more time in his devotions and studies; and that he was of the same way of thinking with a general officer of the emperor Charles V. who, when he desired a dismission from that monarch’s service, told him, ‘.’ Sir, every wise man would, at the latter end of life, wish to have an interval between the fatigues of business and eternity.“The bishop then shewed the king, in a written paper, instances of its having been done several times, and concluded with telling his majesty, that he did not expect or desire an immediate answer to his request, but rather that his majesty would first consult some pf his ministers as to the propriety and legality of it. This the king consented to do; and about two months after, he sent for the bishop and told him, that he had consulted with two of his lawyers, lord Mansfield and lord Northington, who saw no objection to the proposed resignation, and in consequence of their opinion, his majesty signified his own consent. The interference, however, of lord Bath, in requesting that his majesty would give the bishopric and deanry to Dr. Newton, then bishop of Bristol, alarmed the ministry, who thought that no dignities in the church should be obtained from the crown, but through their hands. Lord Northington suggested to his majesty some doubts on the subject, and represented that the bishops in general disliked the design; and at length Dr. Pearce was told by his majesty, that he must think 110 more about resigning Vtae bishopric but” that he would have all the merit of having done it." In 1768, however, he was permitted to resign his deanry, which was nearly double in. point of income to the bishopric which he was obliged to retain.

In his domestic life he was quiet and placid, not difficult to be pleased, nor inclined to harass his attendants or inferiors, by peevishness or caprice. This calmness of mind appeared in his whole manner and deportment. His stature was tall, his appearance venerable, and his countenance expressive of benevolence.

In his parochial cure he was punctually diligent, and very seldom omitted to preach; but his sermons had not all the effect which he desired, for his voice was low and feeble, and could not reach the whole of a numerous congregation. Those whom it did reach were both pleased and edified with, the good sense and sound doctrine which he never failed to deliver. When advanced to the honours of episcopacy, he did not consider himself as placed in a state that allowed him any remission from the labours of his ministry. He was not hindered by the distance of Bangor from annually resorting to that diocese (one year only excepted), and discharging his episcopal duties there, tp 1753; after which, having suffered greatly from the fatigue of his last journey, he was advised by his physician and friend, Dr. Heberden, and prevailed upon, not to attempt another. When he accepted the bishopric of Bangor, he established in himself a resolution of conferring Welsh preferments or benefices only on Welshmen; and to this resolution he adhered, in defiance of influence or importunity. He twice gave away the deanry, and bestowed many benefices, but always chose for his patronage the natives of the country, whatever might be the murmurs of his relations, or the disappointment of his chaplains. The diocese of Rochester conjoined, as had been for some time usual, with tjie deanry of Westminster, afforded him a course of duty more commodious. He divided his timd between his public offices, and his solitary studies. He preached at Bromley or Ealing, and by many years labour in the explication of the New Testament, produced the “Commentary,” &c. which was offered to the public after his decease. It was bequeathed to the care of the rev. John Derby, his lordship’s chaplain, who published it in 1777, in 2 vols. 4to, underthe title of “A Commentary, with notes, on the Four Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles, together with a new translation of St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, with a paraphrase and notes. To which are added other Theological pieces.” Prefixed is an elegant dedication to the king, in the name of the editor, but from the pen of Dr. Johnson; and a life written by the bishop himself, and connected in a regular narrative by paragraphs, evidently by Dr. Johnson’s pen. This life is highly interesting, and contains many curious particulars which we have been obliged to omit.

, a very learned English bishop, was born Feb. 12, 1612, at Snoring in Norfolk; of which place his father was rector. In 1623 he was sent to Eton school; whence he was elected to King’s college, Cambridge, in 1632. He took the degree of B. A. in 1635, and that of master in 1639; in which year he resigned his fellowship of the college, and lived afterwards a fellow-commoner in it. The same year he entered into orders, and was collated to a prebend in the church of Sarum. In 1640 he was appointed chaplain to Finch, lord-keeper of the great seal; by whom in that year he was presented to the living of Torrington, in Suffolk. Upon the breaking out of the civil war he became chaplain to the lord Goring, whom he attended in the army, and afterwards to sir Robert Cook in London. In 1650 he was made minister of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, in London. In 1657 he and Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, had a dispute with two Roman catholics upon the subject of schism. This conference was managed iivwriting, and by mutual agreement nothing was to be made public without the consent of both parties; yet a partial account of it was published in 1658, by one of the Romish disputants, cum privilegw, at Paris, with this title, “Schism unmasked a late conference,” &c. In 1659 he published “An Exposition of the Creed,” at London, in 4to; dedicated to his parishioners of St. Clement’s, Eastcheap, to whom the substance of that excellent work had betn preached several years before, and by whom he had been desired to nnake it public. This “Exposition,” which has gone through twelve or thirteen editions, is accounted one of the most finished pieces of theology in our language. It is itself a body of divinity, the style of which is just; the periods, for the most part, well turned the method very exact; and it is, upon the whole, free from those errors which are too often found in theological systems. There is a translation of it into Latin by a foreign divine, who styles himself “Simon Joannes Arnoldus, Ecclesiarum ballivise, sive praefecturae Sonnenburgensis Inspector;” and a very valuable and judicious abridgment was in 1810 published by the rev. Charles Burney, LL. D. F. R. S. In the same year (1659) bishop Pearson published “The Golden Remains of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hales, of Eton;” to which he wrote a preface, containing the character of that great man, with whom he had been acquainted for many years, drawn with great elegance and force. Soon after the restoration he was presented by Juxon, then bishop of London, to the rectory of St. Christopher’s, iri that city; created D. D. at Cambridge, in pursuance of the king’s letters mandatory; installed prebendary of Ely, archdeacon of Surrey, and made master of Jesus college, Cambridge; all before the end of 1660. March 25, 1661, he succeeded Dr. Lore in the Margaret professorship of that university; and, the first day of the ensuing year, was nominated one of the commissioners for the review of the liturgy in the conference at the Savoy, where the nonconformists allow he was the first of their opponents for candour and ability. In April 1662, he was admitted master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and, in August resigned his rectory of St. Christopher’s, and prebend of Sarum. In 1667 he was admitted a fellow of the royal society. Jn 1672 he published, at Cambridge, in 4to, “Vindiciae F.pistolarum S. Ignatii,” in answer to mons. Dailie; to which is subjoined, “Isaaci Vossii epistolas duæ adversus Davidem Blondellum.” Upon the death of Wilkins, bishop of Chester, Pearson was promoted to that see, to which he was consecrated Feb. 9, 1673. In 1684- his “Annales Cynrianici, sive tredecim annorum, quibus S. Cyprian, inter Christianos versatus est, historia chronologica,” was published at Oxford, with Fell’s edition. of that father’s works. Dr. Pearson was disabled from all public service by ill health, having entirely lost his memory, a considerable time before his death, which happened at Chester, July 16, 1686. Two years after, his posthumous works were published by Dodweli at London, “Cl. Jaannis Pearsoni Cestriensis nuper Episcopi opera posthuma, &c. &c.” There are extant two sermons published by him, 1. “No Necessity for a Reformation,' 7 1661, 4to. 2.” A Sermon preached before the King, on Eccles. vii. 14, published by his majesty’s special command," 1671, 4to. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (1789 p. 493) speaks of some unpublished Mss. by bishop Pearson in his possession. His ms notes on Suidas are in. the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, and were used by Kuster in his edition.

The first work discovered of his writing is “Το ὕϕος ἄγιον; or an Exercise on the Creation, and an Hymn to the Creator of the World; written in the express words of the Sacred Text; as an attempt to shew the Beauty and Sublimity of Holy Scripture,” 1716, 8vo. This was followed by a poem, entitled “Sighs on the Death of Queen Anne,” published in 1719; subjoined to which are three poems, viz, 1. “Paraphrase on part of the cxxxixth Psalm.” 2. “The Choice.” 3. “Verses to Lady Elizabeth Cecil, on her Birth-day, Nov. 23, 1717.” At the end of this work he mentions, as preparing for the press, “The History of the two last Months of King Charles I.” and solicits assistance; but this never was published. He also mentions a poem on Saul and Jonathan, not then published. During his residence at the university, and perhaps in the early part of it, he wrote a comedy called the “Humours of the University; or the Merry Wives of Cambridge.” The ms. of this comedy is now in the possession of Octavius Gilchrist, esq. of Stamford, who has obliged the editor with a transcript of the preface . In August 1719, he occurs curate of King’s Cliff, in Northamptonshire, and in 1721 he offered to the world proposals for printing the history and antiquities of his native town. In 1723, he obtained the rectory of Godeby Maureward, by purchase, from Samuel Lowe, esq. who at that time was lord of the manor, and patron of the advowson. In 1727, he drew up a poetical description of Belvoir and its neighbourhood, which is printed in Mr. Nichols’s History of Leicestershire; and in that year his first considerable work appeared, under the title of “Academia Tertia Anglicana; or, The Antiquarian Annals of Stanford, in Lincoln, Rutland, and Northampton Shires; containing the History of the University, Monasteries, Gilds, Churches, Chapels, Hospitals, and Schools there,” &c. ornamented with XLI plates; and inscribed to John duke of Rutland, in an elaborate dedication, which contains a tolerably complete history of the principal events of that illustrious family, from the founder of it at the Conquest. This publication was evidently hastened by “An Essay on the ancient and present State of Stamford, 1726,” 4to, by Francis Hargrave, who, in the preface to his pamphlet, mentions a difference which had arisen between him and Mr. Peck, because his publication forestalled that intended by the latter. Mr. Peck is also rather roughly treated, on account of a small work he had formerly printed, entitled “The History of the Stamford Bull-running.” In 1729, Jie printed a single sheet, containing, “Queries concerning the Natural History and Antiquities of Leicestershire and Rutland,” which were afterwards reprinted in 174O. He was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, March 9, 1732, and in that year he published the first volume of “Desiderata Curiosa; or, A Collection of divers scarce and curious Pieces, relating chiefly to matters of English History 5 consisting of choice Tracts, Memoirs, Letters, Wills, Epitaphs, &c. Transcribed, many of them, from the originals themselves, and the rest from divers ancient ms Copies, or the ms Collations of sundry famous Antiquaries, and other eminent Persons, both of the last and present age: the whole, as nearly as possible, digested into order of time, and illustrated with ample Notes, Contents, additional Discourses, and a complete Index.” This volume was dedicated to lord William Manners; and was followed, in 1735, by a second volume, dedicated to Dr. Reynolds, bishop of Lincoln. There being only 250 copies of these volumes printed, they soon became scarce and high-priced, and were reprinted in one volume, 4to, by subscription, by the late Mr. Thomas Evans, in 1779, without, however, any improvements, or any attempt, which might perhaps have been dangerous by an unskilful hand, at a better arrangement. In 1735, Mr. Peck printed, in a quarto pamphlet, “A complete Catalogue of all the Discourses written both for and against Popery, in the time of King James the Second; containing in the whole an account of four hundred and fifty-seven Books and Pamphlets, a great number of them not mentioned in the three former Catalogues; with references after each title, for the more speedy finding a further Account of the said Discourses and their Authors in sundry Writers, and an Alphabetical List of the Writers on each side.” In 1736, he obtained, by the favour of bishop Reynolds, the prebendal stall of Marston St. Lawrence, in the cathedral church of Lincoln. In 1739, he was the editor of “Nineteen Letters of the truly reverend and learned Henry Hammond, D. D. (author of the Annotations on the New Testament, &c.) written to Mi*. Peter Stainnough and Dr. Nathaniel Angelo, many of them on curious subjects,” &c. These were printed from the originals, communicated by Mr. Robert Marsden, archdeacon of Nottingham, and Mr. John Worthington. The next year, 1740, produced two volumes in quarto; one of them entitled “Memoirs of the life and actions of Oliver Cromwell, as delivered in three Panegyrics of him written in Latin; the first, as said, by Don Juan Roderiguez de Saa Meneses, Conde de Penguiao, the Portugal Ambassador; the second, as affirmed by a certain Jesuit, the lord ambassador’s Chaplain; yet both, it is thought, composed by Mr. John Milton (Latin Secretary to Oliver Cromwell), as was the third with an English version of each. The whole illustrated with a large Historical Preface many similar passages from the Paradise Lost, and other works of Mr. John Milton, and Notes from the best historians. To all which is added, a Collection of divers curious Historical Pieces relating to Cromwell, and a great number of other remarkable persons (after the manner of Desiderata Curiosa, vol. I. and II.)” The other, “New Memoirs of the Life and Poetical Works of Mr. John Milton; with, first, an Examination of Milton’s Style; and, secondly, Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages in Milton and Shakspeare, by the Editor. Thirdly, Baptistes; a sacred Dramatic Poem in Defence of Liberty, as written in Latin by Mr. George Buchanan, translated into English by Mr. John Milton, and first published in 1641, by order of the House of Commons. Fourthly, The Parallel) or archbishop Laud and cardinal Wolsey compared, a vision, by Milton. Fifthly, The Legend of sir Nicholas Throckmorton, knt. Chief Butler of England, who died of poison, anno 1570, an Historical Poem, by his nephew sir Thomas Throckmorton, knt. Sixth, Herod the Great, by the Editor. Seventh, The Resurrection, a Poem, in imitation of Milton, by a Friend. And eighth, a Discourse on the Harmony of the Spheres, by Milton; with Prefaces and Notes.” Of these his “Explanatory and Critical Notes on divers passages of Shakspeare” seem to prove that the mode of illustrating Shakspeare by extracts from contemporary writers, was not entirely reserved for the modern commentators on our illustrious bard, but had occurred to Mr. Peck. The worst circumstance respecting this volume is the portrait of Milton, engraved from a painting which Peck got from sir John Meres of KirkbyBeler in Leicestershire. He was not a little proud to possess this painting, which is certainly not genuine and what is worse, he appears to have known that it was not genuine. Having asked Vertue whether he thought it a picture of Milton, and Vertue peremptorily answering in the negative, Peck replied, “I'll have a scraping from it, however: and let posterity settle the difference.”

In 1742, Mr. Peck published his last work: “Four Discourses, viz. 1. Of Grace, and how to excite it. 2. Jesus Christ the true Messiah, proved from a consideration of his miracles in general. 3. The same proved from a consideration of his resurrection in particular. 4. The necessity and advantage of good laws and good magistrates: as delivered in two visitation and two assize-sermons.” At this time he had in contemplation no less than nine different works but whether he h&d not met with encouragement for those which he had already produced, or whether he was rendered incapable of executing them by reason of his declining health, is uncertain; none of them, however, ever were made public. He concluded a laborious, and it may be affirmed, an useful life, wholly devoted to antiquarian pursuits, Aug. 13, 1743, at the age of sixty-one years. He was buried in the church of Godeby, with a Latin inscription. There are two portraits of him; one in his “Memoirs of Milton; the other prefixed to the second edition of his” Desiderata Curiosa,“inscribed,” Francis Peck, A. M. natus Stanfordias, 4 Maii, MDCXCII." By his wife, the daughter of Mr. Curtis of Stamford, he had two sons, Francis, a clergyman, who died in 1749, rector of Gunby in Lincolnshire; and Thomas, who died young; and a daughter, Anne, widow (in 1794) of Mr. John Smalley, farmer at Stroxton in Lincolnshire.

The greater part of Mr. Peck’s Mss. became the property of sir Thomas Cave, bart. Among others, he purchased 5 vols. in 4to, fairly transcribed for the press, in. Mr. Peck’s own neat hand, under the title of “Monasticon Anglicanum.” These volumes were, on the 14th of May, 1779, presented to the British Museum, by the last sir Thomas Cave, after the death of his father, who twenty years before had it in contemplation to bestow them on that excellent repository. They are a most valuable and almost inestimable collection, and we hope will not be neglected by the editors of the new edition of Dugdale. Mr. Peck’s other literary projects announced in the preface to his “Desiderata,” and at the end his “Memoirs of Cromwell,” are, 1. “Desiderata Curiosa,” vol. III. Of this Mr. Nichols has a few scattered fragments. 2. “The Annals of Stanford continued.” 3. “The History and Antiquities of the Town and Soke of Grantham, in Lincolnshire.” 4. “The Natural History and Antiquities of Rutland.” 5. “The Natural History and Antiquities of Leicestershire.” The whole of Mr. Peck’s Mss. relative to this work, were purchased by sir Thomas Cave, in 1754, whose grandson, with equal liberality and propriety, presented them to Mr. Nichols for the use of his elaborate history of that county. It appears from one of Mr. Peck’s Mss. on Leicestershire, that he meditated a chapter on apparitions, in which he cordially believed. 6. “r rhe Life of Mr. Nicholas Ferrar, of Little Gidding, in the county of Huntingdon, gent, commonly called the Protestant St. Nicholas, and the pious Mr. George Herbert’s Spiritual Brother, done from original Mss.” This ms. of Ferrar is now in the possession of Mr. Gilchrist of Stamford, before mentioned, who informs us that there is nothing in it beyond what may be found in Peckard’s Life of Ferrar. 7. “The Lives of William Burton, esq. author of the Antiquities of Leicestershire, and his brother Robert Burton, B. D. student of Christ-church, and rector of Seagrave, in Leicestershire, better known by the name of Democritus jun.” Mr. Nichols had also the whole of this ms. or plan, which was merely an outline. 8. “New Memoirs of the Restoration of King Charles the Second (which may be considered also as an Appendix to secretary Thurloe’s Papers), containing the copies of Two Hundred and Forty-six Original Letters and Papers, all written annis 1658, 1659, and 1660 (none of them ever yet printed). The whole communicated by William Cowper, esq, Clerk of the Parliament.” In 1731, Mr. Peck drew up a curious “Account of the Asshebys and De la Launds, owners of Bloxham, in the county of Lincoin,” a ms. in the British Museum. Mr. Gilchrist has a copy of Langbaine’s Lives, carefully interlined by him, whence it should seem that he meditated an enlargement of that very useful volume. Mr. Peck also left a great many ms sermons, some of which are in the possession of the same gentleman, who has obligingly favoured us with some particulars of the Stamford antiquary.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Edward 1. was born in the county of Sussex, about 1240, and educated in the monastery at Lewes, whence he was sent to Oxford, and became a minorite friar. Hid name occurs in the registers of Merlon-college, which was founded in his time, but not with sufficient precision to enable us to say that he was educated there. He was, however, created D. D. at this university, and read public lectures. Pits says he was professor of divinity, and afterwards provincial of his order in England. He appears to have been twice at Paris, where he also read lectures with great applause. He went from Paris, after his second visit, to Lyons, where he obtained a canonry in the cathedral, which Godwin and Cave inform us was held with the archbishopric of Canterbury for two centuries after. Fuller says it was a convenient half-way house between Canterbury and Rome. He then went to Rome, where the pope appointed him auditor or chief judge of his palace, but Leland calls the office which the pope bestowed upon him that of Palatine lecturer or reader, “lector, ut vocant, Palatinus.” In 1278, this pope consecrated him archbishop of Canterbury, on Peckham’s agreeing to pay his holiness the sum of 4000 marks, which there is some reason to think he did not pay; at least it is certain he was so slow in remitting it, that the pope threatened to excommunicate him.

On his arrival in England, he summoned a convocation at Lambeth, reformed various abuses in the church, and punished several of the clergy for holding pluralities, or for being non-residents; nor did he spare the laity, of whatever rank, if found guilty of incontinence. In 1282 he went in person to the prince of Wales, then at Snowdon, in order to bring about a reconciliation between him and the king (Edward I.) but was unsuccessful, and therefore, when on his return he passed through Oxford, he excommunicated the prince and his followers. He died at Mortlake, in 1292, and was buried in Canterbury cathedral, near the remains of St. Thomas a Becket. Godwin represents him as a man of great state and outward pomp, but easily accessible and liberal, except to the Jews, whom he persecuted severely. He founded a college at Wingham, in Kent, which at the dissolution had an annual revenue of 84l. Wood, in his “Annals,” makes frequent mention of Peckham’s attention to the interests of the university of Oxford; and in some of his regulations he showed his taste and learning in censuring certain logical and grammatical absurdities which prevailed in the schools, and appears to have always promoted discipline and good morals. Tanner enumerates a great number of his works on divinity, which show him accomplished in all the learning of his age. These remain, however, in manuscript, in our different libraries, except some of his letters published by Wharton, and his statutes, institutions, &c. in the “Concil. Mag. Brit, et Hib. vol. II.” Two only of his works were published separately, and often reprinted; viz. his “Collectanea Bibiiorum libri quinque,” Colon. 1513, 1591; Paris, 1514 and his “Perspectiva Communis,” Venice, 1504 Colon. 1592, Norimb. 1542, and Paris, 1556, 4to.

Wood and Winstanley, misguided by former catalogues, have also attributed to him another tragedy, called “Alphonsus, emperor of Germany.” But this, Langbaine assures us, was written by Chapman, he himself having the play in his possession, with that author’s name to it. About 1593 Peele seems to have been taken into the patronage of the earl of Northumberland, to whom he dedicated in that year, “The Honour of the Garter, a poem gratulatorie, the Firstling, consecrated to his noble name.” He was almost as famous for his tricks and merry pranks as Scoggan, Skelton, or Dick Tarleton; and as there are books of theirs in print, so there is one of his called “Merrie conceited Jests of George Peele, gent, sometime student in Oxford; wherein is shewed the course of his life, how he lived,” &c. 1627, 4to. These jests, as they are called, might with more propriety he termed the tricks pf a sharper. Peele died before 1598, of the consequences of his debaucheries. Oldys says he left behind him a wife and a daughter. He seems to have been a person of a very irregular life; and Mr. Steevens, with great probability, supposes, that the character of George Pieboard, in “The Puritan,” was designed as a representative of George Peele. See a note on that comedy, as published by Mr. Malone.

Being now possessed of a living, and of some independent personal property inherited from his mother, he married, in April 1732, miss Anne Clarke, the only daughter of Benjamin Clarke, esq. of Stanley, near Wakefield, in Yorkshire. While he resided in Kent, which was for the space of twenty years, he made himself universally acceptable by his general knowledge, his agreeable conversation, and his vivacity. Having an early propensity to the study of antiquities as well as of the classics, he here laid the foundation of what in time became a considerable collection of books, and his cabinet of coins grew in proportion; by which two assemblages, so scarce among country gentlemen in general, he was qualified to pursue those collateral studies, without neglecting his parochial duties, to which he was always assiduously attentive. Here, however, the placid course of his life was interrupted by the death of Mrs. Pegge, whom he lamented with unfeigned sorrow; and now meditated on some mode of removing himself, without disadvantage, to his native country, either by obtaining a preferment tenable with his present vicarage, or by exchanging this for an equivalent. Having been induced to reside for some time at Surrenden, to superintend the education of Sir Edward Dering’s son, that baronef obtained for him the perpetual curacy of Brampton, near Chesterfield, in the gift of the dean of Lincoln; but the parishioners insisting that they had a right to the presentation, law proceedings took place, before the termination of which in favour of the dean of Lincoln, Mr. Pegge was presented by the new dean of Lincoln, Dr. George, to the rectory of Whittington, near Chesterfield. He was accordingly inducted Nov. 11, 1751, and resided here upwards of forty-four years without interruption. About a fortnight after, by the interest of his friend sir Edward Dering with the duke of Devonshire, he was inducted into the rectory of Brinhill, or Brindle, in Lancashire, on which he resigned Godmersham. Sir Edward also obtained for him in the same year a scarf from the marquis of Hartington (afterwards the fourth duke of Devonshire) who was then called up to the house of peers by the title of baron Cavendish of Hard wick. In 1758 Mr. Pegge was enabled, by the acquiescence of the duke of Devonshire, to exchange Brinhill for Heath, alias Lown, which lies within seven miles of Whittington; a very commodious measure, as it brought his parochial preferments within a smaller distance of each other. The vicarage of Heath he held till his death. His other preferments were, in 1765, the perpetual curacy ofWingerworth; the prebend of Bobenhull, in the church of Lichfield, in 1757; the living of Whittington in Staffordshire, in 1763; and the prebend of Louth, in Lincoln church, in 1772. Towards the close of his life he declined accepting a residentiaryship in the church of Lichfield, being too old to endure, with tolerable convenience, a removal from time to time. His chief patron was archbishop Cornwallis, but he had an admirer, if not a patron, in every dignitary of the church who knew him; and his protracted life, and his frequent and almost uninterrupted literary labours, made him very generally known. In 1791, when on a visit to his grandson, sir Christopher Pegge, of Oxford, he was created LL. D. by that university. He died, after a fortnight’s illness, Feb. 14, 1796, in the ninety-second year of his age, and was buried, according to his own desire, in the chancel of the church of Whittington, near Chesterfield, where his son placed a mural tablet of black marble, over the east window, with a short inscription.

Dr. Pegge’s manners were those of a gentleman of liberal education, who had seen much of the world, and had formed them upon the best models within his observation. Having in his early years lived in free intercourse with many of the principal and best-bred gentry in various parts of Kent, he ever after preserved the same attention, by associating with superior company, and forming honourable Attachments. In his avocations from reading and retirement, few men could relax with more ease and cheerfulness,or better understood the desipere in loco: and as he did not mix in business of a public nature, he appeared to most advantage in private circles; for he possessed an equanimity which obtained the esteem of his friends, and an affability which procured the respect of his dependents. His habits of life were such as became his profession and station. In his clerical functions he was exemplariiy correct, performing all his parochial duties himseif, until the failure of his eye-sight rendered an assistant necessary; but that did not happen till within a fevv years before his death. As a preacher, his discourses from the pulpit were of the didactic and exhortatory kind, appealing to the understandings rather than to the passions of his auditory, by expounding the Holy Scriptures in a plain, intelligible, and unaffected manner. Though he had an early propensity to the study of antiquities, he never indulged himself much in it, as long as more essential and professional occupations had a claim upon him; for he had a due sense of the nature and importance of his clerical functions, and had studied divinity in all its branches with much attention.

As an antiquary, by which character chiefly he will hereafter be known, he was one of ttie most laborious of his time. He was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in 1751, the year in which the charter of incorporation was granted; and when their “Archaiologia” began to be published, he contributed upwards of fifty memoirs, many of which are of considerable length, being by much the greatest number hitherto contributed by any individual member of that learned body. He also wrote seven curious memoirs for the “Bibliotheca Topographica Brit.” and many hundred articles in the Gentleman’s Magazine from the year 1746 to 1795. His principal signatures were Paid Gemsege, (Samuel Pegge), and T. Row, (the rector of Whittington), and sometimes L. E. the final letters of his name. Numerous as these articles are, there is scarcely one of them which does not convey some curious information, or illustrate some doubtful point in history, classical criticism, or antiquities; and if collected together, with some kind of arrangement, might form a very interesting and amusing volume, or volumes.

His independent publications on numismatical, antiquarian, and biographical subjects were also very numerous: 1. “A Series of Dissertations on some elegant and very raluable Anglo-Saxon Remains,” 1756, 4to. 2. “Memoirs of Roger de Weseham, dean of Lincoln, afterwards bishop of Lichfield, and the principal favourite of Robert Grossetete, bishop of Lincoln,” 1761, 4to. 3. “An Essay on the Coins of Cunobelin in an epistle to the right rev. bishop of Carlisle (Dr. Lyttelton), president of the society of antiquaries,” 1766, 4to. 4. “An assemblage of coins fabricated by authority of the archbishops of Canterbury. To which are subjoined two Dissertations,” 1772, 4to. 5. “Fitz-Stephen’s Description of the city of London,” &c. 1772, 4to. 6. “The Forme of Cury. A roll of ancient English cookery, compiled about the year 1390, temp. Rich. II. with a copious index and glossary, 7 ' 1780, 8vo. The original of this curious roll was the property of the late Gustavus Brander, esq. who presented it afterwards to the British Museum. Prefixed to this publication is his portrait, engraved at the expence of Mr. Brander. 7.” Annales Eliae de Trickenham, monachi ordinis Benedictini. Ex Bibliotheca Lamethana.“To which is added,” Compendium compertorum; ex bibliotheca ducis Devoniae,“1789, in 4to. Both parts of this publication contain copious annotations by the editor. The former was communicated by Mr. Nichols, to whom it is inscribed,” ad Johannem Nicolsium, celeberrimum typographum;“and the latter was published by permission of the duke of Devonshire, to whom it is dedicated. 8.” The Life of Robert Grossetete, the celebrated bishop of Lincoln,“1793, 4to. This has very justly been considered as the chef-d'oeuvre- of the author. Seldom has research into an obscure period been more successful. It is a valuable addition to our literary history. 9.” An historical account of Beauchief Abbey, in the county of Derby, from its first foundation to its final dissolution,“1801, 4to. 10.” Anonymiana; or Ten centuries of observations on various authors and subjects," 1809, 8vo, a very entertaining assemblage of judicious remarks and anecdotes. It is needless to add that these two last publications were posthumous.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1731. He studied law, and became a barrister of the MiddleTemple; one of the grooms of his majesty’s privy-chamber, and one of the esquires of the king’s household. He was, like his father, a frequent contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine. He was also author of “Curialia; or an historical account of some branches of the Royal Household,” part I, 1782; part II, 1784, and part III, 1791. He had been several years engaged in preparing the remaining numbers of the “Curialia” for the press; the materials for which, and also his very amusing “Anecdotes of the English Language,” he bequeathed to Mr. Nichols, who published the “Anecdotes” in 1803, 8vo, a second edition in 1814; and the fourth and fifth numbers of the “Curialia” in 1806. He also assisted Mr. Nichols in publishing his father’s ' “History of Beauchief Abbey,” and wrote his father’s life, to which we have referred in the preceding article. He died May 22, 1800, aged sixtyseven, and was buried on the west side of Kensington church-yard. By his first wife, he had one son, Christopher Pegge, M. D. F. R. S. knighted in 1199, and now regins professor of physic at Oxford.

Soon after this, he made a purchase of the barony of Rians, which he completed in 1607; and in the same year, at the solicitation of his uncle, having approved himself before that assembly, he was received a senator on the 1st' of July. In the following year his uncle died. In 1616, he attended Du Vair to Paris; where, in 1618, he procured a faithful copy, and published a second edition of “The -Acts of the Monastery of Maren in Switzerland.” This was in defence of the royal line of France against the title of the Austrian family to the French crown by right of succession; and, upon this, he was nominated the same year, by Louis XIII. abbot of Guistres in Guienne. He remained in France till 1623, when, upon a message from his father, now grown old and sickly, he left Paris, and arrived at Aix in October. Not long after he presented to the court a patent from the king, permitting him to continue in the function of his ancient dignity, and to exercise the office of a secular or lay person, notwithstanding that, being an abbot, he had assumed the person of a churchman. The court of parliament, not assenting to this, decreed unanimously, that, being already admitted into the first rank, he should abide perpetually in it; not returning, as the custom of the court was, to the inferior auditory, in which trials are usually had of criminal cases. He obtained also, a rescript from the pope, to license him to be present at the judgment of capital causes, as even in the higher auditory some select cases of that nature wers customarily heard: but he never made use of this licence, always departing when they came to vote, without voting himself. In 1627, he prevailed with the archbishop of Aix, to establish a post thence to Lyons, and so to Paris and all Europe; by which the correspondence that ho constantly held with the literati every where, was much facilitated. Jn 1629, he began to be much tormented with complaints incident to a sedentary life; and, in 1631, having completed the marriage of his nephew Claude with Margaret D'Alries, a noble lady of the county of Avignon, he bestowed upon him the barony of Rians, together with a grant of his senatorial dignity, only reserving the function to himself for three years. The parliament not agreeing to this, he procured, in 1635, letters-patent from the king, to be restored, and to exercise the office for five years longer, which he did not outlive, for, being seized June 1637, with a fever, he died, on the 24th of that month, in his fifty-seventh year.

A very honourable funeral was provided for him by his nephew Claude, in the absence of his brother, who was then at Paris; but who, returning shortly to Provence, hastened to perform the funeral rites, and to be present at the obsequies. He also procured a block of marble from Genoa, from which a monument was made and erected to his memory, with an epitaph by Rigault. As he had been chosen in his life-time a member of the academy of the Humoristi at Rome, his eulogium was pronounced by John James Bouchier, of that learned society, in the presence of cardinal Barberini, his brother Antonio, cardinal Bentivoglio. and several other cardinals, and such a multitude of celebrated and learned men, that the hall was scarce able to contain them. Many copies of verses, in Italian, Latin, and Greek, were recited; which were afterwards printed together, with a collection of funeral elegies in forty languages, under the title of “Panglossia.” Peiresc was, in his person, of a middle size, and of a thin habit; his forehead large, and his eyes grey; a little hawk-nosed, his cheeks tempered with red the hair of his head yellow, as also his beard, which he used to wear long; his whole countenance bearing the marks of uncommon courtesy and affability. In his diet he affected cleanliness, and in all things about him; but nothing superfluous or costly. His clothes were suitable to his dignity; yet he never wore silk. In like manner, the rest of his house was adorned according to his condition, and very well furnished; but he neglected his own chamber. Instead of tapestry, there hung the pictures of his chief friends and of famous men, besides innumerable bundles of commentaries, transcripts, notes, collections from books, epistles, and such like papers. His bed was exceeding plain, and his table continually loaded and covered with papers, books, letters, and other things; as also all the seats round about, and the greatest part of the floor. These were so many evidences of the turn of his mind, which made the writer of his eulogium compare him to the Roman Atticus; and Bayle, considering his universal correspondence and general assistance to all the literati in Europe, called him “the attorney-general of the literary republic.” The multiplicity of his engagements prevented him from finishing any considerable work; but he left behind him a great number of Mss. on local history and antiquities, mathematics and astronomy, the medallic science, languages, &c. Of the writings of this scholar there have been published 48 Italian letters, addressed to Paul and John Baptist Gualdo, in the “Lettere d'uomini illustri;” a considerable number of letters among those of Camden, and a long and learned dissertation on an ancient tripod found at Frejus, in the “Mem. de Literature et de l'Histoire,” by Desmalets, in 1731. It is remarkable, that though Peiresc bought more books than any man of his time, yet the collection which he left was not large. The reason was, that as fast as he purchased, he kept continually making presents of them to learned men to whom he knew they would be useful. But the destruction of a multitude of his papers after his death, by some of his near relations, is mentioned by the learned with indignation and regret; they were applied to the vile uses of heating the oven and boiling the pot. Gassendi, another ornament of France, has given us his life iii detail, in elegant Latin, one of those delightful works, which exhibit a striking likeness of a great and good man at full length, and shew every feature and fold of the drapery in the strongest and clearest light.

, was born in Great Britain in the fourth century, and is said to have been abbot of the monastery uf Banger. His real name is said to be Morgan, which signifying in the Celtic languages sea born, from A/or, sea, and gan born, was translated into risXayw;, in Latin I'elagius. For the greater part of his life, he Whs distinguished among his brethren both for piety and learning, but towards the close of his life, he went to Rome, and began to teach certain doctrines in that city about the year 400, which occasioned no small disturbance in the church He absolutely denied all original sin, which he held to be the mere invention of St. Augustine and taught that men are entire masters of their actions, and perfectly free creatures; in opposition to all predestination, reprobation, election, &c. He owned, indeed, that the natural power of man needed to be assisted by the grace of God, to enable him to work out his own salvation; but, by this grace, he only meant outward assistance, viz. the doctrines of the law, and of the gospel. Though, when pressed by those words of St. Paul, “Deus est enim, qui operatur in nobis,” &c. he owned that it is God, in effect, that makes us will what is good, when he warns and excites us by the greatness of the glory we are to obtain, and by the promises of rewards; when he makes us love him by revealing his wisdom, &c. These are Pelagius’ s own words, as cited by St. Augustine; who confutes him, and shews, that, besides these exterior graces, there are required other real and interior ones. He owned, that the will of man is indeed aided by a real grace; but he added, that this grace is not absolutely necessary in order to live well; but that it only helps us to do well with the more ease. Julian, one of his adherents, went farther yet; and owned that the assistance of grace was absolutely necessary to enable us to do perfect works. In effect, the grand doctrine of the Pelagians was, that a man might accomplish all the commands of God by the mere power of nature; and that the gifts of grace were only necessary to enable him to act well more easily, and more perfectly.

Here they were well received by John bishop of Jerusalem, the enemy of St. Jerom, and well looked on by the better sort of people. Count Marcellinus, being desirous to know in what their doctrine, which was much talked of, consisted, applied to St. Augustin, bishop of Hippo, for information; and Pelagius, fearing to engage with so formidable an antagonist, wrote the bishop a letter full of protestations of the purity of his faith, and St. Augustin seems always unwilling to believe that Pelagius had fallen into error until the year 414, when Pelagius resolved to undertake his treatise of the natural strength of man, in. support of his doctrine of free-will; which, however, he still expressed in ambiguous terms, but not so as to deceive either Augustine or Jerome, who wrote against him. In Palestine, his doctrine was approved in a council held at Diospolis in the year 415, consisting of fourteen bishops. Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of Pelagius’ s most powerful friends in the east, a man of profound erudition and great reputation; who, though he wrote zealously against all heresies, fell into that of Pelagius, as also of Nestorius. On the other hand, the African bishops held a council, according to custom, in the year 416, at Carthage, and decided that Pelagius and Celestius ought to be anathematized, and communicated their judgment to the pope Innocent I. in order to join the authority of the see of Rome to their own, and, prompted by St. Augustine, refute in a summary way the chief errors imputed to Pelagius, and conclude thus: “Though Pelagius and Celestius disown this doctrine, and the writings produced against them, without its being possible to convict them of falsehood; nevertheless, we must anathematize in general whoever teacheth that human nature is capable of avoiding sin, and of fulfilling the commands of God; as he shews himself an enemy to his grace.” About the same time a council was held at Milevtim, composed of sixtyone bishops; who, after the example of that of Carthage, wrote to pope Innocent, desiring him to condemn this heresy, which took away the benefit of prayer from adults, and baptism from infants. Besides these two synodicai letters, another was written by St. Augustin, ju the name of himself and four more bishops; in which he explained the whole matter more at large, and desired the pope to order Pelagius to Rome, to examine him more minutely, and know what kind of grace it was that he acknowledged; or else to treat with him on that subject by letters, to the end that, if he acknowledged the grace which the church teachetb, he might be absolved without difficulty.

Soon after this, Zosimus received a letter from Praylus, bishop of Jerusalem, successor to John, recommending to him Pelagius’s affair in affectionate terms. This letter was accompanied by another from Pelagius himself, together with the confession of faith before mentioned. In this letter Pelagius said, that his enemies wanted to asperse his character in two points: first, that he refused to baptize infants, and promised them the kingdom of heaven, without the redemption of Jesus Christ; secondly, that he reposed so much confidence in free-will, as to refuse the assistance of grace. He rejected the first of these errors, as manifestly contrary to the gospel; and upon the article of grace he said, “We have our free-will either to sin or not to sin, and in all good works it is ever aided by the divine assistance. We say, that all men have free-will, as well Christians as Jews and Gentiles: all of them have it by nature, but it is assisted by grace in none but Christians. In others this blessing of the creation is naked and unassisted. They shall be judged and condemned; because having free-will, by which they might arrive at faith, and merit the grace of God, they make an ill use of this liberty. The Christians will be rewarded; because they, by making a good use of their free-will, merit the grace of the Lord, and observe his commandments.” His confession of faith was like that of Celestius, On baptism he said, “We hold one single baptism, and we assert that it ought to be administered to children in the same form of words as to adults,” Touching grace he said, “We confess a freewill: at the same time holding, that we stand continually in need of God’s assistance; and that those are as well mistaken, who say with the Manichees, that man cannot avoid sinning, as those who say with Jovinian, that man cannot sin.” He concluded with these words: “Such, blessed pope, is the faith which we have learned in the catholic church, the faith which we have always held, and still continue in. If any thing contained therein shall not Jiave been explained clearly enough, or not with sufficient caution, we desire that you would correct it; you who )iold the faith, and the see of Peter. If you approve of my confession of faith, whoever pretends to attack it, will shew either his ignorance or his malice, or that he is not orthodox; but he will not prove me an heretic.”

For some time this defence answered its purpose, and Zosimus wrote a second letter to Aurelius, and to all the bishops of Africa, informing them that he was now satisfied with Pelagius and Celestius’ s confession of faith, and persuaded of their sincerity. Aurelius, however, and his brethren, were more surprised than daunted at this letter, and firmly maintained the judgment they had given, and which had been confirmed by Innocent I. At the head of their decrees they addressed a second letter to pope Zosimus, in these terms: “We have ordained, that the sentence given by the venerable bishop Innocent shall subsist, until they shall confess without equivocation, that the grace of Jesus Christ does assist us, not only to know, but also to do justice in every action; insomuch, that without it we can neither think, say, or do any thing whatever, that belongs to true piety.” They added, “That Celestius’ s having said in general terms, that he agreed with Innocent’s letters, was not satisfactory in regard to persons of inferior understandings; but that he ought to anathematize in clear terms all that was bad in his writings, lest many should believe that the apostolical see had approved his errors, rather than be persuaded that he had reformed them.” The bishop of Africa likewise reminded pope Zosimus oi his predecessor’s decision, relating to the council of Diospolis; shewed him the artifice made use of in the confession of faith which Pelagius had sent to Rome; and refuted after their manner the cavils of the heretics: and, as Zosimus had reprimanded them for having too easily given credit to the accusers of Celestius, they justified themselves at his expenee; by shewing, that he himself had been too precipitate io this affair. They also declared plainly, that this cause arising in Africa, and having been judged there, Celestius could have no right to appeal from thence, nor the pope to take cognizance of it: to which they added a protest, to prevent Zosimus from attempting to pronounce any sentence by default, in favour of Celestius and Pelagius.

Zosimus, either through a persuasion that these heretics had dealt insincerely with him, or finding it prudent to yield to the necessity of the occasion, upon the receipt of this letter, issued out a formal condemnation of the Pelagians, and applied also to Honorius, requesting him to cause all heretics to be driven out of Rome; in compliance with which, the emperor gave a rescript at Ravenna, April 418, directd to the pretorian prefect of Italy, who, in consequence, issued his ordinance jointly with the pretorian prefect of the east, and the prefect of Gaul, purporting, that all such as should be convicted of this error should suffer perpetual banishment, and that all their possessions should be confiscated. The pope also vigorously prosecuting hs design to extirpate the friends 01 Pelagius, caused all the bishops to be deposed who would not subscribe the condemnation of the new heresy, and drove them out of Italy by virtue of the laws of the empire. Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, likewise rejected their deputies. They were driven from Ephesus and Theodotus bishop of Antioch condemned them, and drove Pelagius thence, who was lately returned from Palestine, where he had taken refuge from the emperor’s rescript. We have no certain account of him after this; but there is reason to believe, that he returned to England, and spread his doctrine there; which induced the bishop of Gaul to send thither St. Germain of Auxerre, in order to refute it. However that be, it is certain that Pelagian heresy, as it is called, spread itself both in the east and west, and took so deep root, that it subsists to this day in different sects, who all go by the general name of Pelagians, except a more moderate part who are called Semi-Pelagians.

This Heresiareh wrote several things, among which are, <e A Treatise upon the Trinity;“” A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles,“which oddly enough has been annexed to those of St. Jerom, and was long thought to be written by him, although a decided Anti-Pelagian;” A Book of Eclogues, or Spiritual Maxims;“several letters, among which is one addressed to a virgin, named Demetrias, which is printed in the works of St. Jerom; several pieces in his own defence and a treatise on free-will. The History of Pelagianism by Jansenius, in his treatise called <fc Augustine,” is thought the best.

, an eminent English mathematician, descended from an ancient family in Lincolnshire, was bora at Southwyke in Sussex, March t, 1610; and educated in grammar-learning at the free-school, then newly founded, at Steyning in that county. At thirteen, he was sent to Trinity college in Cambridge, where he pursued his studies with unusual diligence, but although capable of undergoing any trials, and one of the best classical scholars of his age, he never offered himself a candidate at the election of scholars or fellows of this college. After taking the degree of B. A. in 1628, he drew up the “Description and Use of the Quadrant, written for the use of a friend, in two books;” the original ms. of which is still extant among his papers in the Royal Society; and the same year he held a correspondence with Mr. Henry Briggs on logarithms. In 1630 he wrote “Modus supputatidi Ephemerides Astronomicas (quantum ad motum solis attinet) paradigmate ad an. 1630 accommodate;” and “A Key to unlock the Meaning of Johannes Trithemius, in his Discourse of Ste^anography;” which key Pell the same year imparted to Mr. Samuel Hartlib and Mr. Jacob Homedae. The same year, he took the degree of master of arts at Cambridge, and the year following was incorporated in the university of Oxford. In June he wrote “A Letter to Mr. Edward Win gate on Logarithms;” and, Oct. 5, 1631, “Commentationes in Cosmographiam Alstedii.” July 3, 1632', he married Ithamaria, second daughter of IVtr. Henry Reginolles of London, by whom he had four sons and four daughters. In 1633 he finished his “Astronomical History of Observations of heavenly Motions and Appearances;” and his “Eclipticus Prognostica or Foreknower of the Eclipses; teaching how, by calculation, to foreknow and foretell all sorts of Eclipses of the heavenly lights.” In 1634, he translated “The everlasting Tables of Heavenly Motions, grounded upon the observations of all times, and agreeing with them all, by Philip Lansberg, of Ghent in Flanders” and the same year he committed to writing, “The Manner of deducing his Astronomical Tables out of the Tables and axioms of Philip Lansberg.” In March 1635, he wrote “A Letter of Remarks on Gellibrand’s Mathematical Discourse on the Variation of the Magnetic Needle; and, June following, another on the same subject. Such were the employments of the first six years of Mr. Pell’s public life, during which mathematics entirely engrossed his attention. Conceiving this science of the utmost importance, he drew up a scheme for a mathematical school on an extensive scale of utility and emulation*, Which was much approved by Des Cartes^ but so censured by Mersenne in France, that our author was obliged to write in its defence. The controversy may be seen in Hooke’s Philosophical Collections, and with Pell’s” Idea of the Mathematics."

Dr. Pell invented the method of ranging the several steps of an algebraical calculus, in a proper order, in so many distinct lines, with the number affixed to each step, and a short description of the operation or process in the line. He also invented some mathematical characters.

, an abbe, and an author by profession, of some celebrity at Paris, was born at Marseilles in 1663, and became a religious of the order of Servites. Being tired of this mode of life, he took some voyages as chaplain to a vessel. On his return, he wrote a poem called “An Epistle to the King on the glorious Success of his Arms,” which gained the prize irt th french academy in 1704. With this Epistle Pellegrin had sent an Ode on the same subject, which proved the only formidable rival to his Epistle, and for some time divided the opinions of the academy. This singular success made him known at court. Madame Maintenoti took notice of him, and gained him a brevet to be translated into the order pf Cluni. Pellegrin subsisted solely by the prizes he gained in several literary academies, and his other literary labours. He even kept a kind of shop, where those who wanted occasional verses, as epigrams, sonnets, madrigals, &c. were supplied at certain prices, according to the number and goodness of the lines. This trade growing slack, he began to write for the theatres, but here a new obstacle arose. The cardinal de Noailles insisted that he should either cease to write for the stage, or to officiate at the mass. He would fain have had a dispensation on this $ubject, but, the cardinal being inexorable, he gave up the mass, as least profitable. He would, however, have felt the loss of the latter, had not his friends procured him a salary for writing the account of the theatrical entertainments in the Mercure. Pellegrin deserved to be in better circumstances, for a great part of what he earned so laboriously was distributed among his relations: and his disposition was singularly candid and modest. He was, at the same time, negligent of his appearance, and had an impediment in his speech; circumstances which conspired to plunge him in that neglect he so severely experienced. He lived, however, to the age of 82; and closed this long life on the 5th of September, 1745. His works are very various; poems of all kinds, sacred and profane; versions of the Psalms and other parts of Scripture; comedies, operas, &c. the general character of all which is, that they are seldom excellent in their plans, and that the veriification is almost invariably flat and tedious.

, one of the few who have been able to unite attention to business, with the love and cultivation of letters, was born at Paris in 1630, and bred to the law, but always in strict intimacy with Boileau, Bignon, Lamoignon, and the other great men of his time. He was first counsellor of the Châtelet, then in the parliament, afterwards president of the fourth chamber of requests, and next Prévôt des Marchands. To this place he was nominated in 1668, and signalized his situation there by building a quay at Paris, which still retains his name. Being much approved in this office, be was appointed in 1683 to succeed the famous Colbert in that of controllergeneral of the finances. He held this place only six years, after which he resigned it, and in 1697 retired from court entirely, to lead a life of meditation and devotion. He died in August 1711, at the age of eighty-one. Though the life of Pelletier was so much occupied by business, he either produced or was concerned in several publications. 1. Extracts and Collections from the fathers, the ecclesiastical writers, and from scripture, made with great judgment, in several volumes, 12mo. 2. Editions of the “Comes Theologus,” and “Comes Juridicus,” of Peter Pithou, who was his maternal great grandfather. 3. “Comes Senectutis,” and 4. “Comes Rusticus,” both in 12mo, and written in imitation of the former works of Pithou, consist chiefly of the thoughts of various authors. 5. The best edition of the Body of Canon Law, in Latin, with the notes of Peter and Francis Pithou, in 2 vols, fol. 6. An edition of the Observations of Peter Pithou on the Code and on the Novellae.

, a celebrated French physician, born at Mans in 1517, was eminent also as a scholar, and became principal of the colleges of Bayeux and Mans at Paris, where he died in 1582. His writings have not retained all the estimation which they possessed in his time; but they are numerous. 1. Commentaries on Euclid, written in Latin, 8vo. 2. “De dimensione circuli,” Basil. 1563, fol. 3. “Disquisitiones Geometricae,” Lugd. 1567, 8vo, with some other works of this kind. 4. “Dialogue de POrtografe e prononciacion Frangoase,” Lyon, 1555, 8vo, in which, as may be seen by the title, he proposes to write words as they are pronounced; a theoretical improvement, but attended with too many difficulties in practice to b& adopted in any country. Mr. "James Elphinston made similar attempts, with similar success, in England. 5. Two or three collections of very bad poetry. 6. A description of Savoy. 7. A translation of Horace’s Art of Poetry. 8. A French Art of Poetry written in prose. He published also on his own profession, 9. A small treatise in Latin, on the Plague. And 10. A Concordance of several passages in Galen, with some detached treatises, 1559, one vol. 4to.

, a learned German divine and reformer, was born Jan. 8, 1478, at Ruffach, in Alsatia. His family name was Kursiner, or Kirsner, but the name Pellican, which means the same thing in Latin as Kirsner in German, and is in neither very significant, was given him by his maternal uncle. Pellican began his studies at Ruffach in his sixth year, and under an excellent master, who inspired him with a love for literature; yet his difficulties were many, as, among other hindrances, he was obliged to write down every thing taught him, printing being then in its infancy, and no elementary treatise had issued from the press. His maternal uncle already mentioned, who lived at Heidelberg, and had often been rector of the university, hearing of the progress his nephew made in his studies, sent for him to that seminary, where he applied to the belles lettres and logic for about sixteen months, which was probably as long as his uncle could afford to maintain him. He returned therefore in Sept. 1492 to his parents, who were poor, and could give him little support, but got some employment as assistant to a schoolmaster, and had, what was then of great importance to him, the power of borrowing books from the convent of the Cordeliers. His frequent visits for this purpose brought on an acquaintance with those holy fathers, who conceived a very high opinion of Pellican, now in his sixteenth year, and appear to have found little difficulty in persuading him to enter their order, which accordingly he did in January 1493, but against the consent of his relations. He then commenced his theological studies, and in the following year was admitted to the order of subdeacon. In 1496, at the request of his uncle, he was sent to Tubingen, and recommended to Paul Scriptor, a very learned professor of philosophy and mathematics, under whom he profited much, and who conceived a great affection for his pupil. In 1499, meeting with a converted Jew, who was now one of his own order, Pellican expressed his wish to learn Hebrew, and with the assistance of this Jew accomplished the elementary part, although not without great difficulty. Melchior Adam mentions his enthusiastic joy on receiving the loan of a part of the Bible in Hebrew. Reuchlin, who came to Tubingen in 1500, gave Pellican some assistance in this language; and with this, and other helps, certainly very difficult to be procured at that time, and by indefatigable industry, he at length acquired such knowledge of it, as to be accounted, after Reuchlin, the first Hebrew scholar in Germany.

Pellican was a man of extensive learning, and particularly an able biblical critic. His skill in the languages, and his critical talents, made his services of great importance in the publication of various works. Amerbach, the printer, employed him on the works of St. Augustine published in 1506, in 9 vols. folio; and he executed many translations, particularly of the Bible, or parts of it, the Chaldee paraphrases, &c. His works are said to have been published together in 7 volumes, folio; but, although they may amount, including his commentaries, to that number, there is no such collective edition.

, a French academician, and a man of genius, was descended from an ancient and distinguished family, and born at Beziers in 1624. His mother, who was left a widow very young, brought him up in the protestant religion, and sent him to Castres to learn the belles lettres of Morns, or More, a learned Scotsman, who was principal of a college of the protestants at that place, and father of the famous Alexander More. At twelve years of age he was removed to Montaubon to study philosophy; and thence to Toulouse, where he applied himself to the law. He acquired a good knowledge of the Latin, Greek, Spanish, and Italian languages; but his love for the belles lettres did not make him neglect the law, which he studied so diligently as to publish, when he was not quite one-and-tweiuy, “A Commentary upon the Institutes of Justinian,” Paris, 1645, 12mo. Some little time after he went to Paris, where the celebrated Conrart, to whom he had been recommended by the protestants of Castres, introduced him to the gentlemen of the academy who assembled at his house; but Pellisson soon returned to Castres, the residence of his family, and applied himself to the business of the bar. He had excited the admiration of all about him, and was going on in a most flourishing way, when the small-pox seized him, and disfigured his countenance so much that his friend mademoiselle de Scudery told him he had abused the common liberty of men to be ugly. Having come to Paris a second time, he had contracted a friendship for this ladv, and for many years, it is said, they did not fail either to see or write to each other every day. In 1652 he became secretary to the king; and the same year read his “History of the French Academy, from its establishment in 1635 to 1652,” to that society, who were so well pleased with it that they decreed him the first vacant place in the academy, and that, in the mean time, he should be empowered to come to all their meetings, and give his vote as an academician; with a proviso, however, that the like favour could not hereafter be granted to any person, upon any consideration whatever. This work of PtJlisson, which has always been reckoned a master-piece, was printed at Paris, 1653, in 8vo.

, an historical writer, was born Oct. 17, 1694, at Leipsic, but his family were originally of Lyons. Being appointed preceptor to the prince de Montbelliard’s son, with whom ho spent the years 1712 and 1713, at Geneva, he had an opportunity of attending Messrs. Turretin and Pictet’s theological lectures; and M. Lenfant, whose pupil he also was, consecrated him to the service of the altar. He became pastor of the French church at Berlin, counsellor to the Upper Consistory, member and librarian of the academy, and died 1757, aged sixty-three. His “Histoire des Celtes,” printed in Holland, 1740, and 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo, was reprinted at Paris, 1770, 3 vols. 12mo, or 2 vols. 4to, and is esteemed a work of accuracy and merit.

, a learned divine, was born, according to Fuller, in Sussex, but more probably at Egerton, in Kent, in 1591, and was educated at Magdalen college, Oxford, on one of the exhibitions of John Baker, of Mayfield, in Sussex, esq. Wood informs us that having completed his degree of bachelor by determination, in 1613, he removed to Magdalen-hall, where he became a noted reader and tutor, took the degree of M. A. entered into orders, was made divinity reader of that house, became a famous preacher, a well-studied artist, a skilful linguist, a good orator, an expert mathematician, and an ornament to the society. “All which accomplishments,” he adds, “were knit together in a body of about thirtytwo years of age, which had it lived to the age of man, might have proved a prodigy of learning.” As he was a zealous Calvinist, he may be ranked among the puritans, but he was not a nonconformist. He died while on a visit to his tutor, Richard Capel, who was at this time minister of Eastington, in Gloucestershire, in the thirty-second year of his age, April 14, 1623. His works, all of which were separately printed after his death, were collected in 1 vol. fol. in 1635, and reprinted four or five times; but this volume does not include his Latin works, “De formarum origine;” “De Sensibus internis,” and “Enchiridion Oratorium,” Bishop Wilkins includes Pemble’s Sermons in the list of the best of his age.

, a writer of considerable estimation among the people called Quakers, was the son of an alderman of London during Cromwell’s time, who was lord mayor in 1642, and appointed one of the judges on the trial of the king. For this he was at the restoration prosecuted, and died in the Tower. Isaac the son, was born about 1617, and in his education is said to have had the advantages which the schools and universities of his country could give; but what school or university had the honour of his education, is not mentioned. From his father’s station, we are told, he had a reasonable prospect of rising in the world, but chose a life devoted to religion and retirement; and, as he has himself said, received impressions of piety from his childhood. He is represented by himself and his sect, as one who passed much of the early part of his life in a state of spiritual affliction, perceiving in himself, and in the world at large, a want of that vital religion and communion with the divine nature, which he believed the holy men of ancient time to have possessed. Whatever he read in the Scripture, as opened to his understanding, he determined fully to practise, and was contented to bear the reproach, opposition, and suffering which it occasioned. It appears also, that he met with opposition from his relations, and, among the rest, from his father; but he declares that his heart was preserved in love to them amidst all he suffered from them. On his first hearing of the Quakers, he thought them a poor, weak, and contemptible people, although, while his judgment seemed to reject them, the conferences which he occasionally had with them, seemed to increase his secret attachment. At length, in 1658, he became fully satisfied respecting them, partly through the preaching of George Fox; and became himself an unshaken and constant asserter of their peculiar tenets, as a minister and author.

On his return home his lot was not more easy. His father, observing his delight to be in the company of sober and religious people, such as in the gay and licentious reign of Charles II. was more likely to prevent, than to promote, his rising in the world, endeavoured by severity to divert him from his purpose. Penn, as he relates himself, was whipped, beaten, and finally turned out of doors, in 1662. The father, however, either relenting, or hoping to gain his point by other means, sent his son to Paris, in company with some persons of quality who were travelling that way. In France he continued some time, and returned so well skilled in the language, and in the embellishments of a polite behaviour, that he was joyfully received by his father. During his residence in Paris he was assaulted in the street one evening by a person with a drawn sword, on account of a supposed affront; but, among other accomplishments of a gay man, he had become so good a swordsman as to disarm his antagonist. In one of his writings he very rationally condemns this barbarous practice, reflecting how small a proportion the omission of a piece of respect bears to the loss of life; which in this case might have been consequent upon the rencounter.

After his return from France, he was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, with the view of studying the law, and continued there till the memorable year 1665, when the plague raged in London. In 1666, his father committed to him the care of a considerable estate in Ireland, which occasioned him, for a time, to reside in that kingdom. At Cork he was informed, by one of the people called Quakers, that Thomas Loe, whose preaching had affected him so early in life, was shortly to be at a meeting in that city. To this meeting he went. It is said that Loe, who preached in the meeting, began his declaration with these words: “There is a faith that overcomes the world, and there is a faith that is overcome by the world.” The manner in which Loe enlarged upon this exordium is not known; but the effect was the conviction of young Penn, who afterwards constantly attended the meetings of the Quakers, notwithstanding all obstacles. The year after his arrival in Ireland he was, with many others, taken from a meeting at Cork, and carried before the mayor, by whom he was committed to prison; but was soon released, on application to the earl of Orrery. This was his first imprisonment, at which time he was about twenty-three years of age; and it tended to strengthen the ties of his union with a people whom he believed to suffer innocently. His father, understanding his attachment to the Quakers, remanded him home; and though there was yet no great alteration in his dress, yet his serious deportment evincing the religious state of his mind, confirmed the fears of his father, and gave occasion to a species of conflict between them not easily described. The father felt great affection for an accomplished and dutiful son, and ardently desired the promotion of his temporal interests, which he feared would be obstructed by the way of life he had embraced. The son was sensible of the duty he owed to his parent, and afflicted in believing that he could not obey him but at the risk of his eternal welfare. At length the father would have compounded with the son, and suffered him to retain the simplicity of his manners to all others, if he would consent to be uncovered before the king, the duke (afterwards James II.), and himself. Penn desired time to consider of this requisition; and having employed it in fasting and supplication, in order, as he conceived, to know the divine will, he humbly signified to his father that he could not comply with it. After this, the father being utterly disappointed in his expectations, could no longer endure the sight of his son, and a second time drove him from his family. In this seclusion he comforted himself with the promise of Christ, to those who leave house or parents for his sake. His support, outwardly, was the charity of his friends, and some supplies privately sent him by his mother; but, by degrees, his father, becoming convinced of his integrity by his perseverance, permitted him to return to the family; and, though he did not give him open countenance, he privately used his interest to get him released, when imprisoned for his attendance at the Quakers’ meetings.

In 1668, he first appeared both as a minister and an author among the Quakers. We shall not pretend to give the titles of all his numerous tracts. His first piece has this title, which is very characteristic of the man “Truth exalted, in a short but sure testimony against all those religions, faiths, and worships, that have been formed and followed in the darkness of apostacy; and for that glorious light which is now risen and shines forth in the life and doctrine of the despised Quakers, as the alone good old way of life and salvation; presented to princes, priests, and people, that they may repent, believe, and obey. By William Penn whom Divine love constrains, in an holy contempt, to trample on Egypt’s glory, not fearing the king’s wrath, having beheld the majesty of him who is invisible.” The same year, on occasion of a dispute with Thomas Vincent, a Presbyterian, Penn wrote his “Sandy foundation shaken which occasioned him to be imprisoned a second time in the Tower of London, where he remained about seven months; and from which he obtained his release also, by another book entitled” Innocency with her open face,“in which he vindicated himself from the charges which had been cast on him for the former treatise. In the Tower also he wrote his famous” No Cross no Crown,“or rather, probably, the first edition of it, of which the title was different. It may be esteemed his master-piece, and contains a strong picture of Christian morality. The complete title is,” No Cross, no Crown; a Discourse, shewing the nature and discipline of the holy Cross of Christ; and that the denying of Self, and daily bearing of Christ’s Cross, is the alone way to the Rest and Kingdom of God. To which are added, the living and dying testimonies of many persons of fame and learning, both of ancient and modern times, in favour of this treatise.“It has gone through several editions, and has been lately translated into French. After his release, he again visited Ireland, where his time was employed, not only in his father’s business, but in his own function as a minister among the Quakers, and in applications to the government for their relief from suffering; in which application he succeeded so well, as to obtain, in 1670, an order of council for their general release from prison. The same year he returned to London, and experienced that suffering from which his influence had rescued his friends in Ireland. The Conventicle-act came out this year, by which the meetings of Dissenters were forbidden under severe penalties. The Quakers, however, believing it their religious duty, continued to meet as usual; and when sometimes forcibly kept out of their meeting-houses, they assembled as near to them as they could in the street. At one of these open and public meetings in Gracechurchstreet, Penn preached, for which he was committed to Newgate, his third imprisonment; and at the next session at the Old Bailey, together with William Mead, was indicted for- 4 * being present at, and preaching to an unlawful, sed-tious, and riotous assembly.” He pleaded his own cause, made a long and vigorous defence, though menaced and ill treated by the recorder, and was finally acquitted by the jury, who first brought in a verdict of “Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch-street;” and when that was not admitted, a verdict of “Not guilty.” He was, nevertheless, detained in Newgate, and the jury fined. The trial was soon after published, under the title of “The People’s ancient and just liberties asserted, in the Trial of William Penn and William Mead, at the Sessions held at the Old Bailey in London, the st, 3d, 4th, and 5th of September, 1670, against the most arbitrary procedure of that Court/' This trial is inserted in his works, and at once affords a proof of his legal knowledge and firmness, and of the oppression of the times. The pretence for the detention of Penn in Newgate was for his fines, which were imposed on him for what was called contempt of court: but he was liberated by his father’s privately paying these fines. His paternal kindness now seems to have returned, and flowed abundantly; for he died this year, fully reconciled to his son, and left him in possession of a plentiful estate: it is said, about 1,500l. per annum. Penn, in his” No Cross, no Crown,“p. 473, edit. xiii. 1789), has collected some of his father’s dying expressions; among which we find this remarkable one, in the mouth of a man who had so much opposed the religious conduct of his son” Son William 1 let nothing in this world tempt you to wrong your conscience: 1 charge you, do nothing against your conscience. So will you keep peace at home, which will be a feast to you in a day of trouble."

In 1677, in company with George Fox and Robert Barclay, he again set sail on a religious visit to the Continent. He travelled by Rotterdam, Leyden, and Haerlem, to Amsterdam, at which place, hearing of a persecution of the Quakers at Dantzick, he wrote to the king of Poland an expostulatory letter on their behalf. He then, after some further stay at Amsterdam, proceeded by Osnabrug to Herwerden, or Herford, the residence of the princess Elizabeth, daughter of the king of Bohemia, and granddaughter of James I.

It may not be amiss to mention, that the manner in which the ministers of the people called Quakers travel in the business of their ministry is simply this: Having a view of the country in which they believe themselves divinely required to minister, they proceed from place to place, according as their minds feel disposed, by the touches of the same influence which they conceived to have drawn them from their habitations. Their employment is visiting the meetings, and often the families of their friends and sometimes appointing move public meetings for the information of persons of other societies, whom also they visit, at their duty or inclination leads them. This seems to have been the case with Pcnn and his companions, whose principal business at HerwerJen was in visiting the princess and her family. She received them with great readiness, and they remained four days at her town, in which time they had many religious opportunities, both for worship and conference, with her and in her house, one of which was open to the inhabitants of the town. On leaving Herwerden, he took a circuit in Germany, by Cassel, Francfort, Chrisheim, Manheim, Mentz, Cologne (called by himself Cullen), Mulheim, Wesel, Cleve, and Nimeguen; and returned to Amsterdam in less than a month after he had loft it. After staying about three days, he again left it, and went by Horn, Worcum, Harlingen, Leenwarden, Lippenhus, Groningen, Embden, and Bremen, to his hospitable friend the princess Elizabeth at Herwerden; whence, after another stay of about four days, a second circuit brought him to Amsterdam; and from Holland he returned home, by Harwich and London, to his wife and family at Werminghurst, in Sussex. He concludes the narrative of his journey in thvse words: “I had that evening (viz. of his return) a sweet meeting among them, in which God’s blessed power made us truly glad together: and I can say, truly blessed are they who can cheerfully give up to serve the Lord. Great shall be the increase and growth of their treasure, which shall never end. To Him thai was, and is, and is to come; the eternal, holy, blessed, righteous, powerful, and faithful One; be glory, honour, and praise, dominion, and a kingdom, for ever and ever, Amen.” Marty remarkable circumstances occur in his account of the journey, particularly the religious sensibility and contrition of mind evinced by the princess, and by her friend and companion, Anna Maria, countess of Homes. But we must refer to Penn’s own account, which is in his works, and also separately extant. At the time of his return, and before his entering on this journey, his residence was at Werminghurst, in Sussex, an estate, probably, of his wife’s.

About the time of his return from the continent, his friends the Quakers, among other methods used at that time to harass them, were vexed by laws which had been made against Papists, and penalties of twenty pounds a month, or two-thirds of their estates (Stat. 23 and 29 Eliz.) Mr. Penn, on this occasion, presented (as it is said) a petition of the Quakers to each House of Parliament, and was twice allowed to speak on their behalf, in a committee, probably of the Commons, for a bill for the relief of the Quakers soon after passed that house; but, before it had passed the other house, it was set aside by a prorogation of parliament.

In 1681, king Charles, in consideration of the services of his father, the admiral, and of a debt due to him from the crown at his death, which that extravagant monarch had no other means of paying, granted to Penn a province in North America, lying on the West side of the Delaware, called the New Netherlands; but, on this occasion, denominated by the king, in respect to the grantee, Pennsylvania. Penn soon after published an account of the province, with the king’s patent, describing the country and its produce, and proposing easy terms of settlement to such as might be inclined to go thither. He also sent a letter to the native Indians, informing them of his desire to hold his possession, not only by the king’s grant, but with their consent and love, acknowledging the injustice which had been done them by Europeans, and assuring them of his peaceable intentions. He then drew up, in twenty-four articles, “The Fundamental Constitution of Pennsylvania;” and the following year he published the “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.” This having all the attractions of a popular form, and promising unlimited freedom to all religious sects, and, what was most of all agreeable to them, an emancipation from the expences of an established religion, many single persons, and some families, went to the new province. They soon began to clear and improve their lands, and to build a city, which Penn, keeping in view the principle of brotherly love, which is the strength of civil society, named Philadelphia. Commissioners were also appointed to treat with the Indians; and, in: 1682, he visited his newly-acquired territory. At this time he passed about two years in the province, adjusting its interior concerns, and establishing a friendly correspondence with his neighbours; but found it, at the same time, necessary to vindicate himself, in a spirited letter, from the accusation of ambition and the desire of wealth. The following year, 1683, he gave a more full description of Pennsylvania, in “A Letter addressed to the Committee of the Free Society of Traders to that province, residing in London.” He mentions, that two general assemblies had been held, and with such concord and dispatch, that they sat but three weeks, and at least seventy laws were passed, without one dissent in any material point. He also informs the traders, that the assembly had presented him with an impost on certain goods imported and exported; which impost, after his acknowledgments of their affection, he had freely remitted. He also says, after mentioning the establishment of courts of justice, that to prevent law-suits, three peace-makers had been chosen by every county-court, in the nature of common arbitrators. Before he left the province, he addressed an epistle of caution to his friends of the same religious persuasion settled in it; reminding them of the conspicuous station in which they were then placed; being transplanted from oppression, not only to liberty, but to power; and beseeching them to improve the opportunity which God had now put into their hands. Having thus settled his infant colony, he returned to his wife and family in England in 1684. Not many months after the return of Penn from his colony, Charles II. died, and the respect which James II. bore to the late admiral, who had recommended his son to his care, together with that monarch’s personal acquaintance with Penn himself, procured for him a free access at court. He therefore made use of the opportunity, thus afforded him, of soliciting relief for his persecuted friends, the Quakers, fifteen hundred of whom remained prisoners at the decease of Charles II. All this was meritorious; but the rest of Penn’s conduct seems not quite consistent. The nation, at this time, was justly alarmed, as well knowing the king’s inclination to popery; but Penn’s biographers tell us, that he had no such fears. He had long been intimate with the king, and had given credit to the protestations which James had repeatedly made, of his intention to establish liberty of conscience. On his accession, therefore, Penn took lodgings at Kensington; and his ready and frequent reception at court, drew on him the suspicion of being himself a Papist. Burnet, as was hinted before, so far leaned to this opinion, as to mention it in his history, and to declare that Penn was intimate with Petre the Jesuit, and employed by James II. in Holland, in 1686. Burnet also adds the following description of Penn’s character: “He was a talking vain man, who had long been in the king’s favour. He had such an opinion of his own faculty of persuading, that he thought none could stand before it, though he was singular in that opinion; for he had a tedious luscious way, that was not apt to overcome a man’s reason, though it might tire his patience.” Burnet, therefore, was evidently no friend to Penn. But much of this tediousness and egotism may be proved from Penn’s works. Tiilotson had the same suspicions as Burnet; and having mentioned them publicly, Penn, by letter, inquired of him, if he had really spread the report of his being a Papist? In this letter Penn has these words, among others: “I abhor two principles in religion, and pity them that own them: obedience upon authority, without conviction; and, destroying them that differ from me for God’s sake.” Tiilotson, in reply, mentions the ground of his suspicion; namely, that he had heard of Penn’s corresponding with some persons at Rome, and particularly with Jesuits; but professes his particular esteem of Penn’s parts and temper, and says not a word of his intimacy with Petre, who was in England which, had it subsisted, as both were public men at court, Tiilotson must have known In reply, Penn. declared that he held no correspondence with any Jesuit, priest, or regular, in the world, of the Romish communion, and even that he knew not one any where; declaring himself to be a Christian whose creed was the Scripture. In conclusion, Tiilotson declared himself fully satisfied, and, as in that case he had promised, he heartily begs pardon of Penn. The correspondence may be seen at length in Penn’s Works*. In this year, 1686, he published “A Persuasive to Moderation to Dissenting Christians, &c. humbly submitted to the king and his great council;” soon

been that he was the dupe, either of the been the boast of him and his secy king, or of his own vanity and interest. after which came out the king’s proclamation for a general pardon; which was followed, the next year, by his suspension of the penal laws. Penn presented an address of the Quakers on this occasion. He also wrote a book ort occasion of the objections raised against the repeal of penal laws and test; and, the clamour against him continuing, he was urged to vindicate himself from it, by one of his friends, Mr. Popple, secretary to the Plantation -office, which he did in a long reply, dated 1688. But he had now to cope with more powerful opponents than rumour. The revolution took place, and an intimate of James was of course a suspected person. As he was walking in Whitehail, he was summoned before the council then sitting; and, though nothing was proved against him, he was bound to appear the first day of the following term; but, being continued to the next on the same bail, he was then discharged in open court: nothing being laid to his charge. In the beginning of 1690, he was again brought before the council, and accused of corresponding with James. They required bail of him as before; but he appealed to the king himself, who, after a long conference, inclined to acquit him; nevertheless, at the instance of some of the council, he was a second time held a while to bail, but at length discharged. Soon after this, in the same year, he was charged with adhering to the enemies of the kingdom, but proof failing, he was again cleared by the court of King’s-bench. Being now, as he thought, at liberty, he prepared to go again to Pennsylvania, and published proposals for another settlement there; but his voyage was prevented by another accusation, supported by the oath of one William Fuller (a man whom the parliament afterwards declared to be a cheat and impostor); upon which a warrant was granted, for arresting him, and he narrowly escaped it, at his return from the burial of George Fox. Hitherto he had successfully defended himself; but now, not choosing to expose his character to the oaths of a profligate man, he withdrew from public notice, till the latter part of 1693; when, through the mediation of his friends at court, he was once more admitted to plead his own cause before the king and council; and he so evinced his innocence, that he uas a fourth time acquitted. He employed himself in his retirements in writing. The most generally known production of his seclusion, bears the title of '“Fruits of Solitude, in Reflections and Maxims relating to the conduct of human life;” and another not less valued by his sect is his “Key, &c. to discern the difference between the religion professed by the people called Quakers, and the perversions, &c. of their adversaries, c.” which has gone through twelve editions at least. Not long after his restoration to society, he lost his wife, which affected him so much, that he said all his other troubles were nothing in comparison of this; and he published a short account of her character, dyr?g expressions, and pious end. The following year, he appeared as the eulogist of Geor.ge Fox, in a long preface to Fox’s Journal, then published. The preface, giving a summary account of the people whom Fox had been so much the means of uniting, has been several times printed separately, under the title of “A brief Account of the rise and progress of the people called Quakers.” It has passed through many editions in English, two in French, and has been translated into German by A. F. Wenderborn. The same year he travelled as a minister in some of the western counties; and in the next, we find him the public advocate of the Quakers to parliament, before whom a bill was then depending /for their ease in the case of oaths. In the early part of 1696, he married a second Wife, and soon after lost his eldest son, Springett Penn, who appears, from the character given to him by his father, to have been a hopeful and pious young man, just coming of age. The same year he added one more to his short tracts descriptive of Quakerism, under the title of “Primitive Christianity revived,” &c. and now began his paper cpntroversy with the noted George Keith, who from a champion of Quakerism, and the intimate of Barclay, had become one of its violent opponents. Keith’s severest tract accuses Penn and his brethren of deism. In 1697, a bill depending in parliament against blasphemy, he presented to the House of Peers, “A Caution requisite in the consideration of that Bill” wherein he advised that the term might be so defined, as to prevent malicious prosecutions under that pretence. But the bill was dropped. In 1698, he travelled as a preacher in Ireland, and the following winter resided at Bristol. In 1699, he again sailed for his province, with his wife and family, intending to make it his future residence; but, during his absence, an attempt was made to undermine proprietary governments, under colour of advancing the king’s prerogative. A bill for the purpose was brought into parliament, but the measure was postponed until his return, at the intercession of* his frienrls; who also gave him early information of the hostile preparations, and he arrived in England the latter part of 1701. After his arrival, the measure was laid aside, and Penn once more became welcome at court, by the death of king William, and the consequent acce>sion of queen Anne. On this occasion, he resided once more at Kensington, and afterwards at Knightsbridge, till, in 1706, he removed to a convenient house about a mile from Brentford. Next year he was involved in a law-suit with the executors of a person who had been his steward; and, though many thought him aggrieved, his cause was attended with such circumstances, as prevented his obtaining relief, and he was driven to change his abode to the rules of the Fleet, until the business was accommodated; which did not happen until the ensuing year. It was probably at this time, that he raised 6,600l. by the mortgage of his province.

After a lite of almost constant activity and employment, he found, at the age of sixty -five, that the infirmities of age began to visit him, and to lessen his abilities for travelling with his wonted alacrity; yet, in the year 1709, he visited the west of England, and some counties nearer his residence in the metropolis. But at length, in 17 1O, finding the air near the city not to agree with his declining constitution, he took a handsome seat at Rushcomb, near Twyford, in Berkshire, at which he continued to reside to the time of his decease. In 1712, he had, at distant times, three fits, thought to be of the apoplectic kind. The last of these impaired his understanding and memory, so much as to render him unfit for public action afterwards. His friend, Thomas Story, an eminent Quaker, who had been the first recorder of the corporation of Philadelphia, made him annual visits after this time, to his death. In 1713 and 1714, he found him cheerful, and able to relate past transactions, but deficient in utterance, and recollection of the names of absent persons. In 1715, his memory seemed further decayed; but both in this, and the former year, Story relates, that he continued to utter in the Quakers’ meeting at Heading, short, but sound and sensible expressions. This year he also tried, but without benefit, the effect of the waters at Bath. In 1716, he seemed glad to see his friend, and at parting with him and another, he said, “My love is with you. The Lord preserve you, and remember me in the everlasting covenant.” In 1717, he scarce knew his old acquaintance, or coud wajk without leading. His decease was on the 30th of July, 1718, and his interment the 5th of the next moch, at Jordan, near Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. Without attempting to draw up a regular character of William Pdin, it must be evident from his works, that he was a man of abilities; and, from his conduct through life, that hewas a man of the purest conscience. This, without acceling to his opinions in religion, we are perfectly willing to How and to declare.

A present of the ornithology of Francis Willoughby, made to him at the age of twelve, gave him a taste for that study, and a love for natural history in general, which he afterwards pursued with constitutional ardour, and great reputation; to such small matters do men of talents sometimes owe their prevailing bias. In 1746-7, he made a tour into Cornwall, where he contracted a strong passion for minerals and fossils. The first production of his which appeared in print, though unknown to himself, was an abstract of a letter which he wrote to his uncle, John Myuon, esq. on an earthquake which was felt at Downing, Apr 2, 1750. This appeared in the Philosophical Transacons. In 1754, he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, an honour which he resigned in 1760. Acordng to his own account, his foresight at this time was small. “I had,” says he, “married a most amiable woman my cicumstances were very narrow, my worthy father being alve, and I vainly thought my happiness would have beeo pemanent, and that I never should have been called again froi my retirement to amuse myself in town, or to be of useto the society.”

In 1769, he added a third volume, in octavo, on the reptiles and fishes of Great Britain. In the fifty-eighth volume of the Philosophical Transactions, was published his account of a new species of Pinguin, brought by captain Macbride, from the Falklantl islands. In the same year, in conjunction with sir Joseph Banks, and Mr. Loten, who had been a governor in one of the Dutch islands in the Indian ocean, he published twelve plates of Indian Zoology, but that work was afterwards discontinued. In the spring of this year, he acquired one whom he calls a treasure, Moses Griffith, to whom the public are indebted for numberless scenes and antiquities, and who accompanied Mr. Pennant in all his journeys except that of the present year, which was his first tour into Scotland. “I had,” says he, “the hardiness to venture on a journey to the remotest part of North Britain, a country almost as little known to its southern brethren as Kamtschatka. I brought home a favourable account of the land. Whether it will thank me or no I cannot say, but from the report I have made, and shewing that it might be visited with safety, it has ever since been inondZe with southern visitants.” This year, also, he was elected fellow of the Royal Academy at Drontheim.

In 1793, he published his life, under the whimsical title of “The Literary Life of the late Thomas Pennant, Esq. by himself.” In the advertisement he states, that the termination of his authorial existence took place on March 1, 1791. He came to life again, however, in 1797, and published “The History of the parishes of Whiteford and Holywell;” and in the last year of his life, he gave the public his “View of Hindostan,” 2 vols. 4to, for which he thus accounts: “A few years ago I grew fond of imaginary tours, and determined on one to climes more suited to my years, more genial than that to the frozen north. I still found, or fancied that 1 found, abilities to direct my pen. I determined on a voyage to India, formed exactly on the plan of the introduction to the Arctic Zoology, which commences at such parts of the North as are accessible to mortals. 'From London I follow the coasts southt- rn to part of our Island, and from Calais, along the oceanic shores of Europe, Africa, and Asia, till I have attained those of New Guinea. Respecting these I have collected every information possible from books ancient and modern; from the most authentic, and from living travellers of the most respectable characters of my time. I mingle natural history, accounts of the coasts, climates, and every thing which I thought could instruct or amuse. They are written on imperial quarto, and, when bound, make a folio of no inconsiderable size: and are illustrated, at a vast expence, by prints taken from books, or by charts and maps, and by drawings by the skilful hand of Moses Griffith, and by presents from friends. With the bare possibility of the volume relative to India, none of these books are to be printed in my life-time; but to rest on my shelves, the amusement of my advancing age.” Of these manuscripts there were in all twenty-two volumes originally; but Mr. Pennant, as we have mentioned, printed in his life-time that which relates to India. We may add, in his own words, " Happy is the age that could thus beguile its fleeting hours, without injury to anyone; and, with the addition of years, continue to rise in its pursuits.' 7

Few men have so unceasingly devoted themselves to the promotion of useful knowledge, or published so many volumes, especially on subjects of natural history. His works have been so generally read, and are in such high esteem with the public, that it would be unnecessary in this place to enter into their respective merits. It 'is seldom that works so expensive run through so many editions; but Mr. Pennant had the happy art of relieving the dullest subjects by enlivening and amusing digressions: and his tours and his account of London are distinguished by a fund of anecdote, an easy familiarity of style, and that pleasant turn for research which engages the reader’s attention because it agreeably refreshes his memory, and supplies him with information at a small expence of trouble. Dr. Johnson said of him, when some objections were made to his tours, that “he had greater variety of inquiry than almost any man; and has told us more than perhaps one in ten thousand could have done, in the time that he took.” In 1800, his Son published the third and fourth volumes of “The Outlines of the Globe,” the title which Mr. Pennant gave to his imaginary tours, and which were the continuation of his “View of Hindostan.” This work was accompanied by an elegant tribute to his memory by his affectionate Son, who also published, in the following year, Mr. Pennant’s last work, left by him nearly finished for the press, entitled “A Journey from London to the Isle of Wight,” 4to.

, a native of Florence, where he was born in 1488, was called II Fattore, or the Steward, from having been intrusted with the domestic concerns of Raphael, and soon became one of his principal assistants. He more than any other helped him. in the execution of the cartoons of the Arazzi; and in the Loggie of the Vatican painted the histories of Abraham and Isaac. After the death of his master he executed the fresco of the coronation in the stanza of Constantine. The upper part of the Assumption of the Virgin, a work of Raffaellesque grace, at Monte Lupi, in Perugia, is ascribed to him, though Vasari gives it to Perino del Vaga: the under part with the Apostles is painted by Julio. Of the works which he performed alone, no frescoes, and so few oil-pictures remain, that they may be considered as the principal rarities of galleries. Facility of conception, grace of execution, and a singular felicity in landscape, are mentioned as his characteristics. Penni wished much to unite himself with his coheir Julio, but being coldly received by him at Mantua, went to Naples, where his works and principles might have contributed much toward the melioration of style, had he not been intercepted by death in 1528, in his fortieth year. He left at Naples, with his copy of the Transfiguration, a scholar of considerable merit, Lionarde Afalatesta, or Grazia, of Pistoja. Uc had a brother Lucas, who having a close connection with Perino del Vul;;I, who had married his sister, worked with that master (see Perino) for some years at Genoa, Lucca, and other cities of Italy, with great credit. Afterwards he went to England, and was employed by king Henry VIII. for whom he painted several designs; and was also engaged by some of the merchants of London; but at last he almost entirely quitted the pencil, devoting all his time and application to engraving, as some say, but Mr. Fuseli maintains that he only furnished designs for engravers.

, or Ap Henry, commonly known by his assumed name of Martin Mar-prelate, or Alar-priest, was born in 1559 in Wales, and studied first at Peterhouse, Cambridge, of which he was A. B. in 1584, and afterwards at Oxford, in which latter university he took the degree of master of arts, and was ordained a priest. Afterwards, meeting with some dissatisfaction, as it is said, and being very warm in his temper, he changed his religion, and became an Anabaptist, or rather a Brownist. He was henceforward a virulent enemy to the church of England, and the hierarchy of that communion, as appears sufficiently by his coarse libels, in which he has shewn his spleen to a great degree. At length, after he had concealed himself for some years, he was apprehended at Stepney, and tried at the King’s-Bench, before sir John Pophain, chief-justice, and the rest of the judges, where he was indicted and condemned for felony, for papers found in his pocket, purporting to be a petition to the queen; and was executed, according to Fuller, at St. Thomas Waterings, in 1593. It appears, that some violence was put upon the laws, even as they then stood, to form a capital accusation against him. For his libels be could not be accused, the legal time for such an accusation having elapsed before he was taken: the papers upon which he was convicted, contained only an implied denial of the queen’s absolute authority to make, enact, decree, and ordain laws; and implied, merely by avoiding to use those terms, according to the very words of the lordkeeper Puckering. His execution was therefore in a high degree unjust. His chief publications are, 1. “Martin Mar-prelate,” the tract that gave so much offence. 12. “Theses Martinianae,” 8vo. 3. “A view of publicke Wants and Disorders in the service of God, in a Petition to the high court of Parliament,” 1588, 8vo. 4. “An Exhortation to the Governors and People of Wales, to labour earnestly to have the preaching of the Gospel planted among them,” 1588, 8vo. 5. “Reformation no Enemy to her Majesty and the State,” 1590, 4to. 6. “Sir Simon Synod’s Hue and Cry for the Apprehension of young Martin Mar-priest, with Martin’s Echo,” 4to. Most of these, and some others, were full of low scurrility and petulant satire. Several tracts, equally scurrilous, were published against him; as, “Pappe with a Hatchet, or a Country Cuffe for the Idiot Martin to hold his Peace;” “X A Whip for an Ape, or Martin displaied;” and others of the same kind. In the composition of these pamphlets, he is said to have had the assistance of John Udall, John Field, and Job Throckmorton, who published their joint effusions at a private printing press. Penry was a man of some learning and zeal for religion, but in his notions of government, both of church and state, appears to have adopted more wild theories than ever his successors, when in power, attempted to carry into practice. His sentence, however, was unjust, and the enemies of the hierarchy have therefore found it no difficult matter to place John Penry at the head of their list of martyrs.

The change in Pepusch’s circumstances by Margarita’s fortune was no interruption to his studies: he loved music, and he pursued the knowledge of it with ardour. At the instance of Gay and Kich, he undertook to compose, or rather to correct, the music for “The Beggar’s Opera.” His reputation was now at a great height; and in 1737 he was chosen organist of the Charter-house, and retired, with his wife, to that venerable mansion. The wife died in 1740, before which he lost a son, his only child; so that he had no source of delight left, but the prosecution of his studies, and the teaching of a few favourite pupils, v\ho attended him at his apartments. Here he drew up that account of the ancient genera, which was read before the Royal Society, and is published in the “Philosophical Transactions” for Oct. Nov. and. Dec. 174&; and, soon after the publication of that account, he was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society.

He died the 20th of July, 1752, aged eighty-five; and was buried in the chapel of the Charter-house, where a tablet with an inscription is placed over him. ­As a practical musician, though so excellent a harmonist, he was possessed of so little invention, that few of his coinpositions were ever in general use and favour, except one of his twelve cantatas, “Alexis,” and his airs for two flutes or violins, consisting of simple easy themes or grounds with variations, each part echoing the other in common divisions for the improvement of the hand. Indeed, though only one cantata of the two books he published was ever much noticed, there is considerable harmonica! merit in them all; the recitatives are in general good, and the counterpoint perfectly correct and masterly. Among all the publications of Pepusch, the most useful to musical students was, perhaps, his correct edition of Corelli’s sonatas and concertos in score, published in 1732. He treated all other music in which there was fancy or invention with sovereign contempt. Nor is it true, as has been asserted, that “he readily acquiesced in Handel’s superior merit.” Handel despised the pedantry of Pepusch, and Pepusch, in return, constantly refused to join in the general chorus of Handel’s praise.

The sole ambition bf Pepus’ch, during the last years of his life, seems to have been the obtaining the reputation of a profound theorist, perfectly skilled in the music of the ancients; and attaching himself to the mathematician De Moivre and Geo. Lewis Scot, who helped him to calculate ratios, and to construe the Greek writers on music, he bewildered himself and some of his scholars with the Greek genera, scales, diagrams, geometrical, arithmetical, and harmonical proportions, surd quantities, apotomes, lemmas, and every thing concerning ancient harmonics, that was dark, unintelligible, and foreign to common and useful practice. But with all his pedantry and ideal admiration of the music of the ancients, he certainly had read more books on the theory of modern music, and examined more curious compositions, than any of the musicians of his time; and though totally devoid of fancy and invention, he was able to correct the productions of his contemporaries, and to assign reasons for whatever had been done by the greatest masters who preceded him. But when he is called the most learned musician of his time, it should be said, in the music of the sixteenth century. Indeed, he had at last such a partiality for musical mysteries, and a spirit so truly antiquarian, that he allowed no composition to be music but what was old and obscure. Yet, though he fettered the genius of his scholars by antiquated rules, he knew the mechanical laws of harmony so well, that in glancing his eye over a score, he could by a stroke of his pen smooth the wildest and most incoherent notes into melody, and make them submissive to harmony; instantly seeing the superfluous or deficient notes, and suggesting a bass from which there was no appeal. His “Treatise on Harmony” has lately been praised, as it deserves, in Mr. Shield’s valuable “Introduction to Harmony.”

His admirable library, the most curious and complete in scarce musical authors, theoretical and practical, was dispersed after his death. He bequeathed a considerable part of his best books and manuscripts to Kelner, an old German friend, who played the double-bass in the theatres and concerts of the time; some to Travers, and these and the rest were at last sold, dispersed, and embezzled, in a manner difficult to describe or understand.

In April 1684, on his return from Tangier, and on the re-assumption of the office of lord-high-admiral of England by Charles II. Mr. Pepys was again appointed secretary, and held that office during the whole of Charles’s and James’s reigns. During the last critical period, he restricted himself to the duties of his office, and never asked or accepted any grant of honour or profit, nor meddled with any aflair that was not within his province as secretary of the admiralty. In Charles’s time he procured that useful benefaction from his majesty, for placing ten of the mathematical scholars of Christ’s hospital, as apprentices to masters of ships.

, fifth baronet of the family, and first earl of Egmont, was born at Barton, in the county of York, July 12, 1683, and received his education at Magdalen college, Oxford. On quitting the university, in June 1701, he made the tour of England, and was admitted F. R. S. at the age of nineteen. Upon the death of king William, and the calling of a new parliament in Ireland, he went over with the duke of Ormorid, and though not of age, was elected for the county of Cork, and soon after appointed a privy-counsellor. In July 1705, he began the tour of Europe, which he finished in October 1707; and returning to Ireland in May 1708, was again, representative for the county of Cork. In 1713, he erected a lasting monument of his charity, in a free-school at Burton. On the accession of George I. he was advanced to the peerage of Ireland by the title of baron Perceval, in 1715, and viscount in 1722. In the parliament of 1722 and 1727, he was member for Harwich, in Essex, and in 1728 was chosen recorder of that borough. Observing, by the decay of a beneficial commerce, that multitudes incapable of finding employment at home, mightbe rendered serviceable to their country abroad, he and a few others applied to the crown for the grant of a district of land in America, since called Georgia, which they proposed to people with emigrants from England, or persecuted Protestants from other parts of Europe, by means of private contribution and parliamentary aid. The charter being granted, in June 1732, Lord Perceval was appointed first president; and the king having long experienced his fidelity to his person and government, created him earl of Egmont in. Nov. 1733. Worn out by a paralytic decay, he died May 1, 1748. His lordship married Catherine, daughter of sir Philip Parker a Morley, by whom he had seven children, who all died before him, except his eldest son and successor, of whom we shall take some notice.

As a public speaker, Mr. Perceval rose much in reputation and excellence, after he became minister. As the leading man in the house of commons, it was necessary that he should be able to explain and defend all his measures; and this duty, arduous under all circumstances, was particularly so in his case, as there was scarcely any other member of administration, in that house, competent to the task of relieving or supporting him. He, in a short time, proved that he stood in need of no assistance: he made himself so completely acquainted with every topic that was likely to be regularly discussed, that he was never taken unawares or at a loss. In the statement of his measures he was remarkably methodical and perspicuous. By many persons he was deemed particularly to excel in his replies; in rebutting any severe remark that came unexpectedly upon him, and in turning the fact adduced, or the argument used, against his opponent. Had his life been spared, it is probable he would have risen to the highest degree of reputation for historical and constitutional knowledge, and political skill.

The death of this valuable servant of the public was occasioned by the hand of an assassin, one of those men who brood over theirown injuries, orsupposed injuries, until they become the willing agents of malignity and revenge. This catastrophe happened on Monday, May 11, 1812. About five o'clock in the evening of that day, Mr. Perceval was entering the lobby of the house of commons, when he was shot by a person named John Bellingham, and almost instantly expired. The murderer, when apprehended, acknowledged his guilt, but pleaded that he had claims on administration which had been neglected; and it appeared, on his trial, that he had deliberately prepared to murder some person in administration, without any particular choice; and that when he was possessed by this hellish spirit, Mr. Perceval presented himself. No marks of insanity appeared either previous to or on his trial, nor could he be brought to any proper sense of his crime. He was executed on the Monday following.

The “Manchester Memoirs” were also frequently honoured by Dr. Percival’s communications. The society, indeed, by which they were published, derived its origin from the stated weekly meetings for conversation, which Dr. Percival held at his own house; the resort of the literary characters, the principal inhabitants, and of occasional strangers. As these meetings became more numerous, it was in time found convenient to transfer them to a tavern, and to constitute a few rules for the better direction of their proceedings. The members thus insensibly formed themselves into a club, which was supported with so much success, as at length, in 1781, to assume the title of “The Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester.” Dr. Percival was appointed joint president with James Massey, esq. and his literary contributions were frequent and valuable. When acting as president, his powers both of comprehension and discourse were sometimes called forth to considerable exercise; and perhaps on no occasion were his talents more fully exerted, than when he at once guided and systematized the topics of animated discussion. Another scheme which he patronized was for the establishment of public lectures on mathematics, the fine arts, and commerce, somewhat in the manner of the institutions lately attempted in London; but that of Manchester, after two winters of unfavourable trial, was at length reluctantly abandoned, and those of the metropolis have not yet much to T)oast on the score of encouragement or utility. Dr. Percival experienced two other disappointments, in his endeavours to support the dissenting academy at Warrington, and to establish one at Manchester in its room, neither of which schemes was found practicable.

“As a literary character, Dr. Percival held a distinguished rank. His earlier publications were devoted to medical, chemical, and philosophical inquiries, which he pursued extensively, combining the cautious but assiduous employment of experiment, with scientific observation, and much literary research. His ‘ Essays Medical and Experimental,* obtained for the author a considerable reputation in the philosophical world, and have gone through many editions. The subjects which occupied his pen, in later years, were of a nature most congenial to his feelings; and in the several volumes of ’ A Father’s Instructions to his Children,‘ and of ’ Moral Dissertations,‘ which appeared at different periods, through a space of twentyfive years, and which were originally conceived with the design of exciting in the hearts of his children a desire of knowledge and a love of virtue, there is to be found as much of pure style, genuine feeling, refined taste, apt illustration, and pious reflection, as can easily be discovered, in the same compass, in any didactic composition. His last work, which he expressly dedicated as a ’ parental legacy* to a much-loved son, under the title of *‘ Medical Ethics, or a Code of Institutes and Precepts, adapted to the professional conduct of physicians and surgeons,’ published in 1803, is a monument of his professional integrity, in which, while he depicted those excellencies of the medical character which he approved in theory, he unconsciously drew the portrait of himself, and described those which he every day exemplified in practice.”

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

, an old French satirist, was born at Arnay-le-Duc, a small town of Burgundy, about the end of the fifteenth century. He went through his early studies with credit, and was advanced to the place of valet-de-chambre to the queen of Navarre, sister of Francis I. About this time a, considerable freedom of opinion prevailed at court, and the disputes of certain theologians had occasionally furnished subjects for ridicule. Des Periers, who was young and lively, wrote his celebrated work entitled “Cymbalum mundi,” in which the divines of the time found nothing but atheism and impiety, while others considered the satire as general and legitimate. A modern reader will perhaps discover more folly and extravagance than either impiety or wit. The work, however, was prohibited by an order of council soon after it appeared; and, according to De Bure and Brunet, but one copy is known to exist of the original edition. Des Periers did not lose his situation at court, but continued in the same favour with the queen of Navarre, and is supposed to have written some part of the tales which were published under the name of that princess. Des Periers is said to have indulged in excesses which ruined his health, and in the paroxysm of a fever he committed suicide in 1544. His works are, I. The “Andria” of Terence, translated into French rhyme, Lyons, 1537, 8vo. 2. “Cymbalum mundi, en Fran9ais, contenant quatres dialogues poetiques, fort antiques, joyeux, et facetieux,” Paris, 1537, 8vo. This, which was the first edition, he published under the name of Thomas du Clevier. It was reprinted at Lyons in 1538, 8vo, also a rare edition. In 1711, Prosper Marchand pubJished an edition in 12mo, with a long letter on the history of the work. Of this an English translation was published in 1712, 8vo. The last edition is that with notes by Falconet and Lancelot, which appeared in 1732, 12mo. 3. “Recueil desCEuvres de B. Desperiers,” Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This is the only edition of his works which contains his poetry. 4. “Nouvelles recreations et joyeux devis,” Lyons, 1558, 8vo, a collection of tales attributed to Des Periers, but which some think were the production of Nicolas Denisot, and James Peletier; and it is certain that there are some facts mentioned in them which did not occur until after the death of Des Periers. The reader may derive more information on this subject, if he think it interesting, from La Monnoye’s preliminary dissertation to the edition of these tales published at Amsterdam (Paris) in 1735, 3 vols. 12mo.

, one of the most distinguished scholars and assistants of Raphael in the Vatican, was born in a Tuscan village in 1500. Vasari seems to consider him as the first designer of the Florentine school after Michael Angelo, and as the best of Raphael’s pupils: it is certain, that in a general grasp of the art, none approached Julio Romano so near, equally fit to render on a large scale the historic designs of his master, to work in stucco and grotesque ornaments with Giovanni da Udine, or with Polidoro to paint chiaroscuros. The Immolation of Isaac in the Stanze, the taking of Jericho, Joseph sold by his Brethren, Jacob with the Vision, the Drowning of Pharaoh, with others among the frescos of the Loggia, are his. That he had much of the Florentine style may be seen in the works of his own invention, such as the Birth of Eve in the church of St. Marcello, at Rome, a; high-wrought performance, with some Infants that have an air of life. At a monastery in Tivoli there is a St. John in the same style, with an admirable landscape, and many more in Lucca and Pisa.

But the real theatre of Perino’s art is Genoa, where he arrived in 1528, to preside over the embellishments and decorations of the magnificent palace of prince Doria without the gate of St. Tommaso. Every thing in this mansion, whether executed by Pierino himself, or from his cartoons, breathes the spirit of Raphael’s school, in proportion to the felicity or inferiority of execution; a nearer approach neither his powers nor principles permitted: eager to dispatch, and greedy to acquire, he debased much of his plan by the indelicate or interested choice of his associates. It is, however, to the style he introduced, and the principles he established, that Genoa owes the foundation of its school. Perino died in 1547, aged forty-seven.

, a learned prelate of the fifteenth century, was born at Sasso Ferrato, of an illustrious but reduced family. Being obliged to maintain, himself by teaching Latin, he brought the rudiments of that language into better order, and a shorter compass for the use of his scholars; and going afterwards to Rome, was much esteemed by cardinal Bessarion, who chose him for his conclavist or attendant in the conclave, on the death of Paul II. It was at this juncture that he is said to have deprived Bessarion of the papacy by his imprudence; for the cardinals being agreed in their choice, three of them went to disclose it, and to salute him pope; but Perot would not suffer them to enter, alledging that they might interrupt him in his studies. When the cardinal was informed of this blunder, he gave himself no farther trouble, and only said to his conclavist in a mild, tranquil tone, “Your ill-timed care has deprived me of the tiara, and you. of the hat.” Perot was esteemed by several popes, appointed governor of Perugia, and afterwards of Ombria, and was made archbishop of Siponto, 1458. He died 1480, at Fugicura, a country house so called, which he had built near Sasso Ferrato. He translated the first five books of “Polybius,” from Greek into Latin, wrote a treatise “De generibus metrorum,” 1497, 4to also “Rudimenta Grammatices,” Rome, 1473, fol. a very rare and valuable edition, as indeed all the subsequent ones are; but his most celebrated work is a long commentary on Martial, entitled “Cornucopia, seu Latinae Linguae Commentarius,” the best edition of which is that of 1513, fol. This last is a very learned work, and has been of great use to Calepin in his Dictionary.

Colbert, the celebrated French minister, who loved architecture, and patronized architects, advised Perrault to undertake the translation of Vitruvius into French, and illustrate it with notes; which he did, and published it in 1673, folio, with engravings from designs of his own, which have been esteemed master-pieces. Perrault was supposed to have succeeded in this work beyond all who went before him, who were either architects without learning, or learned men without any skill in architecture. He united a. knowledge of every science directly or remotely connected with architecture, and had so extraordinary a genius for mechanics, that he invented the machines by which those stones of fifty-two feet in length, of which the front of the Louvre is formed, were raised. A second edition of his Vitruvius, revised, corrected, and augmented, was printed at Paris, 1684, in folio; and he afterwards published an abridgment for the use of students; and another valuable architectural work, entitled “Ordonnance des cinq Especes de Colonnes, selon la methode des Anciens,” 1683, fol.

, younger brother to the preceding, was born at Paris, Jan. 12, 1628, and at the age of eight was placed in the college of Beauvais, where he distinguished himself in the belles-lettres, and had a considerable turn to that kind of philosophy which consisted mostly in the disputatious jargon of the schools. He also wrote verses, aud indulged himself in burlesque, which was then much in vogue; on one occasion he amused himself in turning the sixth book of the flLiieid into burlesque verse. He had, however, too much sense when his ideas became matured by reflection, to attach the least value to such effusions. When his studies were completed, he was admitted an advocate, and pleaded two causes with a success sufficient to induce the magistrates to wish to see him au tached to the bar. But Colbert, the French minister, wh was acquainted with his merit, soon deprived the law of his services. He chose him for secretary to a small academy of four or five men of letters, who assembled at his house twice a week. This was the cradle of that learned society afterwards called “Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres.” The little academy employed itself on the medals and devices required from it by Colbert, in the king’s name; and those proposed by Charles Perrault were almost always preferred. He had a singular talent for compositions of this kind, which require more intellectual qualities than is generally supposed. In the number of his happy devices may be ranked that of the medal struck on account of the apartments given by the king to the French academy in the Louvre itself. This was Apollo Palatinus; an ingenious allusion to the temple of Apollo, erected within the precincts of the palace of Augustus. Perrault not only was the author of this device, but likewise procured the academy the apartments it obtained from the monarch, who at the same time was pleased to declare himself its protector. Colbert, enlightened by the wise counsels of Perrault, inculcated upon the king, that the protection due to genius i s one of the noblest prerogatives of supreme authority. He also procured the establishment of the academy of sciences, which at first had the same form with the French academy, that of perfect equality among its members. His brother Claude had also a considerable share in this useful establishment.

Scarcely was the academy of sciences established, when Colbert set apart a yearly fund of 100,000 livres, to be distributed by the king’s order among celebrated men of letters, whether French or foreigners. Charles Perrault partook likewise in the scheme of these donatives, and in their distribution. It was extended throughout Europe, to the remotest north, although we do not find any English among the number. Colbert, whose esteem for the talents and character of Perrault continually increased, soon employed him in an important and confidential office. Being himself snperintendant of the royal buildings, he appointed him their comptroller general; and this office-, in the hands of Perrau't, procured a new favour to the arts, that of the establishment of the academies of painting, sculpture, and architecture. Then it was that his brother Claude produced the celebrated design of the front of the Louvre. The credit Perrault enjoyed, and the gratitude due to him from men of letters, had from 1671 given him admission into the French academy. On the day of his reception, he returned thanks in an harangue which gave so much satisfaction to the society, that they from that time resolved to make public the admission -discourses of their members. But as the favour of the great is rarely lasting, Perrault underwent some mortifications from Colbert, which compelled him to retire; and although the minister, sensible of his loss, solicited him to return, he refused, and went to inhabit a house in the suburbs of St. Jacques, the vicinity of which to the colleges facilitated the superintendance of the education of his sons. After the death of Colbert, he received a fresh mortification, that of having his name erased from the academy of medals, by Louvois. This minister did not love Colbert; and his hatred to the patron fell upon the person patronized, though he had ceased to be so.

When the quarrel between Boileau and Perrault had lasted long enough to make them both almost equally in the wrong, and the two adversaries had satiated themselves, the one with reproaches, the other with epigrams; when even the public began to grow weary of it; common friends, who ought sooner to have interposed, endeavoured to effect a reconciliation. They were indeed entitled to mutual esteem, which the one commanded by his uncommon powers, the other by his knowledge and understanding, and both by their probity. On the side of Perrault, the reconciliation was sincere. He even suppressed several strokes against the ancients, which he had in reserve for the fourth volume of his “Parallels,” “choosing rather,” said he, “to deprive himself of the satisfaction of producing fresh proofs of the goodness of his cause, than longer to embroil himself with persons of merit like that of his adversaries, whose friendship could not be purchased at too high a rate.” With respect to Boileau, he wrote what he termed a letter of reconciliation to Perrault; but in which, through its forced compliments, he could not avoid displaying that relic of gall or malignity, of which it is so difficult for a professed satirist entirely to discharge himself. This letter might almost pass for a new critique on Perrault, so equivocal was the turn of its reparation. Accordingly, a friend of Boileau said to him, “I doubt not that we shall always keep upon good terms together, but if ever, after a difference, we should be reconciled, no reparation! I beg: I fear your reparations more than your reproaches.”

Perrault' s work, the “History of the Illustrious Men, 17 is now chiefly valued of all his writings, and not the less for the fine portraits from the collection of the celebrated Begon. Of the letter-press, we have an English translation by Ozell, 1704 5, 2 vols. 8vo. Perrault was determined by the public voice in the choice of his heroes, whom he confined to an hundred; but there are an hundred and two in the collection; the reason of which was this. Arnauld and Pascal were deservedly in his list; but the Jesuits made interest to have them excluded, and prevailed. Perrault thought it necessary to substitute two fresh ones; but the public refused to accept the work, unless Arnauld and Pascal might keep their places; and hence it arose, that instead of a hundred lives, which was Perrault' s original design, we find an hundred and two. There are other works of Perrault, which are much esteemed, as” Le Cabinet de Beaux Arts,“&c. or, A Collection of Copper-plates relating to Arts and Sciences, with Illustrations in Verse and Prose, 4 vols. oblong 4to;” Faernus’s Fables, translated into French Verse," &c.

Besides Claude and Charles, there were two other brothers, Peter and Nicholas, who distinguished themselves in the literary world. Peter, the eldest of them all, was receiver-geueral of the finances, and published, in 1674, a piece, “De l'Origine des Fontaines;” and, in 1678, a French translation of Tassoni’s “La Seochia rapita.” Nkcolas was admitted doctor of the Sorbonne in 1652, and died in 1661 leaving behind him a work, entitled “La Morale deslesuites, extraite fidelement de leurs iivres,” which was printed in 1667, 4to. Charles Perrault is said to have had a son. Perrault D'Armancourt, who, although he made a less figure in the learned world than his father or uncles, was the author of a book of tales, lately transferred from the nursery to the stage. The French edition is entitled “Contes de ma Mere l'Oye.” Hague, 1745, with a translation, “Mother Goose’s Tales.”

, better known by the name of cardinal de Granvelle, was born 1517, at Besançon, and was son of Nicholas Perrenot, seigneur de Granvelle, chancellor to the emperor Charles V. Born with an ambitious, intriguing, and firm temper, joined to great abilities, he speedily raised himself, was made canon and archdeacon of Besançon, then bishop of Arras, in which character he spoke very forcibly at the council of Trent when but twenty-four years of age, and afterwards served the emperor Charles V. in several embassies to France, England, and elsewhere. This prince had so particular an esteem for Granvelle, and such confidence in him, that on abdicating the empire, he recommended him to his son Philip II. who scarce ever took any step relative either to private or public affairs, without his advice and assistance. Granvelle was afterwards appointed the first archbishop of Malines, was made cardinal in 1561, by Pius IV. and at length counsellor to Margaret of Parma, governess of the Netherlands, where, according to Strada’s account, his ambition and cruelty occasioned part of the outrages which were committed. Philip II. recalled him a second time to court, and entrusted him with all the affairs of the Spanish monarchy. Cardinal de Granvelle died at Madrid September 21, 1586, aged seventy, after having been nominated to the archbishopric of Besançon. His Life, written by D. Prosper Levêque, a Benedictine, was printed at Paris, 1753, 2 vols. 12mo. It is interesting, but the author is unpardonably partial, and conceals the cruelty, ambition, and other faults of this celebrated cardinal.

, or Duperier, a French poet, was born' at Aix in Provence. He first devoted himself to Latin versification, in which he succeeded greatly; and he boasted of having formed the celebrated Santeuil. They quarrelled afterwards from poetic jealousy, and made Menage the arbitrator of their differences; who, however, decided in favour of Perrier, and did not scruple to call him “The prince of Lyric poets.” They afterwards became reconciled, and there are in Perrier’s works several translations of pieces from Santeuil. Perrier afterwards applied himself to French poetry, in which he was not so successful, though he took Malherbe for his model. His obtrusive vanity, which led him to repeat his verses to all who came near him, made him at last insupportable. Finding Boileau one day at church, he insisted upon repeating to him an ode during the elevation of the host, and desired his opinion, whether or no it was in the manner of Malherbe. Pope’s lines, “No place so sacred from such fops is barr'd,” &c. are literally a translation of Boileau’s on Perrier, “Gardez-vous d'imiter ce rimeur furieux,” &c. Indifferent, however, as his French poetry was, he obtained the academy-prize two years together, namely, in 1681 and 1682. He died March 28, 1692. His Latin poems are to he found in various collections, but have never been published in a separate volume, although they amply deserve that distinction.

He recovered, however, from any loss of character which this affair might occasion, by abjuring the religion in which he had been educated. It is rather singular that he is said to have acquired a distaste of the prorestant religion by studying the “Suinma” of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the writings of St. Austin; but having by this or by some other means, reconciled his mind to the change of his religion, he displayed all the zeal of a new convert by labouring earnestly in the conversion of others, even before he had embraced the ecclesiastical function. By these arts, and his uncommon abilities, he acquired great influ*­ence, and was appointed to pronounce the funeral oration of Mary queen of Scots, in 1587; as he had done also that of the poet Ronsard, in 1586. He wrote, some time after, by order of the king, “A comparison of moral and theological virtues;” and two “Discourses,” one upon the soul, the other upon self-knowledge, which he pronounced before that prince. After the murder of Henry III. he retired to the house of cardinal de Bourbon, aud laboured more vigorously than ever in the conversion of the reformed. Among his converts was Henry Spondanus, afterwards bishop of Pamiez; as this prelate acknowledges, in his dedication to cardinal du Perron of his “Abridgment of Baronius’s Annals.” But his success with Henry IV. is supposed to redound most to the credit of his powers of persuasion. He went to wait on that prince with cardinal de Bourbon, at the siege of Rouen; and followed him at Nantes, where -he held a famous dispute with four protestant ministers. The king, afterwards resolving to have a conference about religion with the principal prelates of the kingdom, sent for Du Perron to assist in it; but, as he was yet only a layman, he nominated him to the bishopric of Evreux, that he might be capable of sitting in it. He came with the other prelates to St. Denis, and is said to have contributed more than any ether person to the change in Henry’s sentiments.

After the murder of Henry IV. in 1610, Du Perron devoted himself entirely to the court and see of Rome, and prevented every measure in France which might displease that power, or hurt its interests. He rendered useless the arret of the parliament of Paris, against the book of cardinal Bellarmine and favoured the infallibility of the pope, and his superiority over a council, in a thesis maintained in 1611, before the nuncio. He afterwards held a provincial assembly, in which he condemned Richer' s book, “concerning ecclesiastical and civil authority” and, being at the assembly of Blois, he made an harangue to prove, that they ought not to decide some questions, ou account of their being points of faith. He was one of the presidents of the assembly of the clergy, which was held at Rouen in 1615; and made harangues to the king at the opening and shutting of that assembly, which were much applauded. This was the last of his public services; for after this he retired to his house at Bagnolet, and employed himself wholly in revising and completing his works. This was with him a matter of great importance, for he not only had a private press in his house, that he might have them published correctly, and revised every sheet himself, but is said also to have printed a few copies of every work that he wished to appear to advantage, for the revisal of his friends before publication. He died at Paris, Sept. 5, L618, aged sixty-three. He was a man of great abilities; had a lively and penetrating wit, and a particular talent at making his views appear reasonable. He delivered himself upon all occasions with great clearness, dignity, and eloquence. He had a prodigious memory, and had studied much. He was very well versed in antiquity, both ecclesiastical and profane; and had read much in the fathers, councils, and ecclesiastical historians, of which he knew how to make the best use to perplex, if not to convince his adversaries. He was warmly attached to the see of Rome, and strenuous in defending its rights and prerogatives; and therefore it cannot be wondered, that his name has never been held in high honour among those of his countrymen who have been accustomed to stand up for the Galilean liberties. They consider indeed that ambition was his ruling passion, and that it extended even to literature, in which he thought he ought to hold the first rank. In his youth he had translated into French verse a part of the Æneid and the praises which Desportes and Bertaut bestowed on this performance made him fancy that his style was superior to that of Virgil. He was in his own opinion, says the abb Longuerue, the commander-in-chief of literature; and authors found that his opinion was to be secured before that of the public. His favourite authors were Montaigne, whose essays he called the breviary of all good men, and Rabelais, whom, by way of distinction, he called “The author.”

, sieur d'Ablancourt, a scholar of considerable parts, and once admired for his translations from ancient authors, was born at Chalons, April 5, 1606. He sprung from a family which had been illustrious in the law, and the greatest care was bestowed on his education. His father, Paul Perrot de la Sailer, who was a protestant, and also a man learning, sent him to pursue his studies in the college of Sedan; where he made so rapid a progress, that, at thirteen, he had gone through the classics. He was then taken home, and placed for some time under a private tutor, after which he was sent to Paris, where he studied the law five or six months, and was, when only in his eighteenth year, admitted advocate of parliament but did not adhere longto the bar. Another change he made about this time of great importance, was that of his religion, for popery, of which he embraced the tenets at the persuasion of his uncle Cyprian Perrot, who, in hopes of procuring him some valuable benefices, took great pains to recommend the church as a profession, but in vain. Nor did he succeed better in retaining him as a convert, for fte had scarcely distinguished himself in the republic of letters, by writing a preface to the “HonneXe Femme,” for his friend, father Du Bosc, than he felt a desire to return to the religion he had quitted. He was now, however, in his twenty-seventh year, and had sense enough to guard against precipitation in a matter of so much consequence. He studied, therefore, the differences betwixt the Romish and reformed church, and after three years’ investigation, during which he did not disclose his intention to any one, he set out from Paris to Champagne, where he abjured popery; and very soon after went to Holland, till the clamour which followed this step was over. He was near a year in Leyden, where he learned Hebrew, and contracted a friendship with Salmasius. From Holland he went to England; then returned to Paris; and, after passing some weeks with M. Patru, took an apartment near the Luxembourg. He passed his days very agreeably; and though he devoted the greatest part of his leisure to books, mixed occasionally in society, and was the respected associate of all the learned in Paris. In 1637 he was admitted a member of the French academy, but was soon after forced to leave Paris, on account of the wars; and therefore retired to his estate, called Ablancourt, where he lived till his death. He died Nov. 17, 1664, of the gravel, with which he had been afflicted the greater part of his life.

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

, captain, a celebrated engineer, the secondson of Samuel Perry, of Rodborough in Gloucestershire, gent, and Sarah his wife, daughter of sir Thomas Nott, knt. was, in or before 1693, lieutenant of the Montague; which about that year coming into Portsmouth dock to he refitted, he exerted his skill in the improvement of an engine for throwing out a large quantity of water from deep sluices in a short space of time. In 1695, he published “A Regulation for Seamen; wherein a method is humbly proposed, whereby their Majesties fleet may at all times be speedily and effectually manned, and the Merchants be more readily and cheaper served, without having their men at any time pressed or taken away; setting forth the great advantages that will accrue thereby to the king, merchant, and subject in general, whereby these islands will be more secure and happy, the king’s revenue considerably be eased, trade in general be quickened and encouraged, and every individual subject receive benefit thereby, in lessening the price of all naval commodities; wherein is also proposed, a method or nursery for training up of Seamen to supply the loss and decay of them in time of War: as also, the giving hereby equal liberty and advantage to all seamen, removing many hardships that they now suffer under, and giving them many encouragements that they do not now enjoy. By John Perry, late Captain of the Signet Fire-ship, now a prisoner in the Marshalsea, according to sentence of a late CourtMartial. To. which is added, a short Narrative of his Case relating to his loss of the said ship in company' of the Diamond Frigate, in September 1693,” 4to. By this pamphlet it appears that he had been sentenced to a fine of 1000l. and to ten years’ imprisonment. In 1698, when the Czar Peter was in this country, being desirous of engaging some eminent artists, Mr. Perry was introduced to his notice by the marquis of Carmarthen, and by Mr. Dummeiy surveyor of the Navy, as a person capable of serving him on several occasions, relating to his new design of establishing a fleet, making his rivers navigable, &c.; and he was taken into the service of the Czar as comptroller of the marine works, at a salary of 300l. per annum, with travelling charges, and subsistence-money, on whatever service he should be employed; besides a further reward to his satisfaction, at the conclusion of any work he should finish. After some conversation with the Czar himself, particularly respecting a communication between the rivers Volga and Don, he was employed on this work three successive summers; but not being properly supplied with men, partly on account of the ill-success of the Czar against the Swedes at the battle of Narva, and partly by the discouragement of the governor of Astracan, he was ordered at the end of 1707 to stop, and next year employed in refitting the ships at Veronise, and in 1709 in making the river of that name navigable. After repeated disappointments, and fruitless applications for his salary, he at last quitted the kingdom, under the protection of Mr. Whitworth, the English ambassador, in 1712.

Capt. Perry was elected a Member of the Gentlemen’s Society at Spalding, April 16, 1730, to which Society was communicated his original Map or Chart of the Sea Coasts. He died Feb. 1 I, 1733, and was buried in Spalding church, where an inscription on a slab erected by his kinsman and heir William Perry, of Penshurst in Kent, preserves his memory.

, one of the three great Roman satirists, was born at Volterra, in Tuscany, in the 22d year of Tiberius’s reign, or A. D. 34. At the age of 12 he was removed to Rome, where he pursued his studies under Palaemon the grammarian, and Virginius Flaccus the rhetorician. He afterwards, at sixteen, applied himself to philosophy under Cornutus, a Stoic, who entertained so great a love for him, that there was ever after a most intimate friendship between them. Persius has immortalized that friendship in his fifth satire, and his gratitude for the good offices of his friend. This he shewed still farther by his will, in which he left him his library, and a great deal of money: but Cornutus, like a true philosopher, who knew how to practise what he taught, accepted only the books, and gave the money to the heirs of the testator. We have nothing deserving the name of a life of Persius, but his character appears to have been excellent. He had a strong sense of virtue, and lived in an age when such a sense would naturally produce a great abhorrence of the reigning vices. His moral and religious sentiments were formed on the best systems which the philosophy of his age afforded and so valuable is his matter, that Mr. Harris, of Salisbury, justly said, “he was the only difficult Latin author that would reward the reader for the pains which he must take to understand him.”

Notwithstanding these employments, and the production of some occasional pieces in prose and verse, which they required, he was enabled to publish his edition of Synesius in 1612; but, as he was absent from the press, it suffered much by the carelessness and ignorance of the printers; and even the second edition, of 1631, retains a great many of the errors of the first. It gave the learned, however, an opportunity of knowing what was to be expected from the talents, diligence, and learning, of father Petau; and they entertained hopes which were not disappointed. During the years 1613, 1614, and 1615, he taught rhetoric in the college of La Fleche, in Anjou; and, in the first of these years, he published some works of the emperor Julian, which had hitherto remained in ms. and announced his intention of publishing an edition of Themistius, the Greek orator and sophist. In 1614, when the college of La Flche was visited by Louis XIII. with the queen mother and the whole court, he contributed many of the complimentary verses on the occasion; which, as we shall notice, were afterwards published. In the mean time, he undertook an edition of Nicephorus’s historical abridgment, which had never been printed either in Greek or Latin. In this he was assisted with the copy of a valuable manuscript, which father Sjrmond sent to him from Rome. In 1617, the Biblical professor of La Flche being removed to another charge, Petau supplied his place, until called to Paris by order of his superiors, to be professor of rhetoric. It was about this time that he was attacked by that violent fever, which he has so well described in his poem entitled “Soteria;” a circumstance scarcely worth mentioning, if it had not been connected with an instance uf superstition, which shews that his father’s prejudices had acquired possession of his mind. During this fever, and when in apparent danger, his biographer tells us, he made a vow to St. Genevieve, and the fever left him. The object of his vow was a tribute of poetical thanks to his patroness and deliverer. In order to perform this as it ought to be performed, he waited until his mind had recovered its tone but he waited too long, and the fever seized him again, as a re- 1 membrance of his neglect. Again, however, St. Genevieve restored him; and, that he might not hazard her displeasure any more, he published his “Soteria,” in 1619, which the connoisseurs of that time thought his chef (Taeuvre in poetry; and his biographer adds, that “it is in Virgil only we can find lines so completely Virgilian.” The remainder of his life was spent in performing the several offices of his order, or in those publications, a list of which will prove the magnitude of his labours. He died at Paris, December 11, 1652, in the sixtyninth year of his age. He seems, by the general consent, not only of the learned men of his communion, but of many Protestants, to have been one of the greatest scholars the Jesuits can boast: and would have appeared in the eyes of posterity as deserving of the highest character, had not his turn for angry controversy disgraced his style, and shown, that with all his learning and acuteness, he did not rise superior to the bigotry of his time. We have a striking instance of this, in his connection with Grotius. He had, at first, such a good opinion of that illustrious writer, as to think him a Roman Catholic in heart; and on his death, said a mass for his soul; but some time after, writing to cardinal Barberini, he uses these remarkable words: “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is nmc happy /”

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

, an eminent prelate of the fifth century, and called Chrysologus from his eloquence, was descended of a noble family, and born at Imola, then called Forum Cornelii. After a suitable education, he was elected archbishop of Ravenna, about the year 433, and was much celebrated for his virtue and his eloquence. He died about the year 451. There are 126 sermons or homilies of his in the library of the fathers, in which he unites perspicuity with brevity; their style is concise and elegant, but not unmixed with quaintnesses. Father d'Acheri has published in his “Spicilegium,” five other sermons written by him; and in St. Peter’s works, is his answer to Eutyches, who had written to him in the year 449, complaining of St. Flavianus of Constantinople, in which he defends the orthodox faith, and refers Eutyches to the excellent letter sent by St. Leo to Flavianus, which teaches what is to be believed concerning the mystery of the incarnation. The best edition of St. Peter Chrysologus is that printed at Augsburg, 1758, folio.

, or Petrus Blesensis, one of the most learned and celebrated writers of the twelfth century, studied at Paris and Bologna, and was appointed preceptor and secretary to William II. king of Sicily, and afterwards was invited into England by Henry II. who made him archdeacon of Bath, but permitted him to reside near Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, whose chancellor he was. Peter de Blois lost this archdeaconry towards the end of his life, and had that of London, where it is said he laboured much for little profit. He died in 1200, in England. There are some letters, sermons, and other works of his, in the library of the fathers, in which he strongly condemns the abuses and disorders which then reigned in the church. He is said to have been the first who used the word transubstantiation, to express the doctrine of the Romish church on the subject of the eucharist. The best edition of this author is by Peter de Gussanville, 1667, folio.

, or the Eater, a celebrated writer in the twelfth century, was born at Troyes, of which city he was canon and dean, afterwards chancellor of the church of Paris. These benefices he resigned to enter as a regular canon of St. Victor at Paris, where he died in October 1198, leaving a work entitled “Scholastica historia super Nov. Test.” which contains an abridgment of the sacred history, from Genesis to the Acts, first printed at Utrecht in 1473, small folio, and reprinted at Vienna in the same year, and several times since. He dedicated this work to cardinal William de Champagne, archbishop of Sens. He is the author likewise of “Sermons,” published by Buse'e, under the name of Peter de Blois, 1600, 4to; and a “Catena temporum,” or universal history, is attributed to him, which was printed at Lubec, 1475, 2 vols, folio, and translated in French under the title of “Mer des Histoires,” Paris, 1488, 2 vols. folio.

, or Peter the Venerable, a native of Auvergne, descended from the family of the counts Maurice, or de Montbois.vier, took the monk’s habit at Clugny, was made prior of Vezelay, afterwards abbot, and general of his order in 1121, at the age of twentyeight. He revived monastic discipline in the abbey of Clugny, and received pope Innocent II. there in 1130. He opposed the errors of Peter de firuys and Henry, and died in his abbey, December 24, 1156. We have six books of his letters, with several other works of very little consequence, in the “Library of Clugny,” and some homilies in Martenne’s “Thes. Anecd.” That so ignorant and trifling a writer shoaid have been honoured with the title of Venerable, is a strong mark of the low state of religious knowledge at that time. In these his works he takes great pains to vindicate the manners and customs of his monastery, and appears to place the essence of Christianity in frivolous punctilios and insignificant ceremonies. It was he, however, who received the celebrated Abelard in his afflictions with great humanity, and who consoled Eloisa after his death, by sending to her, at her request, the form, of Abelard’s absolution, which she inscribed on his sepulchre.

, czar of Russia, who civilized that nation, and raised it from ignorance and barbarism, to politeness, knowledge, and power, a man of a wonderful composition and character, was born the 30th of May, 1672, and was son of the czar Alexis Michaelowitz by a second wife. Alexis dying in 1672, Feodor, or Theodore, his eldest son by his fivst wife, succeeded to the throne, and died in 1682. Upon his decease, Peter, though but ten years of age, was proclaimed czar, to the exclusion of John his elder brother, who was of a weak body, and a weaker mind. The strelitzes, who were the established guard of the czars, as the janisaries are of the grand seigniors, made an insurrection in favour of John, at the instigation of the princess Sophia, who, being own sister to John, hoped, perhaps, to be sole regent, since John was incapable of acting; or at least to enjoy a greater share of authority under John, than if the power was lodged solely in her half-brother Peter. The matter, however, was at last compromised; and it was agreed, that the two brothers should jointly share the imperial dignity. The Russian education was, at that time, like the country, barbarous, so that Peter had no advantages; and the princess Sophia, who, with considerable talents, was a woman of great ambition and intrigue, took all imaginable pains to stifle his natural desire of knowledge, to deprave and corrupt his mind, and ta debase and enervate him with pleasures. Yet his abhorrence of pageantry, and love of-military exercises, discovered itself in his tenderest years; and, to gratify this inclination, he formed a company of fifty men, commanded by foreign officers, and clothed and exercised after the German manner. He entered himself among them in the lowest post, and performed the duties of it with the utmost diligence. He ordered them entirely to forget that he was czar, and paid the utmost deference and submission to the commanding officers. He lived upon his pay only, and lay in a lent in the rear of his company. He was some time after raised to be a serjeant, but only as he was entitled to it by his merit; for he would have punished his soldiers, had they discovered the least partiality in his favour: and he never rose otherwise, than as a soldier of fortune. The strelitzes looked upon all this as the amusement of a young prince: but the czar, who saw they wer too formidable, and entirely in the interest of the princes Sophia, had secretly a design of crushing them; which he wisely thought could not be better effected, than by securing to himself a body of troops, more strictly disciplined, and on whose fidelity he could more fully rely.

At the same time, he had another project in view, of vast importance, and most difficult execution. The sight of a small Dutch vessel, which he had met with on a lake, where it lay useless and neglected, made a wonderful impression on his mind, and he conceived thoughts of forming a navy; a design, which probably then seemed next to impossible, even to himself. His first care was to get Hollanders to build some small vessels at Moscow, and afterwards four frigates, of four guns each, on the lake of Pereslave. He had already taught them to combat one another; and in order to instruct himself in naval affairs, he passed two summers successively on board English or Dutch ships, which set out from Archangel. In I6i)6, the czar John died, and Peter became sole master of the empire. He began his reign with the siege of Asoph, then in the hands of the Turks, but did not take it till 1697. He had already sent for Venetians, to build gallies on the river Don, which might shut up the mouth of that river, and prevent the Turks from relieving the place. This gave him a stronger idea than ever, of the importance and necessity of a naval force; yet he could have none but foreign ships, none at least but what he was obliged to employ foreigners in building. He was desirous of surmounting these disadvantages, but the affairs he projected were of too new and singular a nature to be so much as considered in his council, nor were they proper to he communicated. He resolved therefore singly to manage this bold undertaking; with which view, in 1698, he sent an embassy to Holland, and went himself incognito in the retinue. He entered himself in the India admiralty-office at Amsterdam, caused himself to he inrolled in the list of ship-carpenters; and worked in the yard with greater assiduity than any body there. His quality was known to all; and he was pointed at with a sort of veneration. King William, who was then in Holland, paid him all the respect that was due to his uncommon qualities; and the czar’s disguise freed him from that which was merely ceremonious and troublesome. The czar worked with such success, as in a little time to pass for a good carpenter; and afterwards studied the proportions of a ship. He then went into England; where, in four months, he made himself a complete master in the art of ship-building, by studying the principles of it mathematically, which he had no opportunity of learning in Holland. In England he met with a second reception from king William; who, to make him a present agreeable to his taste, and which might serve as a model of the art he was so very desirous to learn, gave him a magnificent yacht. He carried with him from England several English ship-builders and artificers, among whom was one whose name was Noy; but the C2ar took also upon himself the title of a master-builder, and was pleased to submit to the conditions of that character. Thus he and Noy received orders from the lord high admiral of Russia, to build each of them a man of war; and, in compliance with that order, the czar gave the first proof of his art. He never ceased to pursue it, but had always a ship upon the stocks; and, at his death, left one of the largest ships in Europe half-built.

All this while he continued his pursuits after all kinds of knowledge. He caused his engineers to draw the plan of every city, and to take designs of all the different machines which he had not in his own country. He instructed himself in husbandry, and in all sorts of trade, wherever he came. In 1716, he paid a visit, with his consort, to the king of Denmark at Copenhagen, where he spent three months. He visited there every school of the university, and all the men of letters: for, regardless of ceremony and pageantry, which he hated, it was indifferent to him, whether they waited on him, or he went to them. He coasted every day some part of the kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden, attended by two engineers; surveyed all the windings, sounded every part of the straits, and afterwards had the whole so exactly described in charts, that not so much as the smallest shelf or bank of sand escaped his observation. From Copenhagen he went to Hamburgh, Hanover, Wolfenbuttle, and from thence to Holland. Here he left the czarina, and went to France in 1717; and, in June that year, visited the royal academy of sciences at Paris, where he was entertained by seeing the latest invented and most curious machines and experiments. He was no sooner returned to his own dominions, than he signified his inclination of becoming a member of that society; and the academy having made their most respectful acknowledgments for the great honour he did them, he wrote them a letter with his own hand. These particulars may be seen in the history of that academy for 1720: the academy sent him every year a volume of their proceedings, to which, as an academician, he was entitled; and he always accepted it with pleasure, as from his brethren.

These, and many more, were particular institutions and establishments: but the czar made general reformations, to which indeed the other were only subservient. He changed the architecture of his country, which was ugly and deformed; or, more properly, he first introduced that science into his dominions. He sent for a great number of pictures from Italy and France; and thus instructed in the art of painting a people, who knew no more of it, than what they could collect from the wretched daubing of men who painted the imaginary heads of saints. He sent ships laden with merchandize to Genoa and Leghorn, which returned freighted with marble and statues: and pope Clement XI. pleased with his taste, presented him with a fine antique, which the czar, not caring to trust by sea, ordered to be brought to Petersburgh by land. Religion was not neglected in this general reform ignorance and superstition had over-run it so much, that it scarcely merited the name of Christian. The czar introduced knowledge, where it was miserably wanted; and this knowledge enabled him to abolish, at least in a considerable degree, fasts, miracles, and saint-worship. He ventured further than to the correction of rites: he abolished the patriarchate, though much independent of him; and thus got rid of a power, which was always interrupting and disconcerting his measures. He took away part of the revenues of those churches and monasteries which he thought too wealthy; and, leaving only what was necessary for their subsistence, added the overplus to his own demesnes. He made many judicious ecclesiastical canons, and ordered preaching in the Russian language. Lastly, he established a general liberty of conscience throughout his dominions. There is one more reformation, and perhaps as necessary and useful as any of the former, which he made even in his last illness, though it was exceedingly painful. When the senators and great personages, then about him, mentioned the various obligations which Russia lay under to him, for abolishing ignorance and barbarism, and introducing arts and sciences, he told them, that he had forgot to reform one of the most important points of all, namely, the mal-administration of justice, occasioned by the tedious and litigious chicanery of the lawyers; and signed an order from his bed, limiting the determination of all causes to eleven days, which was immediately sent to all the courts of his empire.

This wonderful man died of the strangury, caused by an imposthume in the neck of his bladder, Jan. 28, 1725, aged fifty-three. He was tall, and remarkably well shaped; had a noble countenance, eyes sparkling with vivacity, and a robust constitution. His judgment was sound, which, as Voltaire has observed, may justly be deemed the foundation of all real abilities: and to this solidity was joined an active disposition, which led him into the most arduous undertakings. Whoever reflects upon the interruptions, difficulties, and oppositions, that must unavoidably occur in civilizing and reforming a large and barbarous empire, must suppose the czar to have been, as indeed he really was, a man of the greatest firmness and perseverance. His education was far from being worthy of his genius: it had been spoiled by the princess Sophia, whose interest it was that he should be immersed in licentious excesses. Howfever, in spite of bad example, and even his own strong propensity to pleasure, his natural desire of knowledge and magnanimity of soul broke through all habits; nay, they broke through something even greater than habits. It is remarkable, that from his childhood he had such a dread of water, as to be seized with a cold sweat and with convulsions, even in being obliged to pass over a brook. The cause of this aversion is thus related: When he was about five years of age he was carried in the spring season over a dam, where there was a water-fall or cataract. He was asleep in his mother’s lap, but the noise and rushing of the water frightened him so much that it brought on a fever and, after his recovery, he retained such a dread of that element, that he could not bear to see any standing water, much less to hear a running stream. Yet such was the force of his resolution, that he gradually conquered this antipathy, and his aversion of water was afterwards changed into an excessive fondness for that element. He had a son who lived to be a man; but this son engaging with his mother, whom Peter had divorced in 1692, and other malcontents, in a conspiracy against his father in 1717, was condemned to die. He saved the executioners the trouble by dying a natural death; and an account of this unfortunate prince, with original papers, was published by the czar himself. The title of it, as it stands in the second volume of the “Present State of Russia,” translated from the German, and printed at London, 1722, in 8vo, runs thus: “A Manifesto of the Criminal Process of the Czarewitz Alexi Petrowitz, judged and published at St. Petersburg, the 25th of June, 1718, translated from the Russian original, and printed by order of his czarish majesty at the Hague, 1718.” The czar composed several pieces upon naval affairs; and his name must therefore be added to the short catalogue of sovereigns who have favoured the public with their writings.

, a noted fanatic in the time of Charles I. was the son of a merchant at Fowey, in Cornwall, and was some time a member of Trinity college, in Cambridge, whence, it is said, he was expelled for irregular behaviour; but this expulsion must have taken place after he had taken both his degrees, that of A. B. in 1618, and of A. M. in 1622. He afterwards betook himself to the stage, where he acquired that gesticulation and buffoonery which he so often practised in the pulpit. He was admitted into holy orders by Dr. Mountaine, bishop of London, and was for a considerable time lecturer of St. Sepulchre’s, in that city; but, being prosecuted for criminal conversation with another man’s wife, he fled to Rotterdam, where he was pastor of the English church, together with the learned Dr. William Ames, who, it is probable, either did not know, or did not believe the report of his being prosecuted for adultery. He afterwards went to America, and after a residence of seven years, returned to England at a time when men of his character were sure of employment. He became, therefore, a violent declaimer against Charles I. and in favour of all the measures of the republican party; and Cromwell found him one of his most useful tools with the army and the lower classes of the people. When king Charles was brought to London for his trial, Hugh Peters, as sir William Warwick says, “was truly and really his gaoler.” Dr. Kennet informs us that he bore a colonel’s commission in the civil war; that he was vehement for the death of the king; that it was strongly suspected that he was one ef his masked executioners, and that one Hulet was the other. After the restoration he was executed with the other regicides. His character appears to have been in all respects unworthy of his religious profession; what can be alleged in his favour may be seen in our authorities.

, an agreeable French writer and learned Orientalist, was born in 1654. After a suitable education he became the king of France’s secretary, and interpreter for Oriental languages, and succeeded his father in those offices, which, his countrymen inform us, he was eminently well qualified to fill. To a very considerable share of general learning, he added an integrity and firmness of mind which enabled him to resist the importunities of corruption in a very remarkable instance. He had great offers made to him if he would insert in the treaty between the Algerines and Lewis XIV. that the six hundred thousand livres, to be received by the latter, should be paid in Tripoli crowns, which would have made a difference of a sixth part. But this he rejected with contempt, although the trick could not have been discovered, or known to any except those who were to profit by it.

Besides the Arabic, Turkish, Persian, and Tartarian languages, he was acquainted with the Ethiopian and Armenian. His “Persian Tales” were first published after his death in five small volumes, in 1722. His own account of them was, that they were Indian plays, turned into Persian stories by the dervice Modes, who communicated them to him, and gave him leave to transcribe them. Those who are acquainted with the Arabian Tales will perceive the similarity of the present, in which we have the same method, the same taste, and the same design, with this only difference, that in the Arabian Nights, a prince is prepossessed against women, and in the Persian Tales, a princess affects the same aversion to men. Of these “Tales” we have an English translation, which has often been reprinted. His other works were “The History of Timur bee, or the great Tamerlan,” 1722, 4 vols. 12mo; “The State of the Ottoman Empire, 3 vols. 12mo; the” History of Genghizcan" which have all been published, but he left other translations, which are yet in manuscript. His son Alexander Louis Maria, was also professor of Arabic in the royal college, and translated the canon of Soliman II. for the instruction of Mourad IV. He died in 1751, aged fifty-three.

, a celebrated surgeon, was born at Paris, March 13, 1674. From his childhood he displayed uncommon acuteness, and received his first instructions in anatomy from M. de Littre, a celebrated anatomist, who resided in his father’s house. Under this master he made such rapid progress, that he had scarcely attained the age of twelve, when M. de Littre found that he might be intrusted with the care of his anatomical theatre. He afterwards studied surgery under Castel and Mareschal, and was admitted master in 1700. In the course of no long time he became the first practitioner in Paris, and was “consulted in all cases of importance; and there were few operations of difficulty and delicacy which he did not superintend, or actually perform; and his hand and his counsels were alike successful. Such a reputation soon extended throughout Europe. In 1726 he was sent for by the king of Poland, and again in 1734 by Don Ferdinand, afterwards king of Spain: he re-established the health of both these princes, who endeavoured to retain him near their persons with the offer of great rewards, but could not overcome his attachment to his native place. Among his professional honours was that of member of the academy of ^ciences, director of the academy of surgery, censor and royal professor at the schools, and fellow of the royal society of London. He died at Paris, April 20, 1750, aged 76, regretted as much for his private virtues as his public services. He communicated many memoirs to the academy of sciences, and several to the academy of surgery, which were printed in their first volume. His only separate publication was his” Traite des Maladies des Os,“printed at Paris in 1705, in 12mo, and frequently reprinted, with additions. An edition in 1758, in two volumes, 12mo, was published by M. Ant. Louis, with an historical and critical essay respecting it subjoined; and his pupil, M. Leslie, published his posthumous works in 1774, with the title of” Traite des Maladies Chirurgicales et des Operations qui leur conviennent," in three vols. 8vo, with many plates of chirurgical instruments. His treatise on the bones involved him in several controversies; but the only chagrin which he felt arose from finding Winslow, who, as censor royal, had approved the work, retract his approbation, in a letter inserted in the Journal des Savans for May 1725.

, or Petitus, a celebrated scholar, was born at Nismes in 1594. He studied at Geneva, witli a success so uncommon, that, at the age of seventeen, he was admitted to the sacred ministry. Soon after, he was raised to the professorships of theology, and of Greek and Hebrew in that city, where he passed the chief part of his life, and where he died in December 1645, at the age of fifty-one. He has left behind him several works of great learning. For instance, 1. “Miscellanea,” Paris, 1630, 4to, in nine books, containing corrections of passages in a vast number of ancient authors. 2. “Eclogae Chronologicae,” Paris, 1632, 4to. 3. “Varies Lectiones,” Paris, 1633, 4to. This is in four books, three of which are employed on the customs, ceremonies, &c. of the Old and New Testament. 4. “Leges Atticae,” first published at Pads, in 1615, but again in 1635, &c. This is a work of the highest reputation, and having been enriched by the subsequent remarks of Palmerius, Salvini, Duker, and Wesseling, was reprinted in 1742, fol. In this shape, it forms a third volume of the collection entitled “Jurisprudentia Romana et Attica,” published by Heineccius, Duker, and Wesseling. Petit was the author also of other publications of less consequence, but all evincing profound and extensive learning. His character was not less amiable, than his accomplishments were extraordinary. Hs was mild and gentle in an uncommon degree. It is related of him, that going once from curiosity into a synagogue at Avignon, a rabbin, supposing himself free from all danger of detection, railed against him in Hebrew, in a very gross manner. Petit, without any anger, coolly answered him in the same language, and thus covered the assailant with confusion. In Answer to the apologies and excuses of thfc Jew, he only, in a mild manner, exhorted him to embrace Christianity.

, a celebrated painter, was born at Geneva in 1607, of a father who was a sculptor and architect, and who, after having passed part of his life in Italy, retired to that city. His son was designed to be a jeweller; and, by frequent employment in enamelling, acquired so fine a taste, and so precious a tone of colouring, that Bordier, who afterwards became his brother-in-law, advised him to attach himself to portrait, believing he might push his art on still to greater lengths; and though both the one and the other wanted several colours which they could not bring to bear the fire, yet they succeeded to admiration. Petitot painted the heads and hands, in which his colouring was excellent; Bordier painted the hair, the draperies, and the grounds. These two friends, agreeing in their work and their projects, set out for Italy. The long stay they made there, frequenting the best chemists, joined to a strong desire of learning, improved them in the preparation of their colours; but the completion of their success must be ascribed to a journey they afterwards made to England. There they found sir Theodore Mayerne, physician to Charles T. and a great chemist; who had by his experiments discovered the principal colours to be used for enamel, and the proper means of vitrifying them. These by their beauty surpassed all the enamelling of Venice and Limoges. Mayerne introduced Petitot, to the king, who retained him in his service, and gave him a lodging in Whitehall. Here he painted several portraits after Vandyck, in which he was guided by that excellent master, who was then in London; and his advice contributed greatly to the ability of Petitot, whose best pieces are after Vandyck. King Charles often went to see him work; as he took a pleasure both in painting and chemical experiments, to which his physician had given him a turn. Petitot painted that monarch and the whole royal family several times. The distinguished favour shewn him by that prince was only interrupted by his unhappy and tragical end. This was a terrible stroke to Petitot, who did not quit the royal family, but followed them in their flight to Paris, where he was looked on as one of their most zealous servants. During the four years that Charles II. stayed in France, he visited Petitot, and often eat with him. Then it was, that his name became eminent, and that all the court of France grew fond of being painted in enamel. When Charles II. returned to England, Louis XIV. retained Petitot in his service, gave him a pension, and a lodging in the gallery of the Louvre. These new favours, added to a considerable fortune he had already acquired, encouraged him to marry in 1661. Afterwards Bordier became his brother-in-law, and ever remained in a firm union with him: they lived together, till their families growing too numerous, obliged them to separate. Their friendship was founded on the harmony of their sentiments and their reciprocal merit, much more than a principle of interest. They had gained, as a reward for their discoveries and their labours, a million of livres, which they divided at Paris; and they continued friends without ever having a quarrel, or even a misunderstanding, in the space of fifty years.

Petitot may be called the inventor of painting in enamel; for though Bordier, his brother-in-law, made several attempts before him, and sir Theodore Mayerne had facilitated the means of employing the most beautiful colours, it was still Peiitot who completed the work; which under his hand acquired such a degree of perfection, as to surpass miniature, and even equal painting in oil. He made use of gold and silver plates, and rarely enamelled on copper. When he first came in vogue, his price was twenty louts a-head, which he soon raised to forty. His custom was, to carry a painter with him, who painted the picture in oil; after which Petitot sketched out his work, which he always finished after the life. When he painted the king of France, he took those pictures that most resembled him for his patterns; and the king afterwards gave him a sitting or two to finish his work. He laboured with great assiduity, and never laid down his pencil but with reluct, ance; saying, that he always found new beauties in his art to charm him.

It was while at Avignon, that he contracted that passion which has so deeply engaged the attention of his biographers, and has given an air of romance, or of poetic fiction, to a considerable portion of his life. It appears that on the morning of Good Friday in 1327, he saw for the first time the young and beautiful Laura; undoubtedly a most important incident to Petrarch, for although his works give evidence of his abilities as a politician, theologian, and philosopher, yet it is to those beautiful verses alone, in which he has celebrated the accomplishments, and bewailed the fate of Laura, that he has been indebted for his permanent reputation. But his biographers differ widely from each other in their representations of the nature of Petrarch’s love for Laura. His late acute and ingenious apologist, lord Wooclhouselee, deduces from the works of the poet himself, that this passion, so remarkable both for its fervency and duration, was an honourable and virtuous flame, and that Petrarch aspired to the happiness of being united to Laura in marriage. “We have,” says his lordship, “unquestionable grounds for believing, from the evidence of his own writings, that the heart of Laura was not insensible to his passion; and although the term of his probation was tedious and severe, he cherished a hope, approaching to confidence, that he was at last to attain the of his wishes. Such are the ideas that we are led to entertain from the writings of the poet himself, of the nature and object of his passion; and such has been the uniform and continued belief of the world with regard to it, from his own days to the present.”

“At length,” continues lord Woodhouselee, “comes into the field, a hardy but most uncourteous knight, who, with a spirit very opposite to that of the heroes of chivalry, blasts at once the fair fame of the virtuous Laura, and the hitherto unsullied honour of her lover; and, proudly throwing down his gauntlet of defiance, maintains that Laura was a married woman, the mother of a numerous family; that Petrarch, with all his professions of a pure and honourable flame, had no other end in his unexampled assiduity of pursuit, than what every libertine proposes to himself in the possession of a mistress; and that the lovely Laura, though never actually unfaithful to her husband’s bed, was sensible to the passion of her Cicisbeo, highly gratified by his pursuit, and while she suffered on his account much restraint and severity from a jealous husband, continued to give him every mark of regard, which, without a direct breach of her matrimonial vow, she could bestow upon him.” Such is the hypothesis of M. de Sade, in his “Memoires pour la Vie de Petrarque,” 3 vols. 4to, which he published at Amsterdam, in 1764 67. He also asserts that Laura was the wife of one of his own predecessors, Hugh de Sade, and the mother of eleven children; that she was the daughter of Audibert de Noyes, was born in 1307 or 1308, at Avignon, and died there in 1348, having been married in 1325.

The arguments of lord Woodhouselee, who has fully examined and refuted this hypothesis, appear to us to amount as nearly to historic demonstration as the case will admit, while the whole train of De Sade’s narrative is inconsistent with the evidence to be derived from Petrarch’s writings. In the conclusion lord Woodhouselee says, “I have now, as I trust, impartially canvassed the whole of these arguments drawn by the author of the c Memoires 1 from the works of Petrarch himself, or what may be termed the intrinsic evidence in support of the material part of his hypothesis, namely, that Laura was a married woman; nor do I think 1 presume too much when I say that I have shewn their absolute insufficiency to prove that proposition.” After farther asserting, that in the whole of Petrarch’s works, consisting of more than 300 sonnets and other poetical pieces, there is not to be found a single passage which intimates that Laura was a married woman, he produces a variety of direct arguments on the subject, and concludes, that “uhile on the one hand we have shewn that there is not the smallest solidity in all that elaborate argument, which has been brought to prove that Laura was a married woman, we have proved, on the other, from the whole tenour of the writings of Petrarch, the only evidence that applies to the matter, that his affection for Laura was an honourable and virtuous flame.”

The duration and intensity of Petrarch’s passion for Laura, whether single or married, afford also other subjects for dispute; and it seems to be agreed upon by those sober critics who wish to strip his history from romance, that although his passion was so sincere as to give him uneasiness for a time, it was not of a permanent and overwhelming nature, and must have been diverted, if not extinguished, by the multiplicity of studies, travels, and > political employments, which form his public life, to which we shall now advert. It is said that one of the methods he took to combat his passion was travelling; and it is certain that his frequent removals form a very great part of the incidents which compose his life. In 1333 he travelled through Paris into Flanders, and thence to Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne, returning by Lyons to Avignon. After another ramble into Italy, he resolved to retire from the world. Those who contend that Laura was a single lady, and think that she received him on his return with reserve and coyness, attribute part of his dissatisfaction with the world to this cause; but they add, likewise, that his fortunes novr wore an unpromising aspect: the best years of his life were wearing fast away; and the friendship of the great, though soothing to his self-love, had yet produced no beneficial consequence. Disgusted, therefore, with the splendid delusions of ambition, and feeling no solid enjoyment but in the calm pursuits of literature and philosophy, he resolved at once to bid adieu to the world; and at the early age of thirty-four he retired to the solitude of Vaucluse, about fifteen miles from Avignon, where he purchased a small house and garden, the humble dwelling of a fisherman: a lonely but beautiful recess, which he has celebrated in many parts of his works, and indeed in which he wrote many of those works, particularly his Italian poetry; many of his Latin epistles, in prose and verse; his eclogues; his treatises on a “Solitary Life,” and on “Religious Tranquillity;” and part of his poem on Africa.

The taste for poetry and elegant composition, for which the public mind had been prepared by the writings of Dante, ascended to a pitch of enthusiastic admiration, when these works of Petrarch appeared. Literary fame, in those days, must have depended on the opinion of a very few competent judges; for, as printing was not then known, the circulation of a new work, by manuscript copies, must have been very slow, and extremely limited. While enjoying this reputation, however, he received a letter from the Maecenas of the age, Robert king of Naples. And this honour was followed by one still greater; the revival, in his favour, of the ancient custom of crowning eminent poets at Rome. Petrarch appears to have indulged the hope of attaining this honour, and not on slight grounds; for, in August 1340, he unexpectedly received a letter from the Roman senate, inviting him to come and take the laurel in that city, and on the same day he received a similar invitation from Paris. Having determined to accept the invitation from Rome, he thought it necessary first to repair to the court of king Robert at Naples (in March 1341), and undergo a public examination as to his learning and talents. Having gone through a ceremony, which, as far as voluntary, was ostentatious, he went to Rome where, on Easter-day, in the midst of the plaudits of the Roman people, the ceremony was performed in the capitol by his friend count d'Anguillara. Twelve patrician youths were arrayed in scarlet; six representatives of the most illustrious families, in green robes, with garlands of flowers, accompanied the procession: in the midst of the princes and nobles, Anguillara assumed his throne, and at the voice of a herald Petrarch arose. After discoursing on a text of Virgil, and thrice repeating his vows for the prosperity of Rome, he knelt before the throne, and received from the senator a laurel crown, with the declaration, “This is the reward of merit.” The people shouted “Long life to the capitol and the poet.” A sonnet in praise of Rome was accepted as the effusion of genius and gratitude; and after the whole procession had visited the Vatican, the wreath was suspended before the shrine of St. Peter. In the act of diploma, which was presented to Petrarch, the title and prerogatives of poet-laureat are revived in the capitol, after the lapse of 1300 years; and he received the perpetual privilege of wearing, at his choice, a crown of laurel, ivy, or myrtle, of assuming the poetic habit, and of teaching, disputing, interpreting, and composing, in all places whatsoever, and on all subjects of literature. The grant was ratified by the authority of the senate and people, and the character of citizen was the recompence of his affection for the Roman name.

From Rome Petrarch went to Parma, where he passed some time with his protectors, the lords of Corregio, and employed himself in finishing his “Africa.” It was probably from that family that he obtained the dignity of archdeacon in the church of Parma; and in 1342, when he wai sent to compliment Clement VI. on his accession, in the name of the senate and people of Rome, a priory in the diocese of Pisa was given him by this pope. In the following year he composed his curious “Dialogue with St. Augustine,” in which he confesses the passion for Laura, which still held dominion over his soul. In 1348 he had the misfortune to lose this object of his affections, who died of the universal pestilence which ravaged all Europe. The same pestilence deprived him of his great friend and patron, cardinal Colonna. From Padua, where he appears to have been when these misfortunes befell him, he travelled, for a year or two, to Parma, Carpi, and Mantua; and in 1350 he again visited Padua, where he obtained a canonry, and wrote a very eloquent letter to the emperor Charles IV. exhorting him to come into Italy for the purpose of remedying the many evils with which that country was oppressed. After various other removals, he went to Milan, where the kindness and pressing solicitation of John Visconti, its archbishop and sovereign, induced him to settle for some time. Here he vvas admitted into the council of state; and in 1354 was sent to Wnice, to make another effort for pacifying the two hostile republics, but his eloquence proved fruitless. In the same year he went to Mantua to meet the emperor, who having at length come to Italy, gave him a most gracious reception; and although no advantages resulted to his country from this interview, the emperor afterwards sent him a diploma, conferring the title of count palatine. In 1360 Petrarch was sent to Paris, to congratulate king John on his liberation from English captivity; and his reception in that capital was answerable to the celebrity of his name.

By pope Innocent VI. Petrarch was treated at first with much neglect, or even contempt; but, in 1361, he had so far overcome his prejudices, as to offer the poet the place of apostolical secretary, which he declined, as he did also a very pressing invitation from John, king of France, to reside at his court. When pope Urban V. had succeeded to the pontifical chair, he gave him a canonry of Carpentras, and was very desirous of a personal interview with him; and, notwithstanding his age and infirmities, Petrarch set out for this purpose in 1370; but being unable to sustain the fatigue, he returned to his villa of Arqua, near Padua. His last journey was to Venice, in 1373, where he harangued the Venetian senate in favour of his patron, Francis de Carrara. On his return to Arqua, he fell into a state of languor, which terminated in a fit of some kind, in the night of July 18, 1374. He was found dead next morning in his library, with his head resting on a book. He survived his Laura many years, if the date of her death, April 6, 1348, be correct.

, a man of learning, a patron of learning, and a distinguished statesman, in the four discordant reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth, was the son of John Petre, of Tornewton, in the parish of Tor-brian, in Devonshire, and born either at Exeter or Tor-newton. After some elementary education, probably at his native place, he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford; and when he had studied there for a while with diligence and success, he was, in 1523, elected a fellow of All Souls. We may suppose that he became sensible of the importance of learning, and of the value of such seminaries, as he afterwards proved a liberal benefactor to both these colleges. His intention being to practise in the civil law courts, he took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty in July 1526, ant) his doctor’s in 1532, and the following year was admitted into the college of Advocates. It does not appear, however, that he left Oxford on this account, but was made principal of Peckwater Inn, now part of Christ Church; and he became soon after tutor to the son of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire.

, a Roman satirist, was a favourite of Nero, supposed to be the same whom Tacitus mentions in book xvi. of his Annals, and was proconsul of Bithynia, and afterwards consul. He is said to have discovered a capacity for the highest offices; but abandoning himself to voluptuousness, Nero made him one of his principal confidants, and the superintendant of his licentious pleasures, nothing being agreeable or delightful to that prince but what Petronius approved. This raised the envy of Tigellinus, another of Nero’s favourites, who accused him of being engaged in a conspiracy against the emperor. Upon this, Petronius was arrested; and, being condemned to death, he caused his veins to be opened and shut, from time to time, while he conversed with his friends on verses and poetry. He afterwards sent Nero a book, sealed up by his own hand, in which he described that emperor’s debaucheries under borrowed names, and died about the year 66. His “Satiricon,” and some other pieces, are written in elegant Latin, bat filled with such obscenities, that he has been called autor purissimte impuritatis. A fragment of his works was found in the seventeenth century at Traou, a city of Dalmatia, in the duchy of Spalatro, which contains “The Supper of Trimalcion,” one of his most indelicate pieces. Many disputes have arisen concerning its authenticity, which however now seems to be admitted; but some other fragments, taken from a manuscript found at Belgrade in 1688, and published at Paris by M. Nodot, in 1694, are yet under suspicion of being forgeries. There is a great deal of uncertainty, both about the works and personal history of Petronius; and in Maittaire’s “Corpus Poetarum” are verses by five different poets named Petronius. Although no English critic has disgraced himself by employing his time in illustrating this abominable author, Chalderius, Sambucus, Goldast, and other foreign scholars, have been less scrupulous. Burman’s edition of 1709 and 1743, 4to, is usually reckoned the best; but some prefer that of Antonius, printed at Leipsic in 1781, 8vo.

, a singular instance of an almost universal genius, and of learning, mechanical ingenuity, and ceconomy, applied to useful purposes, was the eldest son of Anthony Petty, a clothier at Rumsey, in Hampshire, and was born May 16, 1623. It does not appear that his father was a man of much property, as he left this son none at his death, in 1641, and contributed very little to his maintenance. When young, the boy took extraordinary pleasure in viewing various mechanics at their work, and so readily conceived the natjure of their employment, and the use of their tools, that he was, at the age of twelve, able to iiandle the latter with dexterity not much inferior to that of the most expert workmen in any trade which he had ever seen. What education he had was first at the grammar-school at Rum?ey, where, according to his own account, he acquired, before the age of fifteen, a competent knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and French languages, and became master of the common rules of arithmetic, geometry, dialling, and the astronomical part of navigation. With this uncommon fund of various knowledge he removed, at the above age of fifteen, to the university of Caen in Normandy. This circumstance is mentioned among those particulars of his early life which he has given in his will, although, by a blunder of the transcriber, Oxford is put for Caen in Collir.s’s Peerage. Wood says that, when he went to Caen, “with a little stock of merchandizing which he then improved, he maintained himself there, learning the French tongue, and at eighteen years of age, the arts and mathematics.” Mr. Aubrey’s account is in these not very perspicuous words: “He has told me, there happened to him the most remarkable accident of life (which he did not tell me), and which was the foundation of all the rest of his greatness and acquiring riches. He informed me that about fifteen, in March, he went over to Caen, in Normandy, in a vessel that went hence, with a little stock, and began to play the merchant, and had so good successe that he maintained himselfe, and also educated himselfe: this I guesse was that most remarkable accident that he meant. Here he learned the French tongue, and perfected himself in Latin, and had Greeke enough to serve his turne. At Caen he studyed the arts. At eighteen, he was (I have heard him say) a better mathematician than he is now; but when occasion is, he knows how to recurre to more mathematical knowledge.” These accounts agree in the main points, and we may learn from both that he had at a very early period begun that money-making system which enabled him to realize a vast fortune. He appears to have been of opinion, that “there are few ways in which a man can be more harmlessly employed than in making money.” On his return to his native country, he speaks of being 1 preferred to^the king’s navy, but in what capacity is not known. This he attributes to the knowledge he had acquired, and his “having been at the university of Caen.” In the navy, however, before he was twenty years of age, he got together about 60l. and the civil war raging at this time, he determined to set out on his travels, for further improvement in his studies. He had now chosen medicine as a profession, and in the year 1643, visited Leyden, Utrecht, Amsterdam, and Paris, at which last city he studied anatomy, and read Vesalixis with the celebrated Hobbes, who was partial to him. Hobbes was then writing on optics, and Mr. Petty, who had a turn that way, drew his diagrams, &c. for him. While at Paris, he informed Aubrey that “at one time he was driven to a great streight for money, and told him, that he lived a week or two on three pennyworths of walnuts.” Aubrey likewise queries whether he was not some time a prisoner there. His ingenuity and industry, however, appear to have extricated him from his difficulties, for we have his own authority that; he returned home in 1646, a richer man by IQl. than he set out, and yet had maintained his brother Anthony as well as himself.

How this 70l. accumulated will appear by his will. It may suffice here to mention, that in the following year March 6, a patent was granted him by parliament for seventeen years, for a copying machine, as it would now be termed, but which he calls an instrument for double writing. In an advertisement prefixed to his “Advice to Mr. Samuel Hartlib,” he calls it, “an instrument of small bulk and price, easily made, and very durable; whereby any man, even at the first sight and handling, may write two resembling copies of the same thing at once, as serviceably and as fast (allowing two lines upon each page for setting the instruments) as by the ordinary way, of what nature, or in what character, or what matter soever, as, paper, parchment, a book, &c. the said writing ought-to be made upon.” Rushworth also, having mentioned the patent for teaching this art, transcribes nearly our author’s words; and says, “It might be learnt in an hour’s practice, and that it was of great advantage to lawyers, scriveners, merchants, scholars, registers, clerks, &c. it saving the labour of examination, discovering or preventing falsification, and performing the whole business of writing, as with ease and speed, so with privacy also.” The additional fatigue occasioned to the hand, by the increase of weight above that of a pen, rendered this project useless as to the chief advantage proposed, that of expedition in writing: but it seems to have been applied with some alterations to the business of drawing; the instrument for which is too well known to need any description here.

Some time after his settlement in Ireland, having observed, that the lands forfeited by the rebellion in 1641, which had been adjudged to the soldiers who suppressed it, were very insufficiently measured, he represented the matter to the persons then in power, who granted him a contract, dated Dec. 11, 1654, to make the admeasurements anew; and these he finished with such exactness, that there was no estate of 60l. per annum, and upwards, which was not distinctly marked in its true value, maps being likewise made by him of the whole. By this contract he gained a Very considerable sum of money. Besides 20s. a day, which he received during the performance, he had also a penny an acre by agreement with the soldiers: and it appears from an order of government, dated at the castle of Dublin, 19th March, 1655, that he had then surveyed 2,008,000 acres of forfeited profitable land. He was likewise one of the commissioners for setting out the lands to the army, after they were surveyed. When Henry Cromwell obtained the lieutenancy of that kingdom in 1655, he made the doctor his secretary, appointed him a clerk of the council there in 1657, and procured him to be elected a burgess for West Looe in Cornwall, in Richard CromweiPs parliament, which met Jan. 27, 1658. March the 25th following, sir Hierom Sankey, or Zanchy, member for Woodstock in Oxfordshire, impeached him for high crimes and misdemeanors, in the execution of his office. This brought him into England, when, appearing in the House of Commons, April 19, he answered to the charge on the 21st; to which his prosecutors replying, the matter was adjourned, but never came to an issue, that parliament being suddenly dissolved the next day. Henry Cromwell had written a letter to secretary Thurloe, dated the llth of that month, in his favour, as follows: “Sir, I have heretofore told you my thoughts of Dr. Petty, and am still of the same opinion: and, if sir Hierom Sankey do not run him down with numbers and noise of adventurers, and such other like concerned persons, I believe the parliament will find him as I have represented. He has curiously deceived me these four years, if he be a knave. I am sure the juntos of them, who are most busy, are not men of the quietest temper. I do not expect you will have leisure, or see cause, to appear much for him; wherefore this is only to let you understand my present thoughts of him. The activeness of Robert Reynolds and others in this business, shews, that Petty is not the only mark aimed at.”

The principal object of his answer is to demonstrate that he might, without ever meddling with the surveys of the Irish lands, have acquired as large a fortune otherwise; and his demonstration must be allowed the praise of ingenuity at least: “In the year 1649” (says he), “1 proceeded M. D. after the charges whereof, and my admission into the college of London, I had left about 60l. From that time till about August 1652, by my practice, fellowship at Gresham, and at Brazen-nose college, and by my anatomy lecture at Oxford, I had made that 60l. to be near 500?. From August 16, 1652, when I went for Ireland, to December 1654 (when I began the survey and other public entanglements) with WOl. advance money, and of 365l.*a year well paid salary, as also with my practice among the chief in the chief city of the nation, I made my said 5001. above 1,600l. Now the interest of this 1600l. for a year in Ireland, could not be less than 200l. which, with 550l. (for another year’s salary and practice, viz. until the lands were set out in October 1655) would have encreased my said stock to 2,3 50l. With 2,000l. whereof I would have bought 8,000l. in debentures, which would have then purchased me about 15,000 acres of land, viz. as much as I am now accused to have. 'These 15,000 acres could not yield me less than, at 2s. per acre, 1,500l. per ann. especially receiving the rents of May-day preceding. This year’s rent with 550l. for my salary and practice, &c. till December 1656, would have bought me even then (debentures growing dearer) 6,000l. in debentures, whereof the five 7thg then paid would have been about 4,000l. neat, for which I must have had about 8,000 acres more, being as much almost as I conceive is due to me. The rent for 15,000 acres and 8,000 acres, for three years, could not have been less than 7,000l. which, with the same three years’ salary, viz. 1,650l. would have been near 9,000l. estate in money, above the abovementioned 1,500l. per ann. in lands. The which, whether it be more or less than what I now have, I leave to all the world to examine and, judge. This estate I might have got without ever meddling with surveys, much less with the more fatal distribution of lands after they were surveyed, and without meddling with the clerkship of the council, or being, secretary to the lord lieutenant: all which had I been so happy as to have declined, then had I preserved an universal favour and interest with all men, instead of the odium and persecution I now endure.” In this manner, he endeavours to prove how he might have made his fortune. How he did make it will appear hereafter in his will.

In 1666, sir William drew up his treatise, called “Verbum Sapienti,” containing an account of the wealth and expences of England, and the method of raising taxes in the most equal manner; shewing likewise, that England can bear the charge of four millions per annum, when the occasions of the government require it! The same year, 1666, he suffered a considerable loss by the fire of London; having purchased, several years before, the earl of Arunders house and gardens, and erected buildings in the garden, called Token-house, which were for the most part destroyed by that dreadful conflagration. In 1667, he married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Hardresse Waller, knight, and relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. and afterwards set up iron works, and a pilchard-fishery, opened lead- mines, and commenced a timber trade in Kerry, which turned to very good account; and with all these employments he found time to consider other subjects of general utility, which he communicated to the Royal Society, He composed a piece of Latin poetry, and published it at London in 1679, in two folio sheets, under the name of ' Cassid. Aureus Manutius,“with the title of” Colloquium Davidis cum anima sua.“His patriotism had before led him to use his endeavours to support the expence of the war against the Dutch, and he felt it necessary also to expose the sinister practices of the French, who were at this time endeavouring to raise disturbances in England, increase our divisions, and corrupt the parliament at this time. With this vievr he published, in 1680, a piece called” The Politician Discovered,“&c. and afterwards wrote several essays in political arithmetic; in which, from a view of the natural strength both of England and Ireland, he suggests a method of improving each by industry and frugality, so as to be a match for, or even superior to, either of her neighbours. Upon the first meeting of the Philosophical Society at Dublin, after the plan of that at London, every thing was submitted to his direction; and, when it was formed into a regular society, he was chosen president, Nov. 1684. UpoiKthis occasion he drew up a” Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,“proper for the infant state of the society, and presented it to them; as he did also his” Supellex Philosophica," consisting of fortyfive instruments requisite to carry on the design of their institution. But, a few years after, all his pursuits were determined by the effects of a gangrene in his foot, occasioned by the swelling of the gout, which put a period to his life, at his house in Piccadilly, Westminster, Dec. 16, 1687, in his sixty-fifth year. His body was carried to Rumsey, and there interred, near those of his parents. There was laid over his grave only a flat stone on the pavement, with this short inscription, cut by an illiterate workman:

This singular composition bears date May 2, 1685, and runs thus: “In the name of God, Amen. I, sir William. Petty, knt. born at Rumsey, in Hantshire, do, revoking all other and former wills, make this my last will and testament, premising the ensuing preface to the same, whereby to express my condition, design, intentions, and desires, concerning the persons and things contained in, and relating to, my said will, for the better expounding any thing which may hereafter seem doubtful therein, and also for justifying, on behalf of my children, the manner and means of getting and acquiring the estate, which I hereby bequeath unto them; exhorting them to improve the same by no worse negociations. In the first place I declare and affirm, that at the full age of fifteen years I had obtained the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, the whole body of common Arithmetic, the practical Geometry and Astronomy conducing to Navigation, Dialling, &c. with the knowledge of several mathematical trades, all which, and having been at the university of Caen, preferred me to the king’s navy; where, at the age of twenty years, I had gotten up about threescore pounds, with as much mathematics as any of my age was known to have had. With this provision, anno 1643, when the civil wars between the king and parliament grew hot, I went into the Netherlands and France for three years, and having vigorously followed my studies, especially that of medicine, at Utrecht, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Paris, I returned to Rumsey, where I was born, bringing back with me my brother Anthony, whom I had bred, with about 10l. more than I had carried out of England. With this 70l. and my endeavours, in less than four years more, I obtained my degree of M. D. in Oxford, and forthwith thereupon to be admitted into the College of Physicians, London, and into several clubs of the Virtuous (Virtuosi); after all which expence defrayed, I had left 28l. and in the next two years being made Fellow of Brazen -Nose, and Anatomy Professor in Oxford, and also Reader at Gresham-college, I advanced my said stock to about 400l. and with 100l. more advanced and given me to go for Ireland, unto full 500l. Upon the 10th of September, 1652, I landed, at Waterford in Ireland, Physician to the army who had suppressed the rebellion begun in the year 1641, and to the general of the same, and the head quarters, at the rate of 20^. per diem, at which I continued till June 1659, gaining, by my practice, about 400l. a year above the said salary. About Sept. 1654, I perceiving that the admeasurement of the lands, furfrited by the aforementioned rebellion, and intended to regulate the satisfaction of the soldiers who hadsuppressed the same, was most insufficiently and absurdly managed; I obtained a contract, dated llth December, 1654, for making the said admeasurement, and, by God’s blessing, so performed the same, as that I gained about 9,000l. thereby, which, with the 500l. abovementioned, and my salary of 20s. per diem, the benefit of my practice, together with 600l. given me for directing an after survey of the adventurer’s lands, and 800l. more for two years’ salary as clerk of the council, raised me an estate of about 13,000l. in ready and real money, at a time when, without art, interest, or authority, men bought as much lands for ten shillings in real money, as in this year, 1685, yields 10s. per annum rent, above his majesty’s quit-rents. Now I bestowed part of the said 13,000l. in soldier’s debentures, part in purchasing the earl of Arundel’s house and garden in Lothbury, London, and part I kept in cash to answer emergencies. Hereupon I. purchased lands inIreland, with soldiers’ debentures , bought at the above market-rates, a great part whereof I lost by the Court of Innocents, anno 1663; and built the said garden, called Tokenhouse Yard, in Lothbury, which was for the most part destroyed by the dreadful fire, anno 1666. Afterwards, anno 1667, I married Elizabeth, the relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. I set up iron-works and pilchard-fishing in Kerry, and opened the lead -mines and timber-trade in Kerry: by all which, and some advantageous bargains, and with living under my income, I have, at the making this my will, the real and personal estate following: viz. a large house and four tenements in Rumsey, with four acres of meadow upon the causeway, and four acres of arable in the fields, called Marks and Woollsworths, in all about 30A per ann.; houses in Token-house Yard, near Lothbury, London, with a lease in Piccadilly, and the Seven Stars and Blazing Star in Birching-lane, London, worth about 500l. per annum, besides mortgages upon certain houses in Hoglane, near Shoreditch, in London, and in Erith, in Kent, worth about 20l. per annum. I have three fourth parts of the ship Charles, whereof Derych Paine is master, which I value at 80l. per annum, as also the copper-plates for the maps of Ireland with the king’s privilege, which I rate at lOOl. per annum, in all 730l. per annum. I have in Ireland, without the county of Kerry, in lands, remainders, and reversions, about 3,100l. per annum. I have of neat profits, out of the lands and woods of Kerry, above 1,100l. per annum, besides iron-works, fishing, and leadmines, and marble-quarries, worth 600l. per annum; in all 4,800l. I have, as my wife’s jointure, during her life, about 850l. per annum; and for fourteen years after her death about 2001. per ann. I have, by 3,300l. money at interest, 20l. per annum; in all about 6,700l. per annum. The personal estate is as follows, viz. in chest, 6,600l.; in the hands of Adam Loftus, 1,296l.; of Mr. John Cogs, goldsmith, of London, 1,2 5 1l.; in silver, plate, and jewels, about 3,000l.; in furniture, goods, pictures, coach-horses, books, and watches, 1,1 So/.; per estimate in all 12,000l. I value my three chests of original map and field -books, the copies of the Downe-survey, with the Barony-maps, and chest of distribution-books, with two chests of loose papers relating to the survey, the two great barony-books, and the book of the History of the Survey, altogether at 2,000l. I have due out of Kerry, for arrears of my rent and iron, before 24th June, 1685, the sum of 1,912l. for the next half year’s rent out of my lands in Ireland, my wife’s jointure, and England, on or before 24th June next, 2,000l. Moreover, by arrears due 30th April, 1685, out of all my estate, by estimate, and interest of money, 1,800l. By other good debts, due upon bonds and bills at this time, per estimate, 900l. By debts which I call bad 4000l. worth perhaps 800l. By debts which I call doubtful, 50,0007. worth, perhaps, 25,000l. In all, 34,4 12l. and the total of the whole personal estate, 46,412l.: so as my present income for the year 1685 may be 6,700l. the profits of the personal estate may be 4,64 \l. and the demonstrable improvement of my Irish estate may be 3,659l. per ann. to make in all I5,000l. per ann. in and by all manner of effects, abating for bad debts about 28,000l.; whereupon I say in gross, that my real estate or income may be 6,600l. per ann. my personal estate about 45,000l. my bad and desperate debts 30,000l. and the improvements may be 4,000 /. per ann. in all 15,000l. per ann. ut supra. Now my opinion and desire is (if I could effect it, and if I were clear from the law, custom, and other impediments) to add to my wife’s jointure three fourths of what it now is computed at, viz. 637l. per ann. to make the whole 1,487l. per ann. which addition of 637l. and 850l. being deducted out of the aforementioned 6,600l. leaves 5,113l. for my two sons whereof I would my eldest son should have two-thirds, or 3,408l. and the younger 1,705l. and that, after their mother’s death, the aforesaid addition of 637l. should be added in like proportion, making for the eldest 3,S32l. and for the youngest 1,916l. and I would that the improvement of the estate should be equally divided between my two sons; and that the personal estate (taking out 10,000l. for my only daughter) that the rest should be equally divided between my wife and three children; by which method my wife would have 1,587l. per ann. and 9,000l. in personal effects; my daughter would have 10,000l. of the Crame, and 9,000l. more, with less certainty: my eldest son would have 3,800l. per ann. and half the expected improvement, with 9,000l. in hopeful effects, over and above his wife’s portion: and my youngest son would have the same within 1,900l. per ann. I would advise my wife, in this case, to spend her whole l,587l. per ann. that is to say, on her own entertainment, charity, and munificence, without care of increasing her children’s fortunes: and I would she would give away one-third of the above mentioned 9,000l. at her death, even from her children, upon any worthy object, and dispose of the other two-thirds to such of her children and grand-children as pleased her best, without regard to any other rule or proportion. In case of either of my three children’s death under age, I advise as follows; viz. If my eldest, Charles, die without issue, I would that Henry should have three-fourths of what he leaves; and my daughter Anne the rest. If Henry die, I would that what he leaves may be equally divided between Charles and Anne: and if Anne die, that her share be equally divided between Charles and Henry. Memorandum, That I think fit to rate the 30,000l. desperate debts at 1,1 Ooj. only, and to give it my daughter, to make her abovementioned 10,000l. and 9,000l. to be full 20,000l. which is much short of what I have given her younger brother; and the elder brother may have 3,800 per ann. and 9,000l. in money, worth 900l. more, 2,0001. by improvements, and 1,300l. by marriage, to make up the whole to 8,000l. per ann. which is very well for the eldest son, as 20,000l. for the daughter.” He then leaves his wife executrix and guardian during her widowhood, and, in case of her marriage, her brother James Waller, and Thomas Dame: recommending to them two, and his children, to use the same servants and instruments for management of the estate, as were in his life- time, at certain salaries to continue during their lives, or until his youngest child should be twenty-one years, which would be the 22d of October, 1696, after which his children might put the management of their respective concerns into what hands they pleased. He then proceeds:

“I would not have my funeral charge to exceed 300l. over and above which sum I allow and give 150l. to set up a monument in the church of Rumsey, near where my grandfather, father, and mother, were buried, in memory of them, and of all my brothers and sisters. I give also 5l. for a stone to be set up in Lothbury church, London, in memory of my brother Anthony, there buried about 18th October, 1649. I give also 50l. for a small monument to be set up in St. Bride’s church, Dublin, in memory of my son John, and my near kinsman, John Petty, supposing my wife will add thereunto for her excellent son, Sir William Fenton, bart. who was buried there 18th March, 1670-71; and if I myself be buried in any of the said three places, I would have Joo/. only added to the above-named sums, or that the said 100l. shall be bestowed on a monumentfor me in any other place where I shall die. As for legacies for the poor, I am at a stand as for beggars by trade and election, I give them nothing; as for impotents by the hand of God, the public ought to maintain them; as for those who have been bred to no calling nor estate, they should be put upon their kindred; as for those who can get no work, the magistrate should cause them to be employed, which may be well done in Ireland, where is fifteen acres of improvable land for every head; prisoners for crimes, by the King; for debts, by their prosecutors; as for those who compassionate the sufferings of any object, let them relieve themselves by relieving such sufferers, that is, give them alms pro re nata, and for God’s sake relieve those several species above-mentioned, where the above-mentioned obligors fail in their duties: wherefore I am contented that I have assistc I all my poor relations, and put many into a way of getting their own bread, and have laboured in public works, and by inventions have sought out real objects of charity; and do hereby conjure all who partake of my estate, from time to time to do the same at their peril. Nevertheless, to answer custom, and to take the surer side, 1 give 20l. to the most wanting of the parish wherein I die. As for the education of my children, I would that my daughter might marry in Ireland, desiring that such a sum as I have left her, might not be carried out of Ireland. I wish that my eldest son may get a gentleman’s estate in England, which, by what I have gotten already, intend to purchase, and by what I presume he may have with a wife, may amount to between 2000l. and 3000l. per ann. and buy some office he may get there, together with an ordinary superlucration may reasonably be expected; so as I may design my youngest son’s trade and employment to be the prudent management of our Irish estate for himself and his elder brother, which I suppose his said brother must consider him for. As for myself, I being now about three-score and two years old, I intend to attend the improvement of my lands in Ireland, and to get in the many debts owing unto me; and to promote the trade of iron, lead, marble, fish, and timber, whereof my estate is capable: and as for studies and experiment, I think now to confine the same to the anatomy of the people and political arithmetic as also to the improvements of ships, land- carriages, guns, and pumps, as of most use to mankind, not blaming the studies of other men. As for religion, I die in the profession of that faith, and in the practice of such worship, as I find established by the law of my country, not being able to believe what I myself please, nor to worship God better than by doing as I would be done unto, and observing the laws of my country, and expressing my love and honour to Almighty God by such signs and tokens as are understood to be such by the people with whom I live, God knowing my heart, even without any at all; and thus begging the Divine Majesty to make me what he would have me to be, both as to faith and good works, I willingly resign my soul into his hands, relying only on his infinite mercy, and the merits of my Saviour, for my happiness after this life, where I expect to know and see God more clearly than by the study of the Scriptures and of his works I have been hitherto able to do. Grant me, O Lord, an easy passage to thyself, that, as I have lived in thy fear, I may be known to die in thy favour. Amen.”

"I remember there was a great difference between him and sir (Hierom Sankey), one of Oliver’s knights, about 1660. They printed one against the other. * The knight had been a soldier, and challenged sir William to fight with him. Sir William is extremely short-sighted, and being the cballengee it belonged to him to nominate place and weapon. He nominates for the. place a dark cellar, and the weapon to be a great carpenter’s axe. This turned the knight’s challenge into ridicule, and it came to nought Sir William can be an excellent droll, if he has a mind to it, and will preach extempore incomparably, either in the presbyterian way, independent, capucin friar, or Jesuit.

"I remember one St. Andrew’s day (which is the day of the general meeting of the royal society for annual elections) I sayd, ‘ Methought ’twas not so well that we should pitch upon the patron of Scotland’s day, we should rather have taken St. George or St. Isidora (a philosopher canonized).‘ ` No,’ said sir William, ` I would rather that it had been on St. Thomas’s day, for he would not believe till he had seen and putt his fingers into the holes, according to the motto Nullius in verba.'

“He told me that he never gott by legacies in his life but only 10l. which was not payd. He hath told me, that whereas some men have accidentally come into the way of preferment by lying at an inne, and there contracting an acquaintance, on the roade; or as some others have donne: he never had any such like opportunity, but hewed out his fortune himselfe.”

The variety of pursuits in which sir William Petty was engaged, shews him to have had a genius capable of any thing to which he chose to apply it; and it is very extraordinary, that a man of so active and busy a spirit could find time to write so many things, as it appears he did by the following catalogue 1. “Advice to Mr. S. Hartlib,” &c. 1648, 4to. 2. “A brief of Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author,” &c. 1659, fol. 3. “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. 1660, 8vo. 4.' “A Treatise of Taxes and Contribution,” &c. 1662, 1667, 1685, 4to, all without the author’s name. This last was republished in 1690, with two other anonymous pieces, “The Privileges and Practice of Parliaments,” and “The Politician discovered” with a new tide-page, where they are all said to be written by sir William, which, as to the first, is a mistake. 5. “Apparatus to the hjstory of the common practice of Dyeing,” printed in Sprat’s History of the R. S. 1667. 6. “A Discourse concerning the use of Duplicate Proportion, together with a new hypothesis of springing or elastic Motions,” 1674, i 2mo. See an account of it in “Phil. Trans.” No. cix. and a censure of it in Dr. Barlow’s “Genuine Remains,” p. 151. 1693, -8vo. 7.“Colloquium Davidis cum aniina sua,” &c. 1679, fol. 8. “.The Politician discovered,” &c. 1681, 4to. 9. “An Essay in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1682, 8vo. 10. “Observations upon the Dublin Bills of Mortality in 1681,” &c. 1683, 8vo. II. “An account of some Experiments relating to Land-carriage,” Phil. Trans. No. clxi. 12. “Some Queries, whereby to examine Mineral Waters,” ibid. No. clxvi. 13. “A Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,” &c. ibid. No. clxvii. 14. “Maps of Ireland, being an actual Survey of the whole kingdom,” &c. 1685, folio. This contained thirty-six accurate maps viz. a general map the province of Leinster, consisting of eleven counties, each in a distinct map that of Munster of six Ulster nine; and Connaught five. Another edition was afterwards made from the same plates. Sir William’s surveys, says Mr. Gough, as far as they go are tolerably exact as to distances and situations, but neither the latitudes nor roads are expressed, nor is the sea-coast exactly laid down; his design being only to take an account of the forfeited lands; many other tracts are left blank, and from such a survey his maps are formed. 15. “An Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind,” 1686, 8vo. N. B. The Essay is not printed here, but only the substance of it. 16. “A further assertion, concerning the Magnitude of London, vindicating it from the objections of the French,” Phil. Trans, clxxxv. 17, “Two Essays in Political Arithmetic,” c. 1687, 8vo. An extract of these is in Phil. Trans. No. clxxxiii. 18. “Five Essays in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1687, 8vo, printed in French and English on opposite pages. 19. “Observations upon London and Rome,” 1687, 8vo, three leaves. His posthumous pieces are, 1. “Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1690, 8vo, and 1755, with his Life prefixed; and a Letter of his never before printed. 2. “The Political Anatomy of Ireland,” to which is added, “Verbum Sapienti,” 1691, 1719. In the title-page of the second edition this treatise is called “Sir William Petty’s Political Survey of Ireland.” This latter was criticized in “A Letter from a gentleman,” &cr. 1692, 4to. 3. “A treatise of Naval Philosophy, in three parts,” &c. printed at the end of “An account of several new Inventions, &c. in a discourse by way of letter to the earl of Marlborougb,” &c. 1691, 12mo. Wood suspects this may be the same with the discourse about the building of ships, mentioned above to be many years in the hands of lord Brounker. 4. “What a complete Treatise of Navigation should contain,” Phil. Trans. No. cxcviii. This was drawn up in 1685. Besides these, the following are printed in Birch’s History of the H. S. 1. “A discourse of making Cloth and Sheep’s Wool.” This contains the history of the clothing trade, as No. 5. above, does that of dyeing; and he purposed to have done the like in other trades; in which design some other members of the society engaged also at that time. 2. “Supellex Philosophica.”

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

In 1680 he asserted the “Ancient Rights of the Commons of England, in a discourse proving by records, &c. that they were ever an essential part of parliament,” 8vo. This gave rise to a controversy, in the course of which the following pieces were published, 1. “Jani Anglorum facies nova, or several monuments of antiquity touching the great councils of this kingdom and the courts of the king’s immediate tenants and otficers,” 1680, 8vo, said to be written by Mr. Atwood. 2. “A full Answer to a book written by William Pettyt, esq. with a true account of the famous Colloquium, or Parliament 40 Hen. Ill and a glossary expounding some few words in ancient records, together with some animadversions on a book called Jani Anglorum facies nova,” 1683, 8vo. 3. “Jus Anglorum ab antique, or a confutation of an impotent libel against the government by king, lords and commons, under the pretence of answering Mr. Pettyt, and the author of * Jam Anglorum facies nova,'” 1681, 8vo. 4. “Argumentum Anunormanicum; or an argument proving from ancient histories and records, that William duke of Normandy made no absolute conquest in England,” 1682, 8vo. This is thought by Dr. Brady to be also written by Mr. Atwood; but by others it is attributed to Mr. Cooke. To this an answer afterwards appeared by the principal champion in the dispute, Dr. Robert Brady, who collected all he had written on the occasion into “An Introduction to the Old English History, in three tracts,” and by the same author the same subject was connected with “An Historical Treatise of Cities and Burghs, or Boroughs,” (See Brady) 1704, 1711,fol. 1777, 8vo.

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

, a celebrated scholar, was born at Augsburg in 1465, and studied successfully in the principal cities of Italy. When he returned home he was appointed secretary to the senate of Augsburg, and employed by that body in the diets of the empire, and in the various courts of Europe. In his private character he conferred happiness on an excellent and learned wife; and, in his public, was always rendering essential services to his country. This excellent citizen died at eighty-two, in 1574, having lost his faculties for some time before. He is most known by an ancient itinerary, which from him is called “Tabula Peutingeriana.” It is a curious chart found in a monastery in Germany, and communicated to Peutinger by one Conrad Celtes. It was formed under the reign of Theodosius the Great, and marks the roads by which the Roman armies passed at that time to the greater part of the empire. It is not a geographical work, and seems to have been made by a Roman soldier, who thought of nothing, or perhaps knew nothing, but what respected the roads, and the places for encampment. A magnificent but now very scarce edition of it was published by F. C. Scheib at Vienna in 1753, fol. Peutinger’s own works are, 1. “Sermones convivales,” in the collection of Schardius; Jena, 1683, 8vo. 2. “De inclinatione Romani imperil, et gentium commigrationibus,” subjoined to the former, and to Procopi us. 3. “De rebus Gothorum,” Bale, 1531, fol. 4, “Romanae Vetustatis fragmenta, in Augusta Vindelicorum,” Mayence, 1528, fol.

, a native of Schaffhausen in Switzerland, is famous for having first given an accurate account of the intestinal glands, which, in a state of health, separate a fluid, for the lubrication of the intestines, and which in diarrhoeas, or upon taking a purge, supply the extraordinary discharge that happens upon these occasions. His works are, “Exercitatio Anatomico-Medica, de Glandulis Intestinorum, SchatFhausse, 1677,” Amstelod. 162. This is in the Bibiioth. Anatom. of Mangetus and Le Clerc. “Paeonis & Pythagoras Exercitationes Anatomicae,” Basil, 1682; “Methodus Historiarum Anatoniico-Medicarum,” &c. 1679; “Parerga Anatomica & Medica,” Amstel. 1682; "Experimenta nova circa Pancreas, extant in the Biblioth. Anatom. of Le Clerc and Mangetus.

, a German orientalist, was born at Lawenbourg in 1640. He professed the oriental languages at Wirtemberg, at Leipsic, and in other places, and in 1690 was called to Lubeck to be superintendant of the churches. In that city he died, in January 1698. When only rive years old he was near losing his life by a fall, which fractured his skull. His sister discovered accidentally that he was not quite dead, and he was restored, when actually on the point of being buried. He wrote, 1. “Pansophia Mosaica.” 2. “Critica Sacra,” Dresden, 3680, 8vo. 3 “DeMasora.” 4. “De trihaeresi Judaeorum.” 5. “Sciagraphia Systematica Antiquitatum Hebraearum.” His philosophical works were collected at Utrecht in 4to, but are not now much known or esteemed. His learned works are better, though heavy.

, a celebrated Greek philosopher of EHs, was originally a slave but, when Socrates had obtained his freedom, and he became that great man’s disciple, studied philosophy, and, retiring to Elis, established a distinct school called from the place of his birth the Eliac, or Eliatic school, which was continued by Plistanus and Menedemus. Plato, in honour of him, gave the name of Phcedo to one of his dialogues. Phaedo wrote several dialogues in defence of Socrates, and never left him till his death. He flourished 400 B. C.

It is remarkable, that no writer of antiquity has made any mention of this author; for it is generally supposed, that the Phcedrus mentioned by Martial is not the same. Seneca evidently knew nothing of him; otherwise he never could have laid it down, as he does, for matter of fact, that the Romans had not attempted fables and Esopean compositions: “Fabellas et ^sopeos logos, intentatum Romanis ingeniis opus.” This may account for the obscurity in which the name and reputation of Quintus Curtius lay buried for so many years; which was likewise the case with Velleius Paterculus and Manilius. Even Isaac Casaubon, with all his learning, did not know there was a Phaedrus among the ancients, till Peter Pithou, or Pithceus, published his “Fables.” c It is by your letter,“says Casaubon,” that I first came to be acquainted with Phaedrus, Augustus’s freedman, for that name was quite unknown to me before; and I never read any thing either of the man or of his works, or, if I did, I do not remember it.“This letter of Casaubon was written in 1596, at which time Pithceus published the” Fables of Phoedrus," at Troyes. He sent a copy of them to father Sirmond, who was then at Rome; and this Jesuit shewed it to the learned men in that city, who judged it, at first, a supposititious work; but, upon carefully examining, altered their opinion, and thought they could observe in it the characteristical marks of the Augustan age.

, a Welsh physician and poet, a native of Pembrokeshire, and the first English translator of Virgil, was educated at Oxford, whence he removed to LincolnVinn, to undertake the study of the law. So far was he in earnest, for a time, in this pursuit, that he published two books on subjects of law; one on the nature of writs, and the other, what is now called a book of precedents. Why he quitted law for physic is unknown, but he became a bachelor and a doctor in the latter faculty, both in 1559, and his medical works were collected at London in 1560. They consist chiefly of compilations and translations from the French. Among his poetical works is “The Regimen of Life,” translated from the French, London, 1544, 8vo. The story of “Owen Glendower,” in the “Mirror for Magistrates;” and his translation of the first nine books, and part of the tenth, of Virgil’s uEneid. There is a commendatory poem by him prefixed to Philip Betham’s “Military Precepts.” Warton mentions also an entry in the stationers’ books for printing “serten verses of Cupydo by Mr. Fayre,” and that he had seen a ballad called “Gadshill” by Faire, both which names were probably intended for that of Phaer. His translation of the first seven books of Virgil was printed in 1558, by John Kyngston, and dedicated to queen Mary. The two next books, with part of the tenth, were translated afterwards by him, and published after his death by William Wightman, in 1562. He has curiously enough marked at the end of each book the time when it was finished, and the time which it cost him in translating; which amounts, at separate intervals between the year 1555 and 1560, to 202 days, without reckoning the fragment of the tenth book. It appears, that during the whole of this period he resided very much at his patrimonial territory in Kilgerran forest, in South Wales. The fifth book is said, at the end, to have been finished on the 4th of May, 1557, “post periculum ejns Karmerdini,” which, whether it relates to some particular event in his life, or means that he made a trial upon it at Caermarthen, is a little uncertain; probably the former. Wightman says that he published all he could find among his papers; but conjectures, nevertheless, that he had proceeded rather further, from the two lines which he translated the very day before his death, and sent to Wightman. They are these,

He died soon after the 12th of August, 1560, on which day his will was dated. His translation of Virgil is written, like the preceding specimen, in long Alexandrines of seven feet. The translation was completed, with the addition of Maphaeus’s thirteenth book, by Thomas Twyne, a young physician, afterwards author of other works: his part is deemed by Warton evidently inferior to that of his predecessor, though Phaer has omitted, misrepresented, and paraphrased, many passages. Of what he did of this nature Phaer himself has given an account, in his postscript to the seven books: “Trusting that you, my right worshipful maisters and studentes of universities, and such as be teachers of children and readers of this auctour in Latin, will not be to muche offended, though every verse answere not to your expectation. For (besides the diversitie between a construction and a translation) you know there be many mistical secretes in this writer, which uttered in English would shewe little pleasour, and in mine opinion are better to be untouched than to diminish the grace of the rest with tediousnes and darknes. I have therefore followed the counsel of Horace, teaching the duety of a good interpretour, * qui quae desperat nitescere posse relinquit;' by which occasion, somwhat I have in places omitted, somwhat altered, and some things I have expounded, and al to the ease of inferior readers; for you that are learned nede not to be instructed.” A ridiculous error of the press stands in the opening of the second Æneid, as reprinted by Twyne, Phaer had translated “conticuere omnes” by “they whusted all,” for “they whisted,” or kept silence but Twyne has printed it “they whistled all.” Sir Thomas Chaloner, in his Encomia, printed at London, 1579, 4to, p. 356, has pathetically lamented Phaer 7 as a most skilful physician. As to his name, it is written Phayer by Wood, and Phaier by Warton; but as we find it Phaer in every part of the translation of Virgil, and in the “Mirror for Magistrates,” we have so given it. His story of Owen Glendour is in stanzas of seven lines, the same as Sackville’s Induction, and the greater part of those narratives.

, or as some say is the proper form, Favorinus (Varinus), who flourished in the 16th century, was born at Favera, near Camerino, a ducal town of Umbria, from which he is said to have taken his name. His real name was Guarino, which he changed to Varinus. He was a favourite disciple of the celebrated Angelo Politian, and John Lascaris, at Florence, and was patronized by Lorenzo the Magnificent. Having determined on an ecclesiastical life, he undertook the care of a congregation, and was appointed preceptor to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Favorinus was appointed keeper of the Medicean library in the year 1512, and in 1514 bishop of Nocera. He died in 1537. It was in 1523 that he published his Greek lexicon at Rome, one of the earliest modern lexicons of that language, and compiled, from Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, Phrynicus, Hesychius, Harpocration, and other ancient lexicons, published and unpublished and from the notes of Eustathius, and the scholiasts. It is written entirely in Greek, and is now superseded by other works of more popular use; though it may still be serviceable, in supplying various readings of Suidas and others, of which Favorinus probably consulted very ancient manuscripts. The best edition is that of Bartoli, Venice, 1712, folio.

, a celebrated Greek comic poet, contemporary with Plato and Aristophanes, flourished about 420 B.C. He followed the style of the ancient comedy, which, instead of feigned and imaginary persons, introduced living characters on the stage, who were known to the spectators by their names and distinguishing marks, and turned them into ridicule; but Pherecrates is said to have been very moderate in his use of this licence. Twenty one comedies are attributed to this poet, of which we have only some fragments remaining, collected by Hertelius and Grotius. It appears from these fragments, some of which are given by Cumberland, or rather Bentley, in “The Observer,” that Pherecrates wrote very pure Greek, and excelled in that nice and delicate raillery distinguished by the name of Attic urbanity. He invented a kind of verses, called, from his name, Pherecratian; consisting of the three last feet of an hexameter, the first of these three feet being always a spondee. This verse of Horace, for example, “Quamvis Pontica Pinus,” is a Pherecratian verse. M. Burette, in torn. XV. of the academy of inscriptions, has examined a fragment of this poet concerning music, which may be found in Plutarch.

, an eminent philosopher, and the first preceptor of Pythagoras, was a native of the island of Scyrus, one of the Cyclades, near Delos, and flourished about the 45th olympiad, or B. C. 600. It has been maintained, with great erudition, that Pherecydes derived his principles of philosophy and theogony from the sacred books of the Phoenicians; but little dependence, Brucker thinks, is to be placed upon the authorities by which this opinion is supported; and it will appear, upon inquiry, that the tenets of this philosopher were not less similar to those of the most ancient Grecian and barbaric philosophers, than to the doctrine of the Phoenicians. The opinion of Josephus, that Pherecydes studied philosophy in Egypt, seems more probable; for Egypt was, at that universally resorted to as the seat of learning; the symbolical method of teaching, which was made use of by Pherecydes, was perfectly after the Egyptian manner; and the general aspect of his doctrine bears a strong resemblance to the dogmas of the Egyptian school.

The particulars which remain, of the life of Pherecydes, are few and imperfect. Marvellous circumstances have been related of him, which only deserve to be mentioned, in order to shew that what has been deemed supernatural by ignorant spectators, may be easily conceived to have happened from natural causes. A ship in full sail was at a distance, approaching its harbour: Pherecydes predicted that it would never come into the haven, and it happened accordingly; for a storm arose, which sunk the vessel. After drinking water from a well, he predicted an earthquake, which happened three days afterwards. It is easy to suppose, that these predictions might have been the result of a careful observation of those phenomena which commonly precede storms or earthquakes, in a climate where they frequently happen. This is the more probable, as it is well known to have been a usual practice with the ancients, and particularly with Pythagoras, the pupil of Pherecydes, to impose upon the ignorant multitude, by pretending to powers which they did not possess, and particularly by applying their knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. Pherecydes is said to have been the first among the Grecians who wrote concerning the nature of the gods; but this can only mean, that he was the first who ventured to write upon these subjects in prose; for, before his time, Orpheus, Musaeus, and others, had written theogonies in verse. Pherecydes was much esteeiru-d at Lacedsemon, on account of his poetry inculcating the maxims of Lycurgus. He died at the age of eighty-five. It is not easy to ascertain the nature of the doctrines which he taught: he probably believed in an eternal first cause of all things, and in the immortality of the soul. According to Cicero, he was the first philosopher in whose writings this doc-trine appeared. He is said to have taught the bdief of the transjnigration of the soul: this is probably true; it being a tt iei commonly received among the Egyptians, and afttrvvards taught by Pythagoras, who was, as before observed, a pupil of Pherecydes.

, the most celebrated sculptor of antiquity, was an Athenian, and a contemporary of the celebrated Pericles, who flourished in the 83d olympiad, or B.C. 440 to 450. This wonderful artist was not only consummate in the use of his tools, but accomplished in those sciences and branches of knowledge which belong to his profession; as history, poetry, fable, geometry, optics, &c. He first taught the Greeks to imitate nature perfectly in this way; and all his works, distinguished for their grandeur and sublimity, were received with admiration. They were also incredibly numerous; for he united the greatest facility with the greatest perfection. His Nemesis was ranked among his first works: and is said to have been carved out of a block of marble which was found in the camp of the Persians, after they were defeated in the plains of Marathon. He made an excellent statue of Minerva for the Plateaus; but the statue of this goddess, in her magnificent temple at Athens, of which there are still some ruined remains, was a more astonishing production of human art. Pericles, who had the care of this pompous edifice, gave orders to Phidias, whose talents he well knew, to make a statue of the goddess; and Phidias formed a figure of ivory and gold, thirty-nine feet high. Writers never speak of this illustrious monument of skill without raptures; yet what has rendered the name of the artist immortal, proved at that time his ruin. He had carved upon the shield of the goddess his own portrait and that of Pericles, which the envious censured as a crime. He was also charged with embezzling part of the materials which were designed for the statue. Upon this he withdrew to Elis, and took a most honourable revenge over the ungrateful Athenians, by making for that place the Olympic Jupiter, which was afterwards ranked among the most wonderful pieces of art in the world. It was executed with astonishing sublimity of conception; its dimensions being sixty feet high, and every way proportioned. * c The majesty of the work equalled the majesty of the God,“says Quintilian;” and its beauty seems to have added lustre to the religion of the country." Phidias concluded his labours witu this master-piece; and the Eleans, to do honour to his memory, appropriated to his descendants an office, which consisted in preserving from injury this magnificent image.

, an Athenian comic poet, contemporary with Menander, whose rival he was, and though inferior, was frequently successful against him by means of intrigue or the partiality of friends, was, by the account of Suidas, a Syracusan by birth; but Strabo says that he was born at Solae, in Cilicia. He was some years older than Menander, and in the opinion of Quintilian fairly next to him in merit, though unfit to be preferred to him. Apuleius speaks still more favourably, saying only that he was fortasse impar; and adds, that there are to be found in his dramas “many witty strokes, plots ingeniously disposed, discoveries strikingly brought to light, characters well adapted to their parts, sentiments that accord with human life, jests that do not degrade the sock, and gravity that does not intrench upon the buskin.” Philemon, who flourished 274 B.C. lived to the extraordinary age of 101 years, and composed ninety comedies. Menander, indeed, composed more, and in less time, but even this was extraordinary. His longevity was the result of great temperance, and a placid frame of mind. Frugal, to a degree that subjected him to the charge of avarice, he never weakened his faculties or constitution by excess: and he summed up all his wishes in one rational and moderate petition to heaven, which throws a most favourable light upon his character: “I pray for health in the first place; in the next, for success in my undertakings; thirdly, for a cheerful heart; and lastly, to be out of debt to all mankind.” A petition which seems to have been granted in all its parts. As he lived in constant serenity oi mind, so he died without pain of body; for, having called together a number of his friends to the reading of a play which he had newly finished, and sitting, as was the custom in that serene climate, under the open canopy of heaven, an unforeseen fall of ruin broke up the company, just when the old man had g'>t into the third act, in the very wannest interests of his fahle. His hearers, disappointed by this unlucky check to their entertainment, interceded with him for the remainder on the day following, to which he readily assented; and a great company being then assembled, whom the fame of the rehearsal had brought together, they sat a considerable time in expectation of the poet, till wearied out with waiting, and unable to account for his want of punctuality, some of his intimates were dispatched in quest of him, who, having entered his house, and made their way to his chamber, found the old man dead on his couch, in his usual meditating posture, his features placid and composed, and with every symptom that indicated a death without pain or struggle. The fragments of Philemon are in general of a sentimental tender cast; and though they enforce sound and strict morality, yet no one instance occurs of that gloomy misanthropy, that harsh and dogmatizing spirit, which too often marks the maxims of his more illustrious rival. They were collected and published by Grotius, together with those of Menander; the greater part having been preserved by Stobtcns. Several of them, as well as the fragments of the other Greek comic poets, have been translated by Mr. Cumberland in his “Observer,” to which we refer our readers for further information.

, an eminent musician and chess-player, born at Dreuxin 1726, was descended from a long line of musical ancestors, who, in different branches of the art, had been attached to the court ever since the time of Louis XIII. The family-name was Danican; and it is pretended that this monarch, himself a dilettante musician, occasioned the surname of Philidor, a famous performer on the hautbois, whom this prince had heard in his progress through France, to be given to Danican, whose instrument being the hautbois, when the king heard him perform, he cried out, “Here’s anotuer Philidor!” Andrew was educated as a page or chorister in the chapelroyal, under Citmpra, and in 1737 he produced his first anthem, which was performed in the chapel, and complimented by the king as an extraordinary production for a child of eleven years old. On his change of voice, and quitting the chapel, he established himselt at Paris, where he subsisted by a few scholars, and by copying music; but every year he went to Versailles with a new motet.

In 1757 he composed an act of a serious opera; but Ribel, opera-manager, would not let it be performed, telling him that he would have no airs introduced in the scenes of that theatre. From this time, however, to 1779, he composed various operas for the French stage, that were much approved. In the last-mentioned year, he composed, in London, “The Carmen Seculare,” of Horace,“in the conduct of which, Philidor placed himself under the guidance of Baretti. The performance was attended, at Freemasons’ Hall, by all persons of learning and talents, in expectation of a revival of the music of the ancients, and, by many, of its miraculous powers. To wh,it kind of music the” Carmen Seculare" was performed at Rome, we pretend not to say; but in London, adds Dr. Burney, we could trace the composer’s models for the chorusses in the oratorios of Handel, and the operas of Rameau; and for the airs, in his own comic operas, and the favourite melodies then in vogue in that theatre, many of which, with Italian words and Italian singing, particularly those of Gretry, would he elegant and pleasing music any where. Philidor, however, in setting the secular ode, it must be confessed, manifested his knowledge of counterpoint in the style of the old masters; and that, in spite of chess, he had found time for the serious study of music. We believe that no one found himself much the wiser concerning the music of the ancients, after hearing this music performed to Latin words, than after hearing an oratorio of Handel, or an opera of Rameau. For the last two months of his life, he was kept alive merely by art, and the kind attentions of an old and worthy friend. To the last moment of his existence he enjoyed, though near seventy years of age, a strong retentive memory, which had long rendered him remarkable in the circle of his acquaintance in this capital. Mr. Philidor was a member of the chess-club riear 30 years; and was a man of those meek qualities that rendered him not less esteemed as a companion than admired for his extraordinary skill in the intricate and arduous game of chess, fpr which he was pre-eminently distinguished. Not two months before his death he played two games blindfold, at the same time, against two excellent chess-players, and was declared the conqueror. What seemed most to have shook the poor old man’s constitution, and to have precipitated his exit, was the not being able to procure a passport to return to France to visit his family, who were living there, before he paid the last debt of nature. But this refusal was rendered more bitter, on its being intimated that he was a suspected character, and had been one of those persons denounced by a committee of French informers. From the moment he was made acquainted with this circumstance, he became the martyr of grief: his philosophy forsook him; his tears incessantly flowed; and he sunk into the grave without a groan, oil the 3 1st of August, 1795.

Besides Pope, there were some other writers who have written in burlesque of Philips’s poetry, which was singular in its manner, and not difficult to imitate; particularly Mr. Henry Carey, who by some lines in Philips’s style, and which were once thought to be dean Swift’s, fixed on that author the name of Namby Pamby. Isaac Hawkins Browne also imitated him in his Pipe of Tobacco. This, however, is written with great good humour, and though intended to burlesque, is by no means designed to ridicule Philips, he having made the same trial of skill on Swift, Pope, Thomson, Young, and Gibber. As a dramatic writer, Philips has certainly considerable merit, and one of his plays long retained its popularity. This was “The Distressed Mother,” from the French of Racine, acted in 1711. The others were, “The Briton,” a tragedy, acted in 1721; and “Humfrey Duke of Gloucester,” acted also in 1721. The “Distrest Mother” was concluded with the most successful Epilogue, written by Budgell, that was spoken in tin: English theatre. It was also highly praised in the “Spectator.” Philips’s circumstances were in general, through his life, not only easy, but rather affluent, in consequence of his being connected, by his political principles, with persons of great rank and consequence. He was concerned with Dr. Hugh Boulter, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, the right honourable Richard West, lord chancellor of Ireland, the rev. Mr. Gilbert Burnet, and the rev. Mr. Henry Stevens, in writing a series of Papers, many of them very excellent, called “The Free Thinker,” which were all published together by Philips, in 3 vols. 8vo. In the latter part of queen Anne’s reign, he was secretary to the Hanover club, a set of noblemen and gentlemen who had formed an association in honour of that succession, and for the support of its interests; and who used particularly to distinguish in their toasts such of the fair sex as were most zealously attached to the illustrious house of Brunswick. Mr. Philips’s station in this club, together with the zeal shewn in his writings, recommending him to the notice and favour of the new government, he was, soon after the accession of king George I. put into the commission of the peace, and in 1717, appointed one of the commissioners of the lottery. On his friend Dr. Boulter’s being made primate of Ireland, he accompanied that prelate, and in Sept. 1734, was appointed registrar of the prerogative court at Dublin, had other considerable preferments bestowed on him, and was elected a member of the house of commons there, as representative for the county of Armagh. At length, having purchased an annuity for life, of 400l. per annum, became over to England sorne time in 1748, but did not long enjoy his fortune, being struck with a palsy, of which he died June 18, 1749, in his seventy -eighth year, at his house in Hanover-street; and was buried in Audley chapel. “Of his personal character,” says Dr. Johnson, “all I have heard is, that he was eminent for bravery and skill in the sword, and that in conversation he was somewhat solemn and pompous.” He is somewhere called Qunker Philips, for what does not appear. Paul Whitehead relates, that when Mr. Addison was secretary of state, Philips applied to him for some preferment, but was coolly answered, “that it was thought that he was already provided for, by being made a justice for Westminster.” To this observar tion our author with some indignation replied, “Though poetry was a trade he could not live by, yet he scorned to owe subsistence to another which he ought not to live by.” “Among his poems,” says Dr. Johnson, the * Letter from Denmark,‘ may be justly praised; the Pastorals,’ which by the writer of the Guardian were ranked as one of the four genuine productions of the rustic muse, cannot surely he despicable. That they exhibit a mode of life which did not exist, nor ever existed, is not to be objected; the supposition of such a state is allowed to Pastoral. In his other poems he cannot be denied the praise of lines sometimes elegant; but he has seldom much force, or much comprehension. The pieces that please best are those which, from Pope and Pope’s adherents, procured him the name of Namby Pamby, the poems of short lines, by which he paid his court to all ages and characters, from Walpole, the “steerer of the realm,” to Miss Pulteney in the nursery. The numbers are smooth and sprightly, and the diction is seldom faulty. They are not loaded with much thought, yet, if they had been written by Addison, they would have had admirers: little things are not valued but when they are done by those who can do greater. In his translations from Pindar he found the art of reaching all the obscurity of the Theban bard, however he may fall below his sublimity; he will be allowed, if he has less fire, to have more smoke. He has added nothing to English poetry, yet at least half his book deserves to be read: perhaps he valued most himself that part which the critick would reject."

, an English lady once highly praised for her wit and accomplishments, was the daughter of Mr. Fowler, a merchant of London, and born there Jan. 1, 1631. She was educated at a boarding-school at Hackney; where she distinguished herself early for her skill in poetry. When very young, she became the wife of James Philips, of the priory of Cardigan, esq. and afterwards went with the viscountess of Dungannon into Ireland. At the request of the earl of Orrery, she translated from the French, and dedicated to the countess of Cork, “Corneille’s tragedy of Pompey” which was several times acted at the new theatre there in 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was published. She translated also the four first acts of “Horace,” another tragedy of Corneille; the fifth being done by sir John Denham. She died of the small pox in London, the 22d of June, 1664, to the regret of all the beau-monde, in the thirty-third year of her age “having not left,” says Langbaine, “any of her sex her equal in poetry.” “She not only equalled,” adds he, “alt that is reported of the poetesses of antiquity, the Lesbian Sappho and the Roman Sulpitia, but justly found her admirers among the greatest poets of our age:” and then he mentions the earls of Orrery and Roscommon, Cowley, and others. Cowley wrote an ode upon her death. Dr. Jeremy Taylor had addressed to her his “Measures and Offices of Friendship:” the second edition of which was printed in 1,657, 12mo. She assumed the name of Orinda, and gave that of Anten'or to her husband; she had likewise a female friend Anne Owen, who was Lucasia. In 1667, were printed, in folio, “Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Catherine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added, Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, tragedies. With several other translations from the French;” and her portrait before them, engraven by Fait born. There was likewise another edition in 1678, folio; in the preface of which we are told, that “she wrote her familiar letters with great facility, in a very fair hand, and perfect orthography; and if they were collected with those excellent discourses she wrote on several subjects, they would make a volume much larger than that of her poems.” In 1705, a small volume of her letters to sir Charles Cotterell was printed under the title of “Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus:” the editor of which tells us, that “they were the effect of an happy intimacy between herself and the late-famous Poliarchus, and are an admirable pattern for the pleasing correspondence of a virtuous friendship. They will sufficiently instruct us, how an intercourse of writing between persons of different sexes ought to be managed with delight and innocence; and teach the world not to load such a commerce with censure and detraction, when it is removed at such a distance from even the appearance of guilt.” All the praise of her contemporaries, however, has not been sufficient to preserve her works from oblivion.

, one of the nephews of Milton, Was the son of Edward Phillips, who came from Shrewsbury, and rose to be secondary in the Crown-office, by Anne, sister of the celebrated poet, and was born in the Strand, near Charing-cross, in August 1630, and received his earliest education under his uncle. In 1648 he became a student of Magdalen-hall, Oxford, where he continued till 1651. The time of his death is not ascertained. He published two small works, entitled “Tractatulus de carmine Dramatico Poetarum, praesertim in choris Tragicis, et veteris Comediae,” and “Compendiosa enumeratio Poetarum (saltern quorum fama maxime enituit) qui atempore Dantis Aligerii usque ad hanc aetatem claruerunt; nempe Italorum, Germanorum, Anglorum, &c.” These were added to the seventeenth edition of Job. Buchlerus’s book, entitled “Sacrarum profanarumque phrasium poeticarum Thesaurus,” &c. Lond. 1669, 8vo. But he is better known by his “Theatrum Poetarum, or a compleat collection of the Poets, especially the most eminent of all ages, the Ancients distinguish't from the Moderns in their several alphabets. With some observations- and reflections upon many of them, particularly those of our own nation. Together with a prefatory discourse of the Poets and Poetry in general,” Lond. 1675. Into this work there is, says Warton, good reason to suppose that Milton threw many additions and corrections. It contains criticisms far above the taste of that period, and such as were not common after the national taste had been just corrupted by the false and capricious refinements of the court of Charles II. The preface, however, discovers more manifest traces of Milton’s hand than the book itself.

In 1800 sir E. Brydges published a new edition of the “Theatrum” as far as respects the English poets, and has subjoined very valuable additions to every article. The arrangement in this edition is greatly improved by being made chronological; and industrious research has gathered much curious information from obscure or neglected sources. Few more acceptable presents could have been given to the public, unless indeed the learned and accomplished editor would perform his promise to add a second Tolume.

To Edward Phillips, Wood attributes the following works, most of which render it probable that he was an author by profession 1 “A new World of English Words, or General Dictionary, &c.” Lond. 1657, folio. Jn this he had made so much use of JBlouiu’s “Glossographia,” without acknowledgment, that the latter complained of the injury in a letter to Wood, and speaks of Phillips, as a “beggarly half-witted scholar, hired for the purpose by some of the law-booksellers,” to transcribe that in four or five months, which cost him (Blount) twice as many years in compiling. At last he was provoked to expose Phillips in a pamphlet entitled “A world of Errors discovered in the New World of Words,” 1673, folio. Phillips had a yet more formidable antagonist in Skinner, who in his “Etymologicon” takes many opportunities to expose his ignorance. 2. A supplement to “Speed’s Theatre,” 1676, folio. 3. A continuation of “Baker’s Chronicle.” 4. “Tractatulus de modo et ratione formandi voces derivativas Latinae Linguae,” 1684, 4to. 5. “Enchiridion Linguae Latinae, or a compendious Latin Dictionary, &c.” 1684, 8vo. 6. “Speculum Linguae Latinos,” 1684, 4to. These two last are chiefly taken from Milton’s ms Latin “Thesaurus.” 7. “Poem on the coronation of his most sacred majesty James II. and his royal consort our gracious queen Mary,” 1685, folio. He also published an edition of Drummond of Hawthornden’s poems, in 1656; and translated Pausanias into Latin; and, into English, two novels from J. Perez de Montalvan; and “The Minority of St. Lewis, with the politic conduct of affairs by his mother queen Blanch of Spain, during her regency,” 1685, 12mo. But next to his “Theatrum,” we are mostly indebted to him for his life of his illustrious uncle.

, the other nephew of Milton, appears to have been at first a warm adherent to his uncle’s political opinions, and published “Milton’s Defensio” in answer to the “Apologia pro rege, &c.” which was falsely ascribed to bishop Bramhall. His other publications imply some change of sentiment, particularly his “Satyr against Hypocrites,” published about the time of the restoration, and reprinted in 1671 and 1680, 4to. These other writings, according to Wood, are, 1. “Montelion; or the prophetic almanack for the year 1660,” 8vo. 2. “Maronides; or Virgil Travestie,” a burlesque on the 5th and 6th books of the Eneid,“1672 and 1673, 8vo, and reprinted together in 1678. 3.” Duellum Musicum,“printed with Locke’s” Present practice of Musick vindicated.“4.” Mercurius Verax; or the prisoner’s prognostications for the year 1675,“1675, 8vo. 5. A Continuation of Heath’s Chronicle, 1676, folio, a wonderful production from the author of” Miltoni Defensio.“6.” Dr. Oates’s Narrative of the Popish Plot vindicated,“1680, folio. 7.” Character of a Popish Successor,“the second part, 1681, folio, disowned by Elkanah Settle, author of the first part. 8.” Speculum Crape-Gownorum; or, an old Looking-glass for the young academics new foiPd, &c.“9.” Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxon his celebrated reasons for abrogating the test, and notion of idolatry, answered by Sam. archdeacon of Canterbury,“1688, 4to. In Wood we have no account of his death, but he adds that he was” a man of very loose principles, atheistical, forsakes his wife and children, makes no provision for them." He appears, indeed, from his publications, to have reflected very little credit on his family.

, author of several books relating to ancient customs and privileges in England, was the son of a gentleman, and born at Prestbury in Gloucestershire, Sept. 28, 1601. When he was very young, he spent some time in one of the inns of chancery; and thence translated himself to the Middle-temple, where he became learned in the law. In the civil war he continued loyal, having always been an assertor of the king’s prerogative; and was so zealously attached to Charles I. that, two days before the king was beheaded, he wrote a protestation against the intended murder, which he caused to be printed, and affixed to posts in all public places. He also published, in 1649, 4to, a pamphlet entitled “Veritas inconcussa; or King Charles I. no man of blood, but a martyr for his people:” which was reprinted in 1660, 8vo. In 1653, when the courts of justice at Westminster, especially the chancery, were voted down by Oliver’s parliament, he published “Considerations against the dissolving and taking them away:” for which he received the thanks of William Lenthall, esq. speaker of the late parliament, and of the keepers of the liberties of England. For some time, he was tilazer for London, Middlesex, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire; and spent much money in searching records, and writing in favour of the royal prerogative: yet he was but poorly rewarded by the place of one of the commissioners for regulating the law, worth 200l. per annum, which only lasted two years. After the restoration of Charles II. when the bill for taking away the tenures was depending in parliament, he wrote and published a book, to shew the necessity of preserving them. Its title is “Tenenda non Tollenda: or, the Necessity of preserving Tenures in Capite, and by KnightVservice, which, according to their first institution, were, and are yet, a 'great part of the salus populi, &c, 1660,” 4to. In 1663 he published “The Antiquity, Legality, Reason, Duty, and Necessity of Prae-emption and Pourveyance for the King,” 4to and, afterwards, many other pieces upon subjects of a similar kind. He likewise assisted Dr. Bates in his “Elenchus Motuum;” especially in searching the records and offices for that work. He died Nov. 17, 1690, in his eighty-ninth year; and was buried near his wife, in the church of Twyford in Middlesex. He was a man well acquainted with records and antiquities; but his manner of writing is not close or well digested. He published various political pamphlets, and among them one in 1681, which, supposing him to have been sincere, proves his passion for royal prerogative to have been mu h superior to his sagacity and judgment: it is entitled “Ursa Major et Minor; shewing, that there is no such fear, as is factiously pretended, of popery and arbitrary power.” In the Archaeologia, vol. XIII. is an account of a ms. of his in the Harleian collection, entitled “An Expedient or meanes in want of money to pay the sea and land forces, or as many of them as shall be thought expedient without money in this year of an almost universal povertie of the English nation.” In Strype’s life of Whitgift (p. 89), is a notice of one Fabian Phillips, one of the council of the marches of Wales, who appears to have been an ancestor of our author.

, an Lnglish poet, was son of Dr. Stephen Philips, archdeacon of Salop; and born at Barnpton in Oxfordshire, Dec. 30, 1676. After some domestic education, he was sent to Winchester, where, as we are told by Dr. Sewel, his biographer, he was soon distinguished by the superiority of his exercises; and, what is less easily to be credited, so much endeared himself to his schoolfellows, by his civility and good-nature, that they, without murmur or ill-will, saw him indulged by the master with particular immunities. It is related, that, when he was at school, he seldom mingled in play with the other boys, but retired to his chamber; where his sovereign pleasure was to sit, hour after hour, while his hair was combed by somebody, whose service he found means to procure.

From school, where he became acquainted with the poets ancient and modern, and fixed his attention particularly on Milton, he was, in 1694, removed to Christ church, Oxford, where he performed all his university exercises with applause. Following, however, the natural bent of his genius to poetry, he continued the study of his favourite Milton, so intensely, that it is said there was not an allusion in “Paradise Lost,” drawn from any hint in either Homer or Virgii, to which he could not immediately refer. Yet he was not so much in love with poetry, as to neglect other branches of learning, and, having some intention to apply to physic as a profession, he took much delight in natural history, particularly botany; but he appears to have relinquished these pursuits when he had begun to acquire poetical fame. While he was at Oxford, he was honoured with the acquaintance of the best and politest men in it; and had a particular intimacy with Mr. Edmund Smith, author of the tragedy of Phaedra and Hippolitus. The first poem which distinguished him, in 1703, was his “Splendid Shilling;” his next, entitled “Blenheim,' 1 he wrote, as a rival to Addison’s on the same subject, at the request of the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Henry St. John, afterwards lord Bolingbroke, on occasion of the victory obtained at that place by the duke of Marlborough in 1704. It was published in 1705; and the year after he finished a third poem, upon” Cyder,“the first book of which had been written at Oxford. It is founded upon the model of Virgil’s” Georgics.“All that we have more by Philips is, a Latin” Ode to Henry St. John, esq.;“which is also esteemed a master-piece. He was meditating a poem on the” Last Day," when illness obliged him to relinquish all pursuits, except the care of his health. His disorder, however, became a lingering consumption, attended with an asthma, of which he died at Hereford, Feb. 15, 1708, when he ha'd not reached his thirty-third year. He was interred in the cathedral there, with an inscription over his grave; and had a monument erected to his memory, in Westminster- abbey, by sir Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, with an epiuipli upon it, written by Dr. Atterbury, though commonly ascribed to Dr. Freind. Philips was one of those few poets, whose Muse and manners were equally excellent and amiable; and both were so in a very eminent degree.

It is remarkable, that there were two poets of both the names of this author, who flourished in his time: one the nephew to Milton, already mentioned. The other was the author of two political farces, both printed in 1716; 1. “The Earl of Marr marred, with the Humours of Jocky the Highlander.” 2. “The Pretender’s Flight: or, a Mock Coronation, with the Humours of the facetious Harry St. John.”

, a Roman catholic divine, and author of some works of considerable merit, was descended from an ancient family. His father was a Roman catholic, but had become a convert to popery. Where or when he was born we are not told, but it appears that when at school, he became an enthusiastic admirer of some catholic books, lives of the saints, &c. He was thence removed to St. Omer’s, where he made great progress in polite literature, and obtained the first academical prizes. At one time, he felt an inclination to become a member of the society of the Jesuits, but changed his mind in that respect, and after a course of study at St. Omer’s, travelled through the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Italy, during the course of which, he visited persons eminent for learning; assisted at various academical exercises looked over the principal libraries, and considered the productions of the polite arts, and those magnificent structures which ancient and modern piety had raised and dedicated to public worship. He observed the different face and product of each country, and that endless variety of manners which seems merely or principally to arise from clU mate and education. He did not trust his remarks to memory alone, but committed them briefly to writing; but whether they are now existing, we are unable to ascertain.

Mr. Phillips, after he entered into holy orders, obtained a dispensation to quit the Jesuits; and this step is said to have been taken in consequence of some dissatisfaction and difference with his superiors and professors, by whom, he would not submit to be guided and controlled in his theological studies. From Liege, where he took his dismission, he went to Rome, and there obtained, by the interest of the Pretender, a prebend in the collegiate church of Tongres, but was dispensed from residence on condition of serving the English mission, and for many years lived in the family of the late earl of Shrewsbury, and afterwards in that of Mrs. Berkeley, of Spetchley, near Worcester. In the decline of life he retired to the English college at Liege, with the design, which he could not effect, of reentering into the society he had withdrawn himself from, for which he retained a tender regard and affection. During the last four or five years of his life he was afflicted with epileptic fits, and, as his temper was naturally eager, his friends were cautious not to engage him in conversation upon his past studies or literary subjects, by which they observed his infirmity was increased. He was, we are told, a man of eminent piety, and always appeared strongly affected with the idea of the presence of God, particularly in his last illness, which happened at Liege in 1774.

Philo was educated at Alexandria, and made an uncommon progress in eloquence and philosophy. After the fashion of the time, he cultivated, like many of his religion, the philosophy of Plato, whose principles he imbibed so deeply, and whose manner he imitated so well, that it grew to be a common saying, “aut Plato ptrilonizat, aut Philo platonizat” Josephus calls him a man “eminent on all accounts;” and Eusebius describes him “copious in speech, rich in sentiments, and sublime in the knowledge of holy writ.*' He is said, however, to have been so much immersed in philosophy, the Platonic in particular, that he neglected to acquaint himself with the Hebrew language, and the rites and customs of his own people. Scaliger, in his usual way, says that Philo” knew no more of Hebrew and Syriac than a Gaul or a Scythian.“Grotius is of opinion that” he is not fully to be depended on, in what relates to the manners of the Hebrews;“and Cudworth goes somewhat farther when he says, that” though a Jewby nation, he was yet very ignorant of Jewish customs." Fabricius, however, while he allows some inadvertencies and errors of Philo with regard to these matters, yet he does not think them a sufficient foundation on which to charge so illustrious a doctor of the law with ignorance. Others think that Philo’s passion for philosophy had made him more than half a Pagan for it led him to interpret the law and the prophets upon Platonic ideas; and to admit nothing as truly interpreted, which was not agreeable to the principles of the academy. This led him still farther, to turn every thing into allegory, and to deduce the darkest meanings from the plainest words; which pernicious practice Origen imitated Afterwards, and exposed himself by it to the scoffs of Celsus and Porphyry. The writings of Philo abound with high and mystical, new and subtile, farfetched and abstracted notions, where the doctrines of Plato and Moses are so promiscuously blended, that it is not an easy matter to assign to each his own principles. In the mean time, we should greatly injure this Jewish Plato not to own, that although he is continually Platonizing, and allegorizing the Scriptures, yet he abounds with just sentiments and lessons of morality: and his morals are rather the morals of a Christian than of a Jew. History likewise, as well as his own writings, gives us all imaginable reason to conclude, that he was a man of great prudence, constancy, and virtue.

In 1797, the learned Jacob Bryant published “The Sentiments of Philo Judoeus concerning the Logos, or Word of God,” with a view to prove that Philo borrowed his sentiments and expressions, relative to the second person of the Trinity, from the conversation or writings of the apostles, which he considers as a striking argument in favour of the truth of Christianity. Philo’s authority, however, had been before repeatedly alleged by writers in favour of that fundamental principle of our religion, the existence of God if) a trinity of persons; particularly by Dr. Allix in his “Judgment of the ancient Jewish church,” 1699, and by the Ute Mr. Whitaker in his “Origin of Arianism disclosed,” 1791.

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

, an ancient Greek author, who wrote the life of Apollonius Tyanensis, and some other works still extant, was either of Athens, or Lemnos, and educated in the schools of the Sophists. He lived in the reign of the emperor Severus, from the years 193 to 212, and becoming known afterwards to Julia Augusta, the consort of Severus, he was one of those learned men whom this philosophic empress had continually about her, and it was by her command, that he wrote the “Life of Apoilonius Tyanensis.” Suidas and Hesychius say, that he taught rhetoric, first at Athens, and then at Rome, from the reign of Severus to that of Philippus, who obtained the empire in the year 244. This “Life of Apollonius” is his most celebrated work, as far as celebrity can depend oh imposture, of which it contains abundant proofs. We have already, in our account of Apollonius, noticed its being refuted by Dupin, as a collection of fables, either invented or embellished by himself; but some of the most judicious strictures on Philostratus with which we are acquainted, may be found in bishop Douglas’s Criterion from p. 50, edit. 1807. The works of Philostratus, however, originally published separately, have been thought not unworthy the attention of critics of the first class. Graevius had a design of giving a correct edition of them, as appears from the preface of Meric Casaubon, to a dissertation upon an intended edition of Homer, printed at London in 1658, 8vo. So had Bentley, who designed to add a new Latin version of his notes: and Fabricius says, that he saw the first sheet of Bentley’s edition printed at Leipsic in 1691. Both these designs being given up, a correct and beautiful edition, was published at Leipsic, in 1709, in folio, by Olearius. At the end of Apollonius’s “Life,” are ninety-five “Letters,” which go under his name, but bear all the marks of forgery. The “Lives of the Sophists,” which make part of Philostratus’ s works, contain many things, which are to be met with no where else; and his “Icones,” or images, are elegant descriptions and illustrations of some ancient paintings, and other particulars relating to the fine arts: to which Olearius has subjoined the description of some statues by Callistratus. The volume concludes with a collection of Philostratus’s “Letters:” but some of these, though it is not easy to determine which, were written by a nephew to the principal Philostratus, of the same name; as were also the last eighteen, in the book of images. This is the reason, why the title of Olearius’s edition runs, not “Philostrati,” but “Philostratorum qua? supersunt omnia.”

In 1541 his fellowship became void, /probably by his setting out on his travels through Italy. He returned in the beginning of king Edward’s reign, and was collated to the archdeaconry of Winchester by Dr. Ponet, or Poynet, the first protestant bishop of that see. He was not unknown to Gardiner, Ponet’s predecessor, who had often forbidden his preaching in king Henry’s reign, and on one occasion cited him to his house, before certain justices, and called him rogue. Catching hold of this abusive epithet, Philpot said, “Do you keep a privy sessions in your own house for me, and call me rogue, whose father is a knight, and may spend a thousand pounds within one mile of your nose? And he that can spend ten pounds by the year, as I can, I thank God, is no vagabond.”

While archdeacon of Winchester he was a frequent preacher, and active in promoting the reformed religion in the county of Hampshire; and considering the doctrine of the Trinity as of fundamental importance, was a decided enemy both in word and writing to the Arian opinions which appeared first in that reign. He and Ridley were reckoned two of the most learned men of their time, yet Philpot‘ s zeal was sometimes too ardent for the prudent discharge of his duty, and the tract he wrote against the Arians has the air of a coarse invective in the title of it. On the accession of queen Mary he disdained to temporize, or conceal his sentiments, but publicly wept in the first convocation held in her reign, when he saw it composed of men who were determined to restore popery. He wrote a report of this convocation, which fell into bishop Bonner’ s hands among other of Philpot' s books, which Bonner had seized. It was not long, therefore, before he was apprehended, and after various examinations before Bonner, and a most cruel and rigorous imprisonment of eighteen months, was condemned to be burnt in Smithfield. This was accordingly executed December 18, 1555, and was suffered by the martyr with the greatest constancy. He wrote “Epistolue Hebraicæ” and “De proprietate linguarum,” which are supposed to be in manuscript; “An Apology for Spitting upon an Arian, with an invective against the Arians,” &c. Lond. 1559, 8vo and 4to; “Supplication to king Philip and queen Mary;” “Letters to lady Vane;” “Letters to the Christian Congregation, that they abstain from Mass;” “Exhortation to his Sister;” and “Oration.” These are all printed by Fox, except the last, which is in the Bodleian. He also wrote translations of “Calvin’s Homilies” “Chrysostome against Heresies;” and Crelius Secundus Curio’s “Defence of the old and ancient anthority of Christ’s Church:” and his account of the convocation above mentioned, or what appears to be so, under the title of “Vera Expositio Disputationis institute mandate D. Mame reginae Ang. &c. in Synodo Ecclesiastico, Londini, in comitiis regni ad 18 Oct. anno 1553;” printed in Latin, at Rome, 1554, and in English at Basil.

, Somerset herald in the reign of James I. was a native of Folkstone, in Kent, and descended from an ancient and reputable family, long seated in that county. From his infancy he had a taste for heraldry and antiquities. He was respected by Camden, who employed him much as his deputy or marshal in his visitations. In 1636 he published a catalogue of the chancellors of England; and in 1657 an edition of Camden’s “Remains,” with additions. When the civil war broke out, he adhered, amidst all dangers, to the royal cause. In 1643, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. In the following year he fell into the hands of his enemies, being surprised whilst in his quarters, at a village about two miles from Oxford, by some of the parliamentary forces, who sent him up to London a prisoner; but he soon obtained his liberty. It was the king’s intention to have rewarded his loyalty by the place of Norroy, but he died prematurely, in London, according to Wood, or near Eltham, in Kent, as Hasted says, Nov. 25, 1645.

His eldest son, Thomas Philipott, or Philpot, M. A. was educated at Clare-hall, and published the “Villare Cantianum,” London, 1659, folio; a book which is written in an affected style, yet is a very valuable performance, as an early history of property, and continues to be highly and justly prized. Though the son takes the credit, there can be little doubt but that much of it was written by the father. The, son, however, was a man of good abilities, a tolerable poet, and well versed in divinity and antiquities. He published a whimsical, mystical, heraldic book, entitled “A brief Historical Discourse of the original and growth of Heraldry, demonstrating upon what rational foundations that noble and heroic science is established,” London, 1672, 8vo, dedicated to John earl of Bridgewater. There are some verses of his prefixed to the “Monasticon Favershamiensis,” 1671, 12mo; also an appendix to it by him of the descent of king Stephen. The book was written by his friend Thomas Southouse, of Gray’s Inn, esq. His*' Poems,“Lond. 1646, vo, is a volume of rare occurrence. The elder Ptiilipot is supposed to have been the author of” The Citie’s great concern in this case, or question of Honour and Arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? discoursed; with a clear refutation of the pernicious error that it doth,“1674, 12mo. Another production of John Philipot was,” A perfect Collection or Catalogue of all Knights Bachelours made by king James,“&c. 1660, 8vo. Mr. Lysons gives an extract from the parish register of Greenwich, which has been supposed to relate to him:” Mr. Thomas Philipott, buried September 30, 1682;“adding,” that besides the above works, he wrote on the origin and growth of the Spanish Monarchy, and a Life of jsop," and remarking, that Anthony Wood attributes to him some theological works; but Mr. Lysons thinks it is more probable that they were the production of his contemporary, Thomas Philipott, D. D. rector of Turveston and Akeley, Bucks. Wood places his death in 1684-.

What has made Phlegon’s name more familiar among the moderns, is his being cited, though a heathen, as bearing witness to the accomplishment of prophecies, and to the miraculous darkness which prevailed during our Lord’s passion. This last was the origin of a controversy in the early part of the last century, although the immediate cause was the omission of the passage from Phlegon in an edition of Clarke’s Boyle’s Lectures, published soon after his death, at the persuasion of Dr. Sykes, who had suggested to Clarke, that an undue stress had been laid upon it. Whiston, who informs us of this affair, expresses great displeasure against Sykes, and calls “the suggestion groundless.” Upon this, Sykes published “A Dissertation on the Eclipse mentioned by Phlegon; or, an Enquiry, whether that Eclipse had any relation to the Darkness which happened at our Saviour’s Passion,” 1732, 8vo. Sykes concludes it to be most probable that Phlegon had in view a natural eclipse, which happened Nov. 24, in the first year of the 202d olympiad, and not in the fourth year of the olympiad in which Christ was crucified.

, a famous heretic of the fourth century, known in church history as the chief of a sect called Photinians, was a native of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, and bishop of Sirmium, or Sirmich, the chief city of Illyricum. He had been the disciple of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. He spoke with ease, and his eloquence gained him great power over his people after he was consecrated bishop; but his life was corrupted, and his doctrine soon became so too. He espoused the same opinions with Paul of Samosata, and wrote with great obstinacy against the divinity of Jesus Christ, for which in the year 345 he was condemned by the council of Antioch; in the year 374, by the council of Milan. However, he still maintained his see till he was deposed by the council of Sirmich, A. D. 251, and by the emperor sent into banishment, where he spent the remainder of his life, during which time he composed a piece against all heresies in general, with an intent to establish his own. He wrote in Greek and Latin. The emperor Julian sent him a letter, commending him for denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Photinus died A. D. 375 (377, Cave), in Galatia, whither he had been banished. This heresy was, amongst many others, anathematized in the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. It afterwards was revived by Socinus.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, was descended from an illustrious family, and born in that city. He had great natural talents, which he cultivated with the utmost application, and there was no branch of literature, sacred or profane, or scarcely any art or science, with which he was not intimately acquainted. He seems to have been by far the greatest man of the age in which he lived; and was so intimately concerned in the chief transactions of it, that ecclesiastical writers have thence called it “Seculum Photianum.” He was first raised to the chief dignities of the empire, being made principal secretary of state, captain of the guards, and a senator; in all which stations he acquitted himself with a distinction suitable to his great abilities for he was a refined statesman, as well as a profound scholar.

Amidst all his ambitious intrigues he found leisure for more honourable pursuits, and wrote some works which will preserve his name in the learned world. Among those extant the most considerable is his “Bibliotheca,” composed by him while he was yet a layman, and an ambassador in Assyria. It contains the argument or abstracts of 280 volumes of many authors upon various subjects; among whom are grammarians, critics, poets, orators, sacred and profane historians, physicians, philosophers, divines, &c. not ranked according to their several arts and professions, but introduced promiscuously as they occurred in the course of his reading. Fabricius very justly calls this “Bibliotheca,” or library, non liber, sed insignis thesaurus, “not a book, but an illustrious treasure” in which are contained many curious things relating to authors, and many fragments of works which are no where else to be found. It was first brought to light by Andreas Schottus, and communicated by him to David Hoeschelius, who caused it to be printed in 1601, at Vienna, in Greek only. Schottus, considering the usefulness of this work, translated it into Latin, and printed his translation alone in 1606. Afterwards, the Greek text and the translation were printed together at Geneva in 1611; but the best edition is that printed at Rouen in 1653, folio, under the title“Photii Myriobiblion, sive Bibliotheca librorum, quos legit et censuit Photius, Gr. et Lat.” There are large paper copies of this edition, which bear a very high price.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

, an able mathematician of France, aud one of the most learned astronomers of the seventeenth century, was born at Fleche, and became priest and prior of Rillie in Anjou. Coming afterwards to Paris, his superior talents for mathematics and astronomy soon made him known and respected. In 1666 he was appointed astronomer in the Academy of Sciences. And five years after, he was sent, by order of the king, to the castle of Urani burgh, built by Tycho Brahe in Denmark, to make astronomical observations there; and from thence he brought the original manuscripts written by Tycho Brahe; which are the more valuable, as they differ in many places from the printed copies, and contain a book more than lias yet appeared. These discoveries were followed by many others, particularly in astronomy: he was one of the first who applied the telescope to astronomical quadrants: he first executed the work called “La Connoissance des Temps,” which he calculated from 1679 to 1683 inclusively: he first observed the light in the vacuum of the barometer, or the mercurial phosphorus: he also first of any went through several parts of France, to measure the degrees of the French meridian, and first gave a chart of the country, which the Cassini’s afterwards carried to a great degree of perfection. He died in 1682 or 1683, leaving a name dear to his friends, and respectable to his contemporaries and to posterity. His works are: 1. “A treatise on Levelling.” 2. “Practical Dialling by calculation.” 3. “Fragments of Dioptrics.” 4. “Experiments on Running Water.” 5. “Of Measurements.” 6. “Mensuration of Fluids and Solids.” 7. ' Abridgment of the Measure of the Earth.“8.” Journey to Uraniburgh, or Astronomical Observations made in Denmark.“9.” Astronomical Observations made in divers parts of France.“10” La Connoissance des Temps," from 1679 to 1683.

The young Piccini was admitted in that seminary in 1742, and was placed at first under the tuition of a subaltern master, whose lessons, given in a dry and contracted manner, soon disgusted him; and, in a few months, his discontent at such unprofitable instructions drew on him the resentment of his tutor, expressed in no very gentle way. Shocked with this treatment, he resolved to study by himself, and began composing without rules, or any other guides than his own genius and fancy, psalms, oratorios, and opera airs; which soon excited the envy or admiration of all his fellow-students. He even had the courage to compose an entire mass. One of the masters who had seen it, and even permitted him to have it rehearsed, thought it right to mention it to Leo; who, a few days after, sent for Piccini, who, frightened at this message, obeyed the order with fear and trembling. “You have composed a mass,” said Leo, with a cold and almost severe countenance. “Yes, sir.” “Shew me your score.” “Sir, sir,” “Shew it me, I say.” Piccini thought himself ruined, but he must obey. He fetched his score at which Leo looked, turned over the leaves, examined each movement, smiled, rung the bell, as the signal for a rehearsal. The young composer, more dead than alive, begged in vain to be spared what he thought such an affront. The singers and instrumental performers obeyed the summons: the parts were distributed, and the performers waited only for Leo to beat the time. When, turning gravely to Piccini, he presented him the baton, which was then used every where, in the performance of full pieces. Piccini, put to new confusion, wished he had never dared to meddle with composition; but at length rnustere 1 his courage, and marked with a trembling hand the first bars. Soon, however, animated and infl imed by the harmony, he neither saw Leo nor the standers by, who were numerous: he was absorbed in his music, and directed its performance with a fire, energy, and accuracy, which astonished the whole audience, and acquired him great applause. Leo kept a profound silence during the performance. When, it was over “I forgive you, for once,” said he; “but if you are again guilty of such presumption, you shall be punished in such a manner as you will remember as long as you live. What! you have received from nature so estimable a disposition for study, and you lose all the advantages of so precious a gift! Instead of studying the principles of the art, you give way to all the wild vagaries of your imagination, and fancy you have produced a master-piece.” The boy, piqued by these reproaches, related what had passed between him and the assistant-master under whom he was placed. Leo became calm, and even embraced and caressed him; ordering him to come to his apartments every morning, to receive instructions from himself.

He began his career at the Florentine theatre in Naples, which is that of San Carlo, what Foote’s theatre used to be compared with Drury-Jane or the Opera House. His first production there was “Le Donne Dispettose;” and the next year, “Le Gelosie,” and “II Curioso del suo Proprio Danno,” of all which the success increased in a duplicate ratio. At length, in 1756, he set the serious opera of “Zenobia” for the great theatre of San Carlo, which was crowned with still greater success than his comic operas. In 1758, he composed “Alessandro nell' Indie,” for Rome; and after this, every theatre in Italy was eager to engage him. In 1760, his celebrated comic opera of the “Bnona Figliuolo” had a success that no musical drama could boast before. It was no sooner heard at Rome than copies were multiplied; and there was no musical theatre in Europe where this burletta was not frequently performed, in some language or other, during many years. In 1761, he composed six operas, three serious and three comic, for different theatres of Italy; and was at once applauded in Turin, Reggio, Bologna, Venice, Rome, and Naples. Sacchini assured us, in 1776, that Piccini had composed at least three hundred operas, thirteen of which were produced in seven months. On his arrival at Paris, he received many mortifications before hrs reputation was firmly established, from the partizans of the old French music, as well as the friends of Gluck. The success of his operas of “Roland,' 1” Atys,“” IphigSnie en Tauride,“”Adele de Ponthieu,“” Didon,“” Diane et Endymion,“and” Penelope,“seems to have solved a problem which was long thought insolvable:” Whether the French language was capable of receiving Italian melody?" If we add to so many dramatic works the oratorios, masses, cantatas, and occasional songs and scenes in pasticcio operas, it would prove, that in twenty-five years he had produced more music, and good music, than any other ten masters had done in their whcJe lives.

What still more astonishes, in such innumerable works, is the prodigious variety which reigns in them all, and the science which never degenerates into pedantry or affectation; an harmony pure, clear, and profound; a melody perfectly suited to the subject and situation of the performers; and a force, an originality, and resources of all kinds, unknown till his time, and of which, perhaps, the secret will long remain undiscovered. And what appears as extraordinary as the rest is, that the genius of this master, far from being exhausted by so many labours, by frequent and severe sickness, by domestic disquietude and chagrin, inseparable from a numerous family, seemed, before the revolution, to continue in full force. Deprived of all his appointments and well-earned theatrical pensions, he returned to Naples; where, after he had established himself in France, all his appointments had been disposed of. On the arrival of a French army at Naples, he was supposed to be in correspondence with them, which occasioned his precipitate flight back to Paris, where he was received with open arms, and placed at the head of a new singing-school. He died at Passy, May 7, 1800.

, of Mirandula, considered as a prodigy of learning in his day, was the youngest child of John Francis Picus, prince of Mirandula and Concordia, by Julia, of the noble house of Boirado; and was born Feb. 24, 1463. His father dying early, his mother took great care of his education; and the progress he made in letters was so extremely rapid, that his friends are said to have seen with astonishment a mere boy become one of the first poets and orators of his age. What contributed to this progress, besides intense application, was great vigour of intellect, and a memory so tenacious, as to let nothing be lost which he had ever read or heard. At fourteen years of age, being designed for the church, he was sent to Bologna to study canon law; and though he was soon disgusted with a study so lirtle suited to his talents and fertile imagination, he acquired a knowledge of it sufficient to enable him to compose an abbreviated digest, or manual, of the pontifical letters, termed Decretals, in a manner that would have done credit to the most accomplished professor. Having afforded this proof of early capacity, on a subject so ungenial, he left Bologna, and visiting successively all the most celebrated schools and colleges of Italy and France, he profited so well by what was taught there, or by what he learned in discussions with the eminent scholars and professors, that, before he had attained to manhood, he was universally recognized as a most consummate philosopher and divine.

During this early period he distinguished himself likewise as a poet, by his compositions both in the Latin and Italian languages, almost all which, however, as they were disapproved either by the nicety of his maturer judgment, or by the purity of his religious and moral feelings, at a later period, he was induced to destroy. Many also of his letters, which are still extant, were written whilst he was yet very young; and from them proofs might be selected, tending greatly to support the high juvenile reputation of their author. We have, indeed, few other documents to illustrate his literary career; and the little we know of his progress, during the seven years that he spent in visiting the universities, must be taken from them, as Mr. Gressvvell has done with great judgment. Among the academies where he passed the greater part of the above period, were those of Ferrara, Padua, Florence, and Perugia; and among the eminent scholars, with whom he entered into friendship and correspondence, were Guarinus, Marsilius Ficinus, Politian, and Nic. Leonicenus. When not engaged in any literary excursion, he spent his time at Fratta, a rural retreat in the neighbourhood of Mirandula. In 1482, he informs Leanicenns that he had erected this villa, and had written a poem in its, praise. With the commencement of 1484, the literary career of Picus became more distinct and conspicuous: he was now approaching the age of manhood; and went to Florence to perfect himself in the Greek. Within a few months after his arrival here, he composed his well-known panegyrical criticism on the Italian poems of Lorenzo de Medici. It is drawn up in the form of a letter, and addressed to Lorenzo himself. With many remarks in the true spirit of criticism, there is, perhaps, rather too much of a courtly partiality to the productions of Lorenzo. While at Florence, we find Picus employed in investigating the manuscripts of ancient authors, both in Greek and Latin, of the value of which he was already enabled to form a just estimate. Indeed the mere discovery of them was a service of high importance at that time, when the invention of printing was forming a new oera in literature. He had now added to his correspondents Jerome Donatus, Hermolaus Barbarus, Philip Beroaldus, and Alexander Cortesius, the latter of whom seems to carry his admiration of Picus to the very borders of gross and extravagant flattery; which, however, a little moderated, was a distinguishing feature in the literary correspondence of that age.

The love of fame (says his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow in this sketch,) and a too ardent thirst for praise, have perhaps justly been imputed to Picus, as constituting his ruling passion (notwithstanding the modesty and diffidence with which he frequently speaks of his own talents and productions), especially if the charge be restricted to that period of his life, when ma^turer experience and those religious impressions by which his latter years were more especially influenced, had not yet combined to rectify the errors of youth. Caressed, flattered, courted, extolled as a prodigy of erudition by the most distinguished scholars of his age, he was at the same time conscious of his own qualifications and powers, and began to think that they ought to be exhibited on the most extensive stage which the world then afforded. With this view he resolved on a journey to Rome; and immediately on his arrival, in November 1486, he published a most remarkable challenge to the learned of Europe, under the title of- “Conclusiones,” consisting of 900 propositions, or subjects of discussion, in almost every science that could exercise the speculation or ingenuity of man; and which, extraordinary and superfluous as many of them appear to a reader of the present times, certainly furnish a more adequate idea of the boundless extent of his erudition and research, than any words can describe. These he promised publicly to maintain against all opponents whatsoever: and that time might be allowed for the circulation of his “Conclusiones” through the various universities of Italy, in- all of which he caused them to be published, notice was giv^n, that the public discussion of them was not intended to take place till after the feast of the Epiphany next ensuing. A further object of this delay was, to afford to all scholars, even from the remotest of those seats of learning, who were desirous to be present and to assist at his disputations, an opportunity of repairing to Rome for such a purpose. So desirous was Picus of attracting thither, on this occasion, all the united wit, ingenuity, and erudition, that Italy could boast, that he engaged to defray, out of his own purse, the charges of all scholars, from whatever part, who should undertake the journey to Rome, for the purpose of disputing publicly with him on the subjects proposed. He had previously obtained the express permission of pope Innocent VIII. and professed all possible deference to the authority of the church, in the support of his theses. The boldness of this challenge could not fail to astonish the learned in general; but astonishment soon gave place to envy: and the Roman scholars and divines in particular, whose credit was more immediately implicated, endeavoured to render his design abortive, first, by lampoons and witticisms; and, when these proved insufficient, by the more alarming expedient of presenting thirteen of Picus’s theses, as containing matter of an heretical tendency. This answered their purpose; and although Picus continued at Rome a whole year, in expectation of reaping the harvest of praise which his juvenile vanity had led him to desire, he at last found himself not only debarred from all opportunity of signalizing himself publicly, as a disputant, but involved in a charge of heterodoxy, and therefore thought it expedient to leave Rome, and seek a temporary asylum at Florence, in the friendship of Lorenzo de Medici. Here he immediately set about the composition of his “Apologia,' 1 a work which not only served to refute the calumnies of his enemies, but convinced the world that his pretensions to very extraordinary powers were not spurious or empirical. On its completion, he sent it to the pope, who, although he fully acquitted the author of all bad intention, thought proper to suppress the circulation of it; and Picus, on further reflection, not only acquiesced in this, but in his disappointment, acknowledging with thankfulness that divine Providence, which often educes good out of evil, had rendered the malevolence of his enemies a most salutary check to the career of vain glory, in which he had been led so far astray. But Picus had not yet seen all the disagreeable consequences of this affair: his enemies began to cavil at the” Apologia" itself, which appears to have had considerable weight with pope Innocent; and it was not until 1493 that he was acquitted from the charge, and from all prosecutions, pains, and penalties, by a bull of pope Alexander VI.

In the beginning of 1488, we find Picus in the possession of a peaceful asylum at Fiesole, in the vicinity of Florence, which had been given him by Lorenzo de Medici, who had a villa in the neighbourhood; and he and Politian spent many of their hours of literary leisure together. Here also he enjoyed the friendship of Robert Salviatus and the family of the Benivieni, four in number, and all men of learning and talents. Jerome Benivieni, or Benivenius, became more especially the intimate friend of Picus, the depositary of his religious and moral opinions, and all that congeniality of opinion and disposition can render one person to another. Picus wrote a commentary on one of Benivieni’s Canzone, which will be noticed hereafter* In 1489, Picus’s “Heptaplus” was published, and received with great encomiums by the learned of the age, as worthy of its author’s talents and pre-acquired celebrity It can scarcely, however, says his biographer, be productive of any valuable purpose, very minutely to inquire into the merit of a woik which the tacit consent of posterity has consigned to almost total oblivion. Picus intermixes much of Platonism in all his theological writings; and they are also tinctured with the fancied doctrines of the Jewish Cabala, which is particularly observable in the work in question. After this he appears to have been employed on a commentary on the Psalms of David, at the request of Lorenzo de Medici; but respecting thecompletion of this, nothing satisfactory is upon record. About the beginning of 1490 he was employed on his favourite object of reconciling Plato and Aristotle. “To this work,” he says in a letter to Baptista Mantuanus, “I daily devote the whole of my morning hours; the afternoon I give to the society of friends, those relaxations which are requisite for the preservation of health, and occasionally to the poets and orators, and similar studies of a lighter kind; my nights are divided betwixt sleep and the perusal of the Holy Scriptures.” In 1491 he published his treatise “De Ente et Uno,” which, says his biographer, exhibits a chain of the most profound and abstract reasoning concerning the Deity, expressed in a language consistent with the sacred ness of the subject, much more free from the terms and phraseology peculiar to the schoolmen than might be expected, and which (in comparison with the mode then usual, of treating arguments so metaphysical and abstruse) may be denominated luminous and classical. This work afterwards gave occasion to a friendly controversy between Picus and Antonius Faventinus, or Cittadinus, the whole of which is included in the works of Picus, who, as a controversial writer, appears in a very amiable view.

The society and conveniencies of study which Florence afforded, had reconciled him to a lasting abode in that city, when, in 1492, he hadthe misfortune to lose his illustrious patron and associate, Lorenzo de Medici, who was carried off bya fever in the prime of life. He and Politian, of all the Florentine scholars, had possessed perhaps the very first place in Lorenzo’s esteem. Picus now resolved to leave Florence, at least for a time, where every object reminded him of the loss he had sustained; and went to Ferrara, where he endeavoured to divert his grief by again deeply engaging in his oriental studies. A short time previously to this period, being willing to exonerate himself from the weight of secular dignities and cares, he had, for a very inadequate consideration, transferred to his nephew (the subject of our next article), John Francis PicLi.s, all his territories and other rights and possessions in Mirandula and Goncordia, comprehending one-third part of the patrimonial inheritance. The sums arising from this transfer, he employed partly in the purchase of lands, to secure an annual revenue for the due support of his household, and partly in charitable donations; to the later purpose also the produce of a great part of his rich furniture and plate was appropriated. Benevolence towards the poor seems to have been a distinguishing feature in his character; for, not content with performing acts of munificence and charity, the necessity and propriety of which suggested themselves to his own observation, he engaged his friend Jerome Benivenius to be constantly in search of such cases of indigence and di&tress amongst the poorer citizens of Florence as might happen to escape general observation; authorizing him to supply immediate relief as necessity required, and engaging lo refund from his own purse whatever sums he should disburse on these benevolent occasions. In his latter days, to which we are now approaching, we are told that pride, ambition, anger, and all the turbulent passions, had subsided; that vanity and self-conceit were extinguished, and that no events, whether prosperous or adverse, discomposed the constant and uniform serenity of his mind. These great qualities, however, were not wholly unmixed with some portion of the superstition incident to the age. He is represented as having, at particular seasons, added to the usual mortifications prescribed by the church, by voluntary penances and self-inflicted pains, which the erring judgment of those times considered as meritorious. Of many, however, of the abuses and corruptions of the papal hierarchy he appears to have been sensible, and on various points of doctrine his views have been pronounced much more rational than could be expected from the time.

He now devoted himself to theological studies. We have already mentioned his “Hexaplus,” or explanation of the six days gf the creation; and he appears at this time to have been making preparations for farther elucidating the Holy Scriptures, and for combating the errors of his time; but of these and other undertakings, scarce any now remain except his work “Contra Astrologiam Divinatricem” and a few “Opuscula*” Of the immense mass of manuscripts found after his decease, few could be decyphered or methodized* but his nephew, by great pains uiul labour, was enabled to transcribe that portion of his voluminous work which was levelled against judicial astrology, and which proved to be in a more finished state than the rest. It was afterwards published in various collections of his works, under the title of “De Astrologia Disputationum Libri duodecim,” and has entitled Picus to the praise of having been the first who boldly and successfully exposed the fallacy of a species of superstition, which, notwithstanding his endeavours, continued long after this to hold its empire over the human mind.

, or Leo Pilatus, a monk of Calabria, who flourished about the middle of the fourteenth century, is considered as one of the most industrious of those eminent scholars who contributed to the revival of literature and taste in Europe, and was the first who taught Greek in Italy, where he had Petrarch and Boccaccio for his scholars. He was on his return from a journey through Greece, in search of manuscripts in that language, when he was killed by lightning. Notwithstanding his knowledge of Greek, he was thought but moderately skilled in Latin.

Considered as a writer, she holds some rank in dramatic history, as the author of “The Turkish Court, or London Apprentice,” a comedy acted at Dublin in 1748, but never printed. The first act of her tragedy, “The Roman Father,” was no bad specimen of her talents in that way. Her “Memoirs” are written with great sprightliness and wit, and describe the different humours of mankind very naturally, but they must, as to facts, be read with the caution necessary in the Apologies of the Bellamys and Baddelys of our own days. She had a son, John Carteret Pilkington, who also became an adventurer, and somewhat of a poet. He published a volume of his “Memoirs,” 1760, 4to, and died in 1763.

is the name of an ancient fabulist, a Bramin; he was, as is supposed, governor of part of Indostan, and counsellor to a powerful Indian king, named Dabschclin, whose preceptor he had been. His work is said to have been written 2000 years B. C. but all internal evidence is against this. It is called in the Indian language, Kelile Wadimne, a name the Orientals give to an animal very much resembling a fox, and which is made to speak throughout the work. All the modern translations of this Orientalist, are made either from the Greek or the Persian, and are said to differ much from the original. His fables were translated into French, by Ant. Galland, 1714, 12mo. Another work is also attributed to him, entitled, in the translation, “Le Naufrage des isles flotantes,” or, “The Basiliade,” 1755.

It is not improper to observe, that some prejudices have arisen among the moderns against Pindar, from certain writings known by the name of Pindaric odes: but very few under that title, not excepting even those written by the admired Cowley, whose wit and fire first brought them into reputation, have the least resemblance to the manner of the author whom they pretend to imitate, and from whom they derive their name; or, if any, it is such a resemblance only as is expressed by the Italian word caricatura, a monstrous and distorted likeness. This observation has been already made by Congreve, in his preface to two admirable odes, written professedly in imitation of Pindar: “The character of these late Pindarics,” says he, “is a bundle of rambling incoherent thoughts, expressed in a like parcel of irregular stanzas, which also consist of such another complication of disproportioned, uncertain, and perplexed verses and rhimes. On th|g contrary,” adds he, “there is nothing more regular than the Odes of Pindar, both as to the exact observation of the measures and numbers of his stanzas and verses, and the perpetual coherence of his thoughts. For though his digressions are frequent, and his transitions sudden, yet is there ever some secret connexion, which, though not always appearing to the eye, never fails to communicate itself to the understanding of the reader.” Upon the whole, a poetical imagination, a warm and enthusiastic genius, a bold and figurative expression, and a concise and sententious style, are the characteristical beauties of Pindar; very different from the far-fatched thoughts, the witty extravagances, and puerile conceits of his imitators.

His son, Robert Edge Pine, was a painter of considerable merit at his outset in life, when he painted his “Surrender at the Siege of Calais,” and his “Canute on the Sea-shore;” but did not improve as he went on, and not meeting with encouragement, went to Philadelphia, where he died in 1790. Edwards has given a short, but not very favourable account of him. Mr. Fuseli says that he had breadth, richness, and mellowness of colour, a forcible chiaroscuro, and an historic tone; his composition was not despicable; but his drawing was too provokingly feeble, to suffer the most unexperienced or indulgent eye to dwell long on his work.

, a celebrated lawyer, was born in 1573, of a good family at Angers. He attended the bar with a degree of reputation superior to his age; and going afterwards to Paris, distinguished himself both in the parliament and grand council, by his eloquent pleadings. In 1600 he married Frances Ladvocat, daughter of Amauri Ladvocat, seigneur de Fougeres, and counsellor to the presidial of Angers, and at his return to his native place, was appointed counsellor to the same presidial. Mary de Medicis becoming acquainted with him in 1619, conceived the highest esteem for his merit, created him master of the requests in her palace, and endeavoured to support herself in her disgrace by his credit and advice; but M. du Pineau’s whole aim was to inspire her with resignation, in which he at last succeeded. Louis XIII. in return appointed him mayor and captain-general of the city of AngerSj June 2, 1632, in which situation he gained the flattering title of “Father of the People.” His house became also a kind of academy, in which every one freely proposed his difficulties on the most intricate points of law or history, and when du Pineau had spoken, the point in dispute was considered as decided. He died Oct. 15, 1644, aged 71. His works are, Notes in Latin, against those of du Moulin on the canon law, printed under the inspection of Francis Pinsson, with du Moulin' s works; “Comm. des observations et consultations surlaContume d'Anjou,” reprinted, 1725, 2 vols. fol. by the care of M. de Livoniere, who has enriched them with very useful observations. Menage relates that when his father William Menage, and du Pineau, agreed in their opinions on the same question, the people of Angers used to say, “This must certainly be right, for Pineau has confirmed the opinion of Menage.” His house was so much frequented, that the street in which he lived was called “Rue Pineau.”

, a French mathematician and astronomer, was born at Paris, in 1711. In 1727 he became a member of the canons regular of the congregation of France. He was intended for the church, hut the freedom of his opinions displeased his superiors, and after a few years’ study of theology, he devoted himself entirely to the sciences. In 1749 he was appointed a member of the academy of sciences in Rouen, and was elected to fill the office of astronomer, and attained to first-rate excellence. His earliest production, as an author, was the “Calculation of an Eclipse of the Moon,” on the 23d of December 1749. Lacaille had calculated it at Paris; but the calculations differed by four minutes: Lacaille., however confessed his error, and received Pingre into his friendship. In May 1753 he was elected correspondent of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, after having sent them an observation of the transit of Mercury, which he made at Rouen. He was next appointed librarian of the abbey of St. Genevieve, obtained the construction of an observatory, and was furnished by the abbot and chapter with a six-foot telescope, while he had the loan of an excellent quadrant from the academy. At the desire of Le Monnier, he next engaged in calculating “A Nautical Almanack,” to enable navigators more easily to ascertain the longitude by means of lunar observations. He calculated a table of the eclipses visible of the sun and moon from the commencement of the Christian aera to 1900, and afterwards a table of the eclipses visible from the northern pole to the equator, for a thousand years before our aera. The utility of these labours for verifying historical dates, induced the Academy of Inscriptions to insert a part of them in the forty-second volume of their Memoirs. He published the “State of the Heavens” for 1754: in this the moon’s place was calculated with the utmost exactness according to the tables of Dr. Halley for noon and midnight, with the right ascension in seconds of time twice a day. In 1753 he published “A Memoir relating to the Discoveries made in the South Sea, during the Voyages of the English and French round the World.” In 1760, Pingre left France for the island of Rodriguez, in the Indian ocean, to observe the transit of Venus, that was to take place in the following year; and on the 6th of June of that year he made his observations, from which he concluded that the parallax, of the sun was 10“. 2. At the same time the English astronomer Mason concluded, from the observations which he made at the Cape of Good Hope, that the parallax was 8”. 2. La Lande, in his “Astronomy,” published in 1764, adopted a medium between these conclusions, and supposed l,he parallax to be 9“, in which he was followed by astronomers in general, till more numerous observations, made on the transit of 1769, led to a different result. After the return of Pingre from the East, he published a description of Pekin, in which he shewed the position of that capital from the result of a number of calculations of eclipses; and ascertained its longitude by other calculations, with a degree of precision to which none of the labours of the scientific missionaries had any pretensions. In 1769 he sailed for the island of St. Domingo, on board the Isis man of war, to observe the transit of Venus, and performed the service committed to him in the most able and satisfactory manner possible. An account of this voyage, which proved of considerable importance to the science of geography, as well as astronomy, appeared in 1773, in two vols. 4to. After comparing the results of the immense number of calculations made by the observers of the transit in 1769J the sun’s parallax has been concluded to be about 8”. 6. In 1771, Pingre made another voyage, on board the Flora frigate, with a view of extending the interests of geographical and astronomical knowledge, having with him, as the companion of his pursuits, the chevalier de Borda, a celebrated engineer and geometrician. The account of their proceedings, observations, and experiments, was published in 1778, in two vols. 4to. In 1784, M. Pingre published his “Cometography, or historical and theoretical treatise on Comets,” in two vols. 4tc, which is his most considerable work, and contains calculations of the orbits of all the comets of which an. account has been preserved. After a long life, spent in the most important services to the world, he died in the month of May 179tf, leaving behind him a high character for integrity, having enjoyed the esteem of the public, as well as that of his friends. He was author of many other works besides those that have been already noticed.

, was called also Venetiano, from Venice, the place of his birth, which occurred in 1485. He was renowned, in early life, as a musician, and particularly for his skill in playing upon the lute. While he was yet in his youth, he abandoned that science, and was taught the rudiments of the art of painting by Giovanni Bellini; but Giorgione da Castel Franco having just then exhibited his improved mode of colouring and effect, Sebastian became his disciple and most successful imitator. His portraits, in particular, were greatly admired for the strength of resemblance, and the sweetness and fulness of style, which made them be frequently mistaken for the work of Giorgione. His portrait of Julio Gonzaga, the favourite of cardinal Hippolito di Medici, is by many writers mentioned in the highest terms. Being induced to go to Rome, he soon attracted public notice; and in the contest respecting the comparative merits of Raphael and M. Angelo, Sebastian gave the preference to the latter, who in consequence favoured him on all occasions, and even stimulated him to the rash attempt of rivalling Raphael, by painting a picture in competition with that great man’s last great work, the Transfiguration; which had just been placed, with great form, in the church of St. Pietro a Montorio. The subject Sebastian chose was the resurrection of Lazarus; for which Michael Angelo is supposed to have furnished the design, or at least to have considered and retouched it. The picture is of the same size as Raphael’s; and, when completed, was placed in the same consistory, and was very highly applauded. The cardinal di Medici sent it to his bishopric of Narbonno, and it became the property of the Duke of Orleans. It is now in England, and in possession of J. Angerstein esq. who gave 2000 guineas for it to the proprietors of the Orleans collection. Although it is a work of profound skill, and highly preserves the reputation of its author, yet, in our opinion, it is not to be compared with the great work it was intended to rival, either in design, in expression, or effect, whatever may be said of its execution.

, an English comic painter, was the son of a Kentish gentleman descended from a Walloon family. His father, having a plentiful estate, gave this his eldest son a liberal education, and would have had him bred a scholar, or else a merchant; but his genius leading him wholly to designing, he could not fix to any particular science or business but the art to which he naturally inclined. Drawing took up all his time and all his thoughts; and being of a gay facetious humour, his manner partook of it. He delighted in drawing ugly faces; and had a talent so particular for it, that he would by a transient view of any remarkable face he met in the street, retain the likeness so exactly in his memory, that it might be supposed the person had sat several times for it. It was said of him, that he would steal a face and a man, who was not handsome enough to desire to see his picture, sat in danger in his company. He had a fancy peculiar to himself in his travels: he would often go away, and let his friends know nothing of his departure; make the tour of France and the Netherlands, a-foot; and sometimes his frolic carried him as far as Grand Cairo. He never advertised his friends of his return, any more than he did of his intended absence, delighting to baffle their conjectures, or tantalize their feelings. In this manner he travelled, at several times, through Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Holland; in which several countries he examined the works of the several painters with pleasure and judgment, and formed to himself a manner of design which no man in that kind ever excelled, or perhaps equalled.

, called more frequently Julio Romano, a very eminent painter, was born in 1492, and was the principal disciple of Raphael, his heir, the cominuator of his works, and himself at the head of a school. Whilst a pupil, he imbibed all his master’s energy of character, and chiefly signalized himself in subjects of war and battles, which he represented with equal spirit and erudition. As a designer, he commands the whole mechanism of the human body; and, without fear of error, turns and winds it about to serve his purposes; but sometimes oversteps the modesty of nature. Vasari prefers his drawings to his pictures, as the original fire which distinguishes his conception was apt to evaporate, in the longer process of finish: and some have, with more reason, objected to' the character of his physiognomies, as less simple than vulgar; and often dismal and horrid, without being terrible. In colour, whether fresco or oil, his hand was as expeditious, a.nd his touch, especially in the former, as decided, as his eye and choice were ungenial: bricky lights, violet demitints, black shades, compose, in general, the raw opaque tone of his oil-pictures. The style of his draperies is classic, but the management of the folds generally arbitrary and mannered; the hair and head-dresses of his women are always fanciful and luxurious, but not always arranged by taste, whilst those of the men frequently border on the grotesque.

He came to Mantua, and there found antique treasures, of which the statues, busts, and basso-relievos, at. present in the academy, are but insignificant remains. To the stores of the Gonzaghi he added his own, rich in designs of Raphael, and studies and plans from the antique; for no designer ever possessed such industry with so much fire, so much consideration with such fecundity, or combiued with equal rapidity such correctness, and with great recondite knowledge in mythology and history, that popularity and ease in treating it. The increased practice, and the authority derived from the superintendance of the works left unfinished by his master, established his reliance on himself, and the call of the Gonzaghi roused that loftiness of conception, and gave birth to those magnificent plans, from which Mantua and the wonders of the palace del T. as it was called, rose, as from enchantment. This palace furnishes specimens in every class of picturesque imagery. Whatever be the dimension, the subject, or the scenery, minute or colossal, simple or complex, terrible or pleasing, we trace a mind bent to surprise or to dazzle by poetic splendor: but, sure to strike by the originality of his conception, he often neglects propriety in the conduct of his subjects, considered as a series, and in the arrangement or choice of the connecting parts; hurried into extremes by the torrent of a fancy more lyric than epic, he disdains to fill the intermediate chasms, and too often leaves the task of connexion to the spectator.

In the palace del T. Julio adopted the method of his master. He prepared the cartoons; they were executed by his pupils; and he thoroughly retouched, corrected, and gave the last finish to the pictures: but unfortunately his master-strokes have been covered again by modern pencils; and the fable of Psyche, the Allegories of Human Life, the Gian.ts storming Heaven, exhibit now, indeed, his composition and design, but not his hand: this is better preserved in the paintings of the old palace, or, as it is now called, the Corte of Mantua: they are in fresco, and chiefly relate histories of the Trojan war. They have the same beauties and the same defects as those of the palace del T. Each, singly considered, is a proof of the poetic spirit and the practic powers of the master; as a cyclus, they want connection and evidence. Helen sleeping, Vulcan forging arms for Achilles, are beautiful; and Minerva in the act of slaying Ajax, the son of Oileus, sublime. Nor is his versatility less admirable in the Bacchic or amorous subjects, the capricci and grotesque conceits with which he decorated the small cabinets of the same palace.