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

His work, which has been sometimes called “The Custftmesof London,” and sometimes “Arnolde’s Chronicle,” contains a medley of information respecting the magistrates, charters, municipal regulations, assizes of bread, &c. mostly taken from a work of the same kind which is still remaining among the Cottonian Mss. (Julius B. I.) The first edition was printed at Antwerp by John Doesborowe, without date, place, or printer’s name, but probably in 1502. The second was printed by Peter Treveris, about 1520, or 1521, and a third, longo intervallo, at London, 1811, as part of a series of the English chronicles undertaken by some of the principal booksellers of London, and printed with great care and accuracy. It is to the learned preface to this last edition that we are indebted for the preceding particulars respecting Arnolde, and to it likewise we may refer the reader for a discussion on the origin of the celebrated poem, “The Nut-brown Maid,” printed in the same edition.

, or Earnulph, or Ernulph, bishop of Rochester in the reign of king Henry I, was a Frenchman by birth, and for some time a monk of St. Lucian de Beauvais. Observing some irregularities among his brethren, which he could neither remedy nor endure, he resolved to quit the monastery but first he took the advice of Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury, under whom he had studied in the abbey of Bee. That prelate, who was well acquainted with his merit, invited him over into England, and placed him in the monastery of Canterbury, where he lived till Lanfranc’s death. Afterwards, when Anselm came into that see, Arnulph was made prior of the monastery of Canterbury, and afterwards abbot of Peterborough, and to both places he was a considerable benefactor, having rebuilt part of the church of Canterbury, which had fallen down, and also that of Peterborough, but this latter was destroyed by an accidental fire, and our prelate removed to Rochester before he could repair the loss. In 1115, he was consecrated bishop of that see, in the room of Radulphus or Ralph, removed to the see of Canterbury. He sat nine years and a few days, and died in March 1124, aged eighty-four. He is best known by his work concerning the foundation, endowment, charters, laws, and other things relating to the church of Rochester. It generally passes by the name of Textus Roffensis, and is preserved in. the archives of the cathedral church of Rochester. Mr. Wharton, in his Anglia Sacra, has published an extract of this history, under the title of “Ernulphi Episcopi Roffensis Collectanea de rebus Ecclesise Roffensis, a prima sedis fundatione ad sua tempora. Ex Textu Roffensi, quern composuit Ernulphus.” This extract consists of the names of the bishops of Rochester, from Justus, who was translated to Canterbury in the year 624, to Ernulfus inclusive benefactions to the church of Rochester; of the agreement made between archbishop Lanfranc, and Odo bishop of Bayeux how Lanfranc restored to the monks the lands of the church of St. Andrew, and others, which had been alienated from them how king William the son of king William did, at the request of archbishop Lanfranc, grant unto the church of St. Andrew the apostle, at Rochester, the manor called Hedenham, for the maintenance of the monks and why bishop Gundulfus built for the king the stone castle of Rochester at his own expence a grant of the great king William Of the dispute between Gundulfus and Pichot benefactions to the church of Rochester. Oudm is of opinion, our Arnulph had no hand in this collection; but the whole was printed, in 1769, bj the late Mr. Thorpe, in his “Registrum Roffense.”

There are extant likewise, “Tomellus, sive epistola Ernulfi ex JYlonacho Benedictino Episcopi Roffensis de Incestis Conjugiis,” and “Epistola solutiones quasdam continens ad varias Lamberti abbatis Bertiniani qurestiones, praecipue de Corpore et Sanguine Domini.” Bale, who confounds our Arnulph with Arnoul bishop of Lisieux, and with Arnoul abbot of Bonneval, and Arnulphus the presbyter, informs us, that Arnulphus went to Rome, where, inveighing strongly against the vices of the bishops, particularly their lewd ness, grandeur, and worldly-mindedness, he fell a sacrifice to the rage and resentment of the Roman clergy, who caused him to be privately assassinated. But this was Arnulphus the presbyter, who, as Platina tells us, was destroyed by the treachery of the Roman clergy, in the time of pope Honorius II. for remonstrating with great severity against the corruptions of the court of Rome. Nor could this possibly be true of our Arnulph, in the time of that pope for this bishop of Rochester died before Honorius II. was raised to the pontificate. As to the works ascribed by Bale to Arnulphus, such as “De Operibns sex dierum,” &c. they were written either by Arnoul bishop of Lisieux, or by Arnoul abbot of Bonneval.

, descended of a good family in the county of Salop, from which he inherited a considerable estate, was born in 1601, educated in grammatical learning in his own country, and in 1618 became a commoner of St. Edmund’s hall, in Oxford, where he remained till he had taken his degrees in arts, and had also received holy orders. He then went down again into Shropshire, where, in process of time, he obtained the rectories of Hodnet and Ightfield, which he enjoyed to the breaking out of the civil war. He was a man of much learning and very extensive chanty, so that though his income was considerable, yet he laid up very little. It was his custom to clothe annually twelve poor people according to their station, and every Sunday he entertained as many at bistable, not only plentifully, tyut with delicate respect. His loyalty to his prince being as warm as his charity towards his neighbours, he raised and clothed eight troopers for his service, and always preached warmly against rebellion. The parliament having a garrison in the tuwn of Wem, a detachment was sent from thence who plundered him of every thing, besides terrifying him with the cruellest insults. In 1640 he repaired to Oxford, to serve the king in person, and there was created doctor in divinity, and had also the archdeaconry of Coventry given him, on the promotion of Dr. Brownrig to the bishopric of Exeter. His former misfortunes did not hinder Dr. Arnway from being as active afterwards in the king’s service, which subjected him to a new train of hardships, his estate being sequestered, and himself imprisoned. At length, after the king’s murder, he obtained his liberty, and, like many other loyalists, was compelled by the laws then in being to retire to Holland. While at the Hague, in 1650, he published two little pieces; the first entitled “The Tablet; or, the Moderation of Charles I. the Martyr.” In this he endeavours to wipe off all the aspersions that were thrown on that prince’s memory by Milton and his associates. The second is called “An Alarm to the Subjects of England,” in which he certainly did his utmost to picture the oppressions of the new government in the strongest colours and in this work he gives some very remarkable anecdotes of himself. His supplies from England failing, and his hopes in that country being also frustrated, he was compelled to accept an offer that was made him of going to Virginia, where, oppressed with grief and cares, he died, in 1653, leaving behind him the character of a pious, upright, and consistent loyalist. Tbe tracts above mentioned were reprinted in England, 1661, by the care of Mr. William Rider, of Merton College, who married a relation of the author, but this volume is very scarce.

, a celebrated historian and philosopher, lived under the emperor Adrian and the two Antonines, in the second century. He was born at Nicomedia in Bithynia, was styled the second Xenophorj, and raised to the most considerable dignities of Rome. Tillemont takes him to be the same person with that Flaccus Arrianus, who, being governor of Cappadocia, stopped the incursions of the Alani, and sent an account of his voyage round the Euxine to Adrian. He is also said to have been preceptor to the philosopher and emperor Marcus Antoninus. There are extant four books of his Diatribas, or Dissertations upon Epictetus, whose disciple he had been; and Photius tells us that he composed likewise twelve books of that philosopher’s discourses. We are told by another author, that he wrote the Life and death of Epictetus. The most celebrated of his works is his History, in Greek, of Alexander the Great, in seven books, a performance much esteemed for more aocuracy and fidelity than that of Q,uintus Curtius. Photius mentions also his History of Bithynia, another of the Alani, and a third of the Parthians, in seventeen books, which he brought down to the war carried on by Trajan against them. He gives us likewise an abridgement of Arrian’s ten books of the History of the successors of Alexander the Great and adds, that he wrote an account of the Indies in one book, which is still extant. The work which he first entered upon was his History of Bithynia; but wanting the proper ipemoirs and materials for it, he suspended the execution of this design till he had published some other things. This history consisted of eight books, and was carried down till the time when Nicomedes resigned Bithynia to the Romans; but there is nothing of it remaining except what is quoted in Photius and Stephanus Byzantmus. Arrian is said to have written several other works: Lucian tells us, that he wrote the Ijfe of a robber, whose name was Tiliborus, and when Lucian endeavours to excuse himself for writing the life of Alexander the impostor, he adds, “Let no person accuse me of having employed my labour upon too low and mean a subject, since Arrian, the worthy disciple of Epictetus, who is one of the greatest men amongst the Romans, and who has passed his whole life amongst the muses, condescended to write the Life of Tiliborus.” There is likewise, under the name of Arrian, a Periplus of the Red- sea, that is, of the eastern coasts of Africa and Asia,as far as the Indies; but Dr. Vincent thinks it was not his. There is likewise a book of Tactics under his name, the beginning of which is lost; to these is added the order which he gave for the marching of the Roman army against the Alani, and giving them battle, which may very properly be ascribed to our author, who was engaged in a war against that people.

, an English divine and writer, was born at or near Newcastle- upon Tyne, March 29, 1602. He was admitted of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1616, and took his first two degrees from thence in 1619 and 1623. In this last year he was chosen fellow of Katherine hall, where he is supposed to have resided some years, probably engaged in the tuition of youth; but in 1631 he married, and removed to Lynn in Norfolk. He continued in this town, very much esteemed, for about ten or twelve years, being first assistant or curate, and afterwards minister in his own right, of St. Nicholas chapel there. He was afterwards called up to assist in the assembly of divines had a parish in London, and is named with Tuckney, Hill, and others, in the list of Triers, as they were called i. e. persons appointed to examine and report the integrity and abilities of candidates for the eldership in London, and ministry at large. When Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s college, was turned out by the earl of Manchester, Mr. Arrowsmith, who had taken the degree of B. D. from Katherine hall eleven years before, was put into his place; and also into the royal divinity chair, from which the old professor Collins was removed and after about nine years possession of these honours, to which he added that of a doctor’s degree in divinity, in 1649, he was farther promoted, on Dr. Hill’s death, to the mastership of Trinity college, with which he kept his professor’s place only two years his health being considerably impaired. He died in Feb. 1658-9.

, archbishop of Monembasia, or Malvasia in the Morea, was a learned philologist of the fifteenth century. He was the particular friend of pope Paul III. and wrote to him some very elegant letters. He submitted also to the Romish church, which gave so much offence to the heads of the Greek church, that they excommunicated him. There are of his extant, a “Collection of Apophthegms,” printed at Rome, in Greek and another “Collection of Scholia on seven of the tragedies of Euripides,” printed at Venice in 1518, 8vo Basil, 1544; and again at Venice in 1533. His collection of Apophthegms, or “Praeclara dicta Philosophorum,” has no date of year. The time of his death is uncertain, but he was alive in 1535.

, a celebrated poet and physician, flourished in the beginning of the sixteenth century, under the pontificates of Leo X. and Clement VII. He was a native of Sinigaglia, and after having studied at Padua, practised medicine at Rome but, according to the eloge of his friend Paul Jovius, seldom passed a day without producing some poetical composition. He either possessed, or affected that independence of mind which does not accord with the pliant manners of a court; and avoided the patronage of the great, while he complains of their neglect. He died in the 66th year of his age, at Sinigaglia, 1540. He wrote a poem in Latin verse, “De poetis Urbanis,” addressed to Paul Jovius; in which he celebrates the names, and characterises the works, of a great number of Latin poets resident at Rome in the time of Leo X. It was first printed in the Coryciana, Rome, 1524, 4to and reprinted by Tiraboschi, who obtained a more complete copy in the hand-writing of the author, with the addition of many other names. It has also been reprinted by Mr. Roscoe, in his life of Leo, who is of opinion that his complaint of the neglect of poets in the time of that pontiff was unjust.

, celebrated for a superstitious treatise upon Dreams, was born at Ephesus, but took the surname of Daldianus in this book, out of respect to the country of his mother, and he styled himself the Ephesian in his other performances. He lived under the emperor Antoninus Pius, as himself informs us, when he tells us that he knew a wrestler, who, having dreamed he had lost his sight, carried the prize in the games celebrated by command of that emperor. He not only bought up all that had been written concerning the explication of dreams, which amounted to many volumes, but likewise spent many years in travelling, in order to contract an acquaintance with the tribe of fortune-tellers he also carried on an extensive correspondence with all persons of this description in Greece, Italy, and the most populous islands, collecting at the same time all reports of dreams, and the events which are said to have followed them. He despised the reproaches of those supercilious persons, wlho treat the foretellers of events as cheats, impostors, and jugglers, and frequented much the company of those diviners for several years. He was the more assiduous in his study and search after the interpretation of dreams, being moved thereto, as he fancied, by the advice, or, in some measure, by the command of Apollo. The work which he wrote on dreams consists of five books the three first were dedicated to one Cassius Maximus, and the two last to his son, whom he took a good deal of pains to instruct in the nature and interpretation of dreams. The work was first printed in Greek, at Venice, 1518, 8vo; and Regaltius published an edition at Paris, Greek and Latin, in 1603, 4to, and added some notes. Artemidorus wrote also a treatise upon Auguries, and another upon Chiromancy, but they are not extant. Contemptible as his work is, it contains some curious particulars respecting ancient rites and customs. Bayle remarks, what may indeed be said of all works of the kind, that there is not one dream which Artemidorus has explained in a particular manner, but what will admit of a very different explication, and this with the same degree of probability, and founded upon as reasonable principles as those upon which Artemidorus proceeds.

, professor of moral philosophy in the university of Glasgow, the eldest son of Andrew Arthur, a farmer, was born at Abbots- Inch, in the shire of Renfrew, Sept. 6, 1744. After being educated in the elements of knowledge and piety by his parents, he was, at the age of eight, placed at the grammar-school of Paisley, where he was taught Latin. In his thirteenth or fourteenth year, he was removed to the university of Glasgow, where his uncommon proficiency was soon noticed and encouraged by his teachers, who discerned a brilliancy of genius and strength of understanding which were concealed from more superficial observers by an almost invincible bashful ness, and hesitation in his speech, from which he never was altogether free. After having gone through the usual course of classical studies with increasing reputation, he determined on the clerical profession, and with that view attended the philosophical and theological lectures. Such was the intenseness of his application, and the vigour of his intellect, that, we are told, long before his nomination to an academical chair, there were few or no departments, whether literary, philosophical, or theological, with the exception of the medical school only, in which he could not have been an eminent teacher. On one occasion, during the necessaryabsence of the professor of Church History, he lectured for a whole session of college in that department, highly to the satisfaction and improvement of his hearers, which many of them acknowledged at a distant period when their own researches rendered such an opinion valuable. He was also, during the period of his academical studies, employed as private tutor in some families “of rank. In October 1767, after the usual trials, according to the forms of the church of Scotland, he was licensed to be a preacher, although not without some opposition, owing to his reluctance to embrace the creed of that church in its full extent.Soon after he was appointed chaplain to the university of Glasgow, and assistant to the rev. Dr. Craig, one of the clergy of Glasgow. About the same time he was appointed librarian to the university, in which office he compiled the catalogue of that library on the model of that of the Advocates’ library in Edinburgh. In 1780 he was appointed assistant and successor to the learned and venerable Dr. Reid, professor of moral philospphy, and delivered a course of lectures, of the merit of Which a judgment may be formed from the parts now published. In sentiments he nearly coincided with his colleague and predecessor. He taught this class for fifteen years, as assistant to Dr. Reid, who died in 1796, when he Succeeded as professor, but held this situation for only one session. A dropsical disorder appeared in his habit soon after the commencement of 1797, and proved fatal, June 14 of that year. In 1803, professor Richardson, of the same university, published some part of Mr. Arthur’s lectures, under the title of” Discourses on Theological and Literary Subjects," 8vo, with an elegant sketch of his life and character, from which the above particulars have been borrowed. These discourses amply justify the eulogium Mr. Richardson has pronounced on him, as a man of just taste, and correct in his moral and religious principles, nor were his talents and temper less admired in private life.

, an eminent landscape painter, was born at Brussels in 1613, and having been carefully instructed in the art of painting by Wildens (as some authors imagine), he perfected himself by a studious observation of nature. His landscapes have an agreeable solemnity, by the disposition of his trees, and the breaking of his grounds the distances are well observed, and die away perspectively, with a bluish distance of remote hills and his figures are properly and very judiciously placed. His pencil is soft, his touch light and free, particularly in the leafing of his trees; and there is generally a pleasing harmony in the whole. It is said that Teniers either painted or retouched the figures of his landscapes. He is remarkable for always ornamenting the stems of his trees with moss, ivy, or other plants, the extremities of which are often loosely hanging down. His pictures are coloured with a force resembling those of Titian, except that sometimes they are a little too dark. Mechlin, Brussels, Ghent, and the gallery of Dusseldorp, were ornamented with many of his pictures. In the course of his practice, he acquired a good fortune, but is said to have dissipated it by giving entertainments to persons of rank. He died in 1665, aged fifty- two.

, or Arumceus, a nobleman of Friesland, was born at Leuwarden in 1579, and studied law at Franeker, Oxford, and Rostock. In 1599 he went to Jena, where, in 1605, he was appointed professor of law, and where he died Feb. 24, 1637. He is esteemed one of the most able writers on the German law, and one of the first who reduced it to a regular system. His principal works are 1. “Discursus academic! de jure publico,” Jena, 1617 23, 5 vols. 4to. 2. “Discursus academici ad auream bullam Caroli IV.” ib. 1617, 4to. 3. “Commentaria de comitiis Roman. German, imp.” ib. 1630, 4to.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. was the second son of Robert Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel and Warren, and brother of Richard earl of Arundel, who was afterwards beheaded. He was but twenty-two years of age when, from being archdeacon of Taunton, he was promoted to the bishopric of Ely, by the pope’s provision, and consecrated April 9, 1374, at Otteford. He was a considerable benefactor to the church and palace of that see. He almost rebuilt the episcopal palace in Holborn, and, among other donations, he presented the cathedral with a very curious table of massy gold, enriched with precious stones which had been given to prince Edward by the king of Spain, and sold by the latter to bishop Arundel for three hundred marks. In the year 1386, the tenth of Richard II. he was made lord high chancellor of England but resigned it in 1389 was again appointed in 1391, and resigned it finally, upon his advancement to the see of Canterbury. After he had sat about fourteen years in the see of Ely, he was translated to the archbishopric of York, April 3, 1388, where he expended a very large sum of money in building a palace for the archbishops, and, besides other rich ornaments, gave to the church several pieces of silver-gilt plate. In 1393, being then chancellor, he removed the courts of justice from London to York and, as a precedent for this unpopular step, he alledged the example of archbishop Corbridge, eighty years before. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Dr. William Courtney, archbishop Arundel was translated thither, January 1396. The crosier was delivered into his hands by Henry Chellenden, prior of Canterbury, in the presence of the king, and a great number of the nobility, and on the 19th of February 1397, he was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury, the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Soon after he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation, which was determined by King Richard, to whom the decision was referred, in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, first set on foot by Simon Niger, bishop of London, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In the second year of his translation, a parliament was held at London, in which the commons, with the king’s leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother the earl of Arundel, and the duke of Gloucester, of high-treason, for compelling the king, in the tenth year of his reign, to grant them a commission to govern the kingdom. The archbishop was sentenced to be banished, and had forty days allowed him to prepare for his exile, within which time he was to depart the kingdom on pain of death. Upon this he retired first into France, and then to Rome, where pope Boniface IX. gave him a very friendly reception, and wrote a letter to king Richard, desiring him to receive the archbishop again into favour. But not meeting with success, his holiness resolved to interpose his authority in favour of Arundel. Accordingly he nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrews, and declared his intention of giving him several other preferments in England, by way of provision. The king, upon this, wrote an expostulatory letter to the pope, which induced him not only to withhold the intended favours from Arundel, but likewise, at the king’s request^ to promote Roger Walden dean of York and lord treasurer of England, to the see of Canterbury. That prelate, however, was soon obliged to quit his new dignity for, next year, Arundel returned into England with the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV. upon whose accession to the throne, the pope revoked the bull granted to Walden, and restored Arundel and among the articles of mis government brought against king Richard, one was his usage and banishment of this prelate. The throne being vacant by Richard’s resignation, and the duke of Lancaster’s title being allowed in parliament, Arundel had the honour to crown the new king and, at the coronationdinner, sat at his right hand; the archbishop of York being placed at his left. In the first year of king Henry’s reign, Arundel summoned a synod, which sat at St. Paul’s. Harpsfield, and the councils from him, have mistaken this synod for one held during the vacancy of the see. He also by his courage and resolution, preserved several of the bishops, who were in king Henry’s army, from being plundered of their equipages and money. The next year, the commons having moved, that the revenues of the church might be applied to the service of the public, Arundel opposed the motion so vigorously, that the king and lords promised him, the church should never be plundered in their time. After this, he visited the university of Cambridge, where he made several statutes, suppressed several bad customs, and punished the students for their misbehaviour. And, when the visitation was ended, at the request of the university, he reserved all those matters and causes, which had been laid before him, to his own cognizance and jurisdiction. In the year 1408, Arundel began to exert himself with vigour against the Lollards or Wickliffites. To this end, he summoned the bishops and clergy at Oxford, to check the progress of this new sect, and prevent that university’s being farther tinctured with their opinions. But the doctrines of Wickliff still gaining ground, the archbishop resolved to visit the university, attended by the earl of Arundel, his nephew, and a splendid retinue. When he came near the town, he was met by the principal members of the university, who told him, that, if he came only to see the town, he was very welcome, but if he came in the character of a visitor, they refused to acknowledge his jurisdiction. The archbishop, resenting this treatment, left Oxford in a day or two, and wrote to the king on accpunt of his disappointment. After a warm contest between the university and the archbishop, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the king’s decision who, governing himself by the example of his predecessors, gave sentence in favour of the archbishop. Soon after this controversy was ended, a convocation being held at St. Paul’s in London, the bishops and clergy complained of the growth of Wicklevitism at Oxford, and pressed the archbishop to visit that university. He accordingly wrote to the chancellor and others, giving them notice, that he intended to hold a visitation in St. Mary’s church. His delegates for this purpose were sent down soon after, and admitted by the university, who, to make some satisfaction for their backwardness in censuring Wickliff’s opinions, “wrote to the archbishop, and asked his pardon: after which they appointed a committee of twelve persons, to examine heretical books, particularly those of Wicklitf. These inquisitors into heretical pravity, having censured some conclusions extracted out o'f WicklitPs books, sent an account of their proceedings to the archbishop, who confirmed their censures, and sent an authority in writing to some eminent members of the university, empowering them to inquire into persons suspected of heterodoxy, and oblige them to declare their opinions. These rigorous proceedings made Arundel extremely hated by the Wickliffites, and certainly form the deepest stain on his character. However he went on with the prosecution, and not only solicited the pope to condemn the abovementioned conclusions, but desired likewise a bull for the digging up Wickliff’s bones. The pope granted the first of these requests, but refused the other, not thinking it any useful part of discipline to disturb the ashes of the dead. Arundel’s warm zeal for suppressing the Lollards, or Wickliffites, carried him to several unjustifiable severities against the heads of that sect, particularly against sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham and induced him to procure a synodical constitution, which forbad the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury, after having sat seventeen years, the 20th of February, 1413. The Lollardsofthose times asserted the immediate hand of heaven in the manner of his death. He died of an inflammation in his throat, and it is said that he was struck with this disease, as he was pronouncing sentence of excommunication and condemnation on the lord Cobham; and from that time, notwithstanding all the assistance of medicine, he could swallow neither meat nor drink, and was starved to death. The Lollards imputed this lamentable end to the just judgment of God upon him, both for his severity towards that sect, and forbidding the scriptures to be translated into English; and bishop Godwin seems to lean to the same opinion. He was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, near the west end, under a monument erected by himself in his life-time. He was a considerable benefactor to that church, having built the Lanthorn Tower, and great part of the Nave and he gave a ring of five bells, called from him” Arundel’s Ring," several rich vestments, a mitre enchased with jewels, a silver gilt crosier, a golden chalice for the high altar, and another to be used only on St. Thomas Becket’s day. He bestowed also the church of Godmersham, out of the income of which, he ordered six shillings and eight pence to be given annually to every monk of the convent, on the aforesaid festival. Lastly, he gave several valuable books, particularly two Missals, and a collection in one volume of St. Gregory’s works, with anathema to any person who should remove it out of the church. He appears to have possessed a great natural capacity, and was a splendid benefactor to many of our ecclesiastical structures. As a politician, he took a very active share in the principal measures of very turbulent times, and it is perhaps now difficult to appreciate his character in any other particulars than what are most prominent, his zeal for the catholic religion, and his munificence in the various offices he held.

, or Eizarakel, a native of Toledo, in the twelfth century, was one of the most celebrated astronomers who appeared after the time of the Greeks, and before the revival of learning. He wrote a treatise on the “obliquity of the Zodiac,” which he fixed, for his time, at 23 34', and determined the apogee of the sun by four hundred and two observations. The famous Alphonsine Tables, published by order of Alphonsus, king of Castille, were partly taken from the works of Arzachel. Few particulars are known of the personal history of this astronomer, unless that he was of the Jewish persuasion. Montucla says that his tables are preserved in several libraries, in manuscript, with an introduction which explains their use.

“Ascham entered Cambridge,” says Dr. Johnson, “at a time when the last great revolution of the intellectual world was filling every academical mind with ardour or anxiety. The destruction of the Constantinopolitan empire had driven the Greeks, with their language, into the interior parts of Europe, the art of printing had made the books easily attainable, and Greek now began to be taught in England. The doctrines of Luther had already filled all the nations of the Romish communion with controversy and dissention. New studies of literature, and new tenets of religion, found employment for all who were desirous of truth, or ambitious of fame. Learning was, at that time, prosecuted with that eagerness and perseverance, which, in this age of indifference and dissipation, it is not easy to conceive. To teach or t-o learn, was at once the business and the pleasure of academical life and an emulation of study was raised by Cheke and Smith, to which even the present age, perhaps, owes many advantages, without remembering or knowing its benefactors.”

The master of St. John’s college at this time, Nicholas Medcalf, was a great encourager of learning, and his tutor, Mr. Hugh Fitzherbert, had not only much knowledge, but also a graceful and insinuating method of imparting it to his pupils. To a genius naturally prone to learning, Mr. Ascham added a spirit of emulation, which induced him to study so hard, that, while a mere boy, he made a great progress in polite learning, and became exceedingly distinguished amongst the most eminent wits in the university. He took his degree of B. A. on the twenty-eighth of February, 1534, when eighteen years* of age; and on the twenty-third of March following, was elected fellow of his college by the interest of the master, though Mr. Ascham’s propensity to the reformed religion had made it difficult for Dr. Medcalf, who, according to Ascham' s account, was a man of uncommon liberality, to carry his good intention into act. These honours served only to excite him to still greater vigilance in his studies, particularly in that of the Greek tongue, wherein he attained an excellency peculiar to himself, and read therein, both publicly for the university, and privately in his college, with universal applause. At the commencement held after the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, in 1536, he was inaugurated M. A. being then twenty-one years old. By this time many of his pupils came to be taken notice of for their extraordinary proficiency, and William Grindall, one of them, at the recommendation of Mr. Ascham, was chosen by sir John Cheke, to be tutor to the lady Elizabeth. As he did not accept this honour himself, he probably was delighted with an academical life, and was not very desirous of changing it for one at court. His affection for his friends, though it filled him with a deep concern for their interests, and a tender regard for their persons, yet could not induce him to give up his understanding, especially in points of learning. For this reason he did not assent to the new pronunciation of the Greek, which his intimate friend, sir John Cheke, laboured, by his authority, to introduce throughout the university; yet when he had thoroughly examined, he came over to his opinion, and defended the new pronunciation with that zeal and vivacity which gave a peculiar liveliness to all his writings. In July 1542, he supplicated the university of Oxford to be incorporated M. A. but it & doubtful whether this was granted. To divert him after the fatigue of severer studies, he addicted himself to archcry, which innocent amusement drew upon him the censure of some persons, against whose opinion he wrote a small treatise, entitled “Toxophilus,” published in 1544, and dedicated to king Henry VIII. then about to undertake his expedition against Boulogne. This work was very kindly received and the king, at the recommendation of sir William Paget, was pleased to settle a pension of ten pounds (now probably in value one hundred) upon him, which, after that prince’s death, was for some time discontinued, but at length restored to him, during pleasure, by Edward VI. and confirmed by queen Mary, with an additional ten pounds per annum. Among other accomplishments he was remarkable for writing a very fine hand, and taught that art to prince Edward, the lady Elizabeth, the two brothers Henry and Charles, dukes of Suffolk, and several other persons of distinction, and for many years wrote all the letters of the university to the king, and to the great men at court. The same year that he published his book he was chosen university- orator, in the room of Mr. John Cheke, an office which gratified his passion for an academical life, and afforded him frequent opportunities of displaying his superior eloquence in the Latin and Greek tongues. In 1548, on the death of his pupil, Mr. Grindal, he was sent for to court, in order to instruct the lady Elizabeth in the knowledge of the learned languages, which duty he discharged for two years, with great reputation to himself, and with much satisfaction to his illustrious pupil. For some time he enjoyed as great comfort at court as he had done at college but at length, on account of some illjudged and ill-founded whispers, Mr.Ascham took such a distaste at some in the lady Elizabeth’s family, that he left her a little abruptly, which he afterwards heartily repented, and took great and not unsuccessful pains, to be restored to her good graces. On his returning to the university, he resumed his studies, and the discharge of his office of public orator, his circumstances being at this time tolerably easy, by considerable assistance from lovers of learning, and a small pension allowed him by king Edward, and another by archbishop Lee. In the summer of 1550, he went, into Yorkshire to visit his family and relations, but was recalled to court in order to attend sir Richard Morysine, then going ambassador to the emperor Charles V. Imia journey to London he visited the lady Jane Gray, at er father’s house at Broad gate in Leicestershire, with whm he had been well acquainted at court, and for whomie had already a very high esteem. In September followig, he embarked with sir R. Morysine for Germany, wherehe remained three years, during which he left nothing omitsd which might serve to perfect his knowledge of men as veil as books. As he travelled with an ambassador, he thought it became him to make politics some part of his study, ad how well he succeeded appears from a short but very cirious tract which he wrote, concerning Germany, and of he affairs of Charles V. He was also of great use to the anbassador, not only in the management of his public concerns, but as the companion of his private studies, vihich were for the most part in the Greek language. He read Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Demosthenes, three days in a week the other three he copied the letters which the ambassador sent to England. While thus employed, his friends in England, particularly sir William Cecil, procured for him the post of Latin secretary to king Edward. But this he did not enjoy long, being recalled on account of the king’s death, on which occasion he lost all his places, together with his pension, and all expectation of obtaining any farther favours at court. In this situation he was at first hopeless, and retired to the university to indulge his melancholy. But the prospect quickly became more promising. His friend the lord Paget mentioned him to Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester, lord high chancellor, who very frankly received him into his favour, notwithstanding Mr. Ascham remained firm to his religion, which was so far from being a secret to the bishop, that he had many malicious informations given him on that head, which he treated with contempt, and abated nothing in his friendship to our author. He first procured him the re-establishment of his pension, which consisted of but ten pounds a year, with the addition of ten pounds a year more he then fixed him in the post of Latin secretary to the king and queen, and, by her majesty’s interest and his own, kept him in the fellowship of St. John’s, and in his place of orator to the university, to Midsummer 1554. Soon after his admission to his new employment, he gave art extraordinary specimen of his abilities and diligence, by composing and transcribing, with his usual elegance, in three days, forty-seven letters to princes and personaes, of whom cardinals were the lowest. He was likewe patronised by cardinal Pole, who, though he wrote e;gant Latin, yet sometimes made use of Mr. Ascharn’s pn, particularly in translating his speech to the parliaBsnt, which he made as the pope’s legate, and of which Unslation he sent a copy to the pope. On the first of June 1554, Ascham married Mrs. Margaret Howe, a lady of a rood family, with whom he had a very, considerable fortme, and of whom he gives an excellent character, in one oi his letters to his friend Sturmius. His favour with qteen Mary’s ministers was not less than what he enjoyed frtm the queen herself, who conversed with him often, and was much pleased with his company. On her death, having been previously reconciled to the lady Elizabeth, he was immediately distinguished by her, now queen, and from his time until his death he was constantly at court, very fully employed in the discharge of his two great offices, the cne of secretary for the Latin tongue, and the other of tutor to her majesty in the learned languages, reading some hours with her every day. This interest at court would have procured a man of a more active temper many considerable advantages; but such was either Ascham’s indolence, or disinterestedness, that he never asked any thing, either for himself or his family, though he received several favours unsolicited, particularly the prebend of Westwang in the church of York, in 1559, which he held to his death. Yet however indifferent to his own affairs, he was very far from being negligent in those of his friends, for whom he was ready to do any good office in his power, and in nothing readier than in parting with his money, though he never had much to spare. He always associated with the greatest men of the court, and having once in conversation heard the best method of educating youth debated with some heat, he from thence took occasion, at the request of sir Richard Sackville, to write his “Schoolmaster,” which he lived to finish, but not to publish. His application to study rendered him infirm throughout his whole life, and at last he became so weak, that he was unable to read in the evenings or at night; to make amends for which, he rose very early in the morning. The year before his death he was seized with a hectic, which brought him very low and then, contrary to his former custom, relapsing into night-studies, in order to complete a Latin poem with which he designed to present the queen on the new year, he, on the 23d of December 1568, was attacked by an aguish ‘distemper, which threatened him with immediate death. He was visited in his last sickness by Dr. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. ’Paul’s, and Graves, vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, who found him perfectly calm and chearful, in which disposition he continued to the 30th of the same month, when he expired. On the 4th of January following, he was interred according to his own directions, in the most private manner, in St. Sepulchre’s church, his funeral sermon being preached by the before-mentioned Dr. Nowell. He was universally lamented, and even the queen herself not only shewed great concern, but was also pleased to say, that phg had rather have lost ten thousand pounds than her tutor Ascham. His only failing was too great a propensity to dice and cock-fighting, which the learned bishop Nicolson would persuade us to be an unfounded calumny; but as it is mentioned by Camden, as well as some other contemporary writers, it seems impossible to deny it. It is certain that he died in very indifferent circumstances, as may appear from the address of his widow to sir William Cecil, in her dedication of his “Schoolmaster,” wherein she says expressly, that Mr. Ascham left her a poor widow with many orphans; and Dr. Grant, in his dedication of Ascham’s letters to queen Elizabeth, pathetically recommends to her his pupil, Giles Ascham, the son of our author, representing, that be had lost his father, who should have taken care of his education, and that he was left poor and without friends. Besides this son he had two others, Dudley and Sturmur, of whom we know little. Lord Burleigh took Giles Ascham under his protection, by whose interest he was recommended to a scholarship of St. John’s, and afterwards by the queen’s mandate, to a fellowship of Trinity college in Cambridge, and was celebrated, as well as his father, for his admirable Latin style in epistolary writings.

“Whether,” says Dr. Johnson, “Ascham was poor by his own fault, or the fault of others, cannot now be decided but it is certain that many have been rich with less merit. His philological learning would have gained him honour in any country; and among us it may justly call for that reverence which all nations owe to those who first rouse them from ignorance, and kindle among- them the light of literature.” The only works he published were, 1. “Toxophilus the school of Shooting, in two books,” London, 4to, 1545, by Whitchurch; 1571, by Thomas Marshe and 1589, by JefFes. It has already been noticed, that he was fond of archery, and that he was censured for a practice unsuitable to a man professing learning, and perhaps of bad example in a place of education. This treatise was written as a defence, but his design was not only to recommend the art of shooting, but to give an example of diction more natural and more truly English, than was used by the common writers of that age, whom he blames for mingling exotic terms with their native language. 2. “A Report and Discourse, written by Roger Ascham, of the affairs and state of Germany, and the emperor Charles his court, duryng certain yeares, while the said Roger was there. At London, printed by John Daye, dwelling over Aldersgate. Cum gratia et privilegio regite majestatis per decennium” without a date. This treatise is written in the form of a letter, addressed to John Astley, in answer to one of his which is prefixed he was a domestic of the lady Elizabeth, and his letter bears date the 19th of. October 1552. The answer must have be^n written the same year, since there is no mention therein of king Edward’s death, which happened the year following. In this work he describes the dispositions and interests of the German princes, like a man inquisitive and judicious, and recounts many particularities which are lost in the mass of general history, in a style which, to the ears of that age, was undoubtedly mellifluous, and which is now a very valuable specimen of genuine English. After his death were printed, 3. “The Schoolmaster or, a plain and perfite way of teaching children to understand, write, and speak the Latin tongue; but especially purposed for the private bringing up of youth in gentlemen and noblemen’s houses; and commodious also for all such as have forgot the Latin tongue, and would by themselves, without a schole-master, in short time, and with. small paines, recover a sufficient habilitie to understand, write, and speake Latin, by Roger Ascham, aim. 1570. At London, printed by John Daye, dwelling over Aldersgate;” inscribed by Margaret his widow to sir William Cecil, principal secretary of state. The design originated, as we are informed in the preface, in a conversation on education, which took place at secretary Cecil’s apartments in Windsor castle, during the plague in 1563. This work. which contains the best advice ever given for the study of languages, was reprinted by Day, 1571 by Jeffes, 1589; and by Upton, 1711. 4. “Apologia doct. viri R. A. pro coena Dominica contra Missuin et ejus prestigias in academia olim Cantabrigiensi exercitationis gratia inchoata. Cui accesserunt themata quaedam Theologica, debita disputandi ratione in Collegio D. Joan, pronunciata. Expositionis item antiquoe in epistola Divi Pauli ad Titam et Philemonem, ex diversis sanctorum Patrum Grsece scriptis commentariis ab CEcumenio collectse, et a R. A. Latine versa?.” Lond. by Coldock, 1577, 8vo, pp. 296.

, or Achart, a Mussulman doctor, and chief of the Ascharians, who were the opponents of the Hanbalites the latter held the doctrine of particular providence, while the Ascharians maintained that the "supreme being acts by general laws. They also held absolute predestination. Aschari died at Bagdat, in the year 940, and was privately interred to prevent his body from being insulted by the Hanbalites.

In the year 1698, Mr. Asgill published a treatise on the possibility of avoiding death, intitled “An argument, proving that, according to the covenant of eternal life, revealed in the scriptures, man may be translated from hence into that eternal life without passing through death, although the human nature of Christ himself could not thus be translated till he had passed through death,” printed originally in 1700, and reprinted several years since. This raised a considerable clamour, and Dr. Sacheverell mentioned it among other blasphemous writings, which induced him to think the church in danger. In 1699, an act being passed for resuming forfeited estates in Ireland, commissioners were appointed to settle claims and Mr. Asgill being at this time somewhat embarrassed in his circumstances, resolved to go over to Ireland. On his arrival there, the favour of the commissioners, and his own merit, procured him great practice, the whole nation almost being then engaged in law-suits, and among these there were few considerable, in which Mr. Asgill was not retained on one side or other, so that in a very short space of time he acquired a considerable fortune. He purchased a large estate in Ireland and the influence this purchase gave him, occasioned his being elected a member of the House of Commons in that kingdom. He was in Munster when the session began and, before he could reach Dublin, he was informed, that, upon a complaint, the House had voted the last-mentioned book of his to be a blasphemous libel, and had ordered it to be burnt however, he took his seat in the house, where he sat only four days, before he was expelled for this performance, and being about the same time involved in a number of law-suits, his affairs soon grew much embarrassed in Ireland, so that he resolved to return to England, where, in 1705, he was chosen member for the borough of Bramber, in the county of Sussex, and sat for several years but in the interval of privilege in 1707, being taken in execution at the suit of Mr. Holland, he was committed to the Fleet. The houses meeting in November, Mr. Asgill applied and on the 16th of December was demanded out of custpdy by a serjeant at arms with the mace, and the next day took his seat in the house. Between his application and his discharge, complaint was made to the house of the treatise for which he had been expelled in Ireland, and a committee was appointed to examine it of this committee, Edward Harley, esq. was chairman, who made a report, that the book contained several blasphemous expressions, and seemed to be intended to ridicule the scriptures. Thursday, the 18th of September 1707, was appointed for him to make his defence, which he did with considerable spirit, but as he still continued to maintain the assertions he had laid down in that treatise, he was expelled. From this time, Mr. Asgill’s affairs grew more desperate, and he was obliged to retire, first to the Mint, and then became a prisoner in the King’s Bench, but removed himself thence to the Fleet, and in the rules of one or other of these prisons continued thirty years, during which time he published a multitude of mall political tracts, most of which were well received. He also drew bills and answers, and did other business in his profession till his death, which happened some time in November 1738, when he was upwards of fourscore, or, as some thought, upwards of an hundred years of age. The most considerable of his works are. 1. “De jure divino; or, an assertion, that the title of the house of Hanover to the succession of the British monarchy (on failure of issue of her present majesty), is a title hereditary, and of divine institution,” 1710, 8vo. 2. His “Defence on his Expulsion to which is added, an Introduction and Postscript,” 1712, 8vo. Of the first pamphlet there were several editions; and, not long after it was published, he sent abroad another treatise, under the title of “Mr. Asgill’s Apology for an omission in his late publication, in which are contained summaries of all the acts made for strengthening the protestant succession.” 3. a The Pretender’s declaration abstracted from two anonymous pamphlets, the one entitled Jus sacrum the other. Memoirs of the chevalier de St. George; with memoirs of two other chevaliers in the reign of Henry VII.“1713, 8vo. 4.” The succession of the house of Hanover vindicated, against the Pretender’s second declaration, in folio, entitled, The hereditary right of the crown of England asserted, &c.“1714, 8vo. This was in answer to Mr. Bedford’s famous book. 5.” The Pretender’s declaration from Plombiers, 1714, Englished; with a postscript before it in relation to Dr. Lesley’s letter sent after it,“1715, 8vo. Besides these, hewrotean” Essay for the Press,“the” Metamorphoses of Man,“”A question upon Divorce,“1717,” A treatise against Woolston," and several other pieces.

, LL.D. a dissenting minister at Pershore, in Worcestershire, of whom we have not been able to recover any particulars, was the author of some useful works. The first was “The easiest introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar,” 12mo, 1766. His next, “A new and complete Dictionary of the English Language,” 2 vols. 8vo, 1775, the plan bf which was extensive beyond any thing of the kind ever attempted, and perhaps embraced much more than was necessary or useful. It is valuable, however, as containing a very large proportion of obsolete words, and such provincial or cant words as have crept into general use. In 1777, he published “Sentiments on Education, collected from the best writers, properly methodized, and interspersed with occasional observations,” 2 vols. 12mo. In this there are few original remarks, but those few shew an acquaintance with the best principles of virtuous and useful education, in which, we have been informed, the author employed some part of his time. Dr. Ash died in the 55th year of his age at Pershore, March 1779.

, a Puritan minister, first settled in Staffordshire, where he became known to Hildersham, Dod, Ball, Langley, and other nonconformists of that time, was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, under Dr. Stooker. He exercised his ministry in London twenty-three years. In the time of the civil wars, he was chaplain to the earl of Warwick. As he was a man of fortune and character, his influence was great among the presbyterians. He was some time chaplain to the earl of Manchester, and fell under the displeasure of Cromwell’s party, whom he had disobliged by his violent opposition to the engagement. He had a very considerable hand in restoring Charles II. and went to congratulate his majesty at Breda. Dr. Calamy speaks of him as a man of real sanctity, and a non- conformist of the old stamp. He died in 1662, and was buried the eve of Bartholomew day. Dr. Walker censures him for his zeal against the characters of the clergy in general, in which he shares with many of his brethren. He published several sermons preached before the parliament, or the magistrates, on public occasions, and funeral sermons for Jeremy Whitaker, Ralph Robinson, Robert Strange, Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, and the countess of Manchester, a treatise on “the power of Godliness,” and prefaces to the works of John Ball, and others.

, a Wiltshire gentleman, descended from the family of that name residing at Nashhill in that county, was born in 1565, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Hart hall in Oxford, in 1580. From the university he removed to the Middle Temple, where he was called to the dignity of barrister at law. After some time he travelled into Holland, France, &c. conversing with the learned, and frequenting the public libraries. Being returned into England, he lived many years in the Middle Temple, and honoured the commonwealth of learning with several of his lucubrations. He died in a good old age, the beginning of October 1641, and was buried in the Temple church the 4th of the same month. He gave several books to that society. His principal works were, 1. “A Relation of the kingdom of Cochin China,” Lond. 1633, 4to, which is chiefly taken from an Italian work of Christopher Barri. 2. A Translation from French into Latin verse of Du Bartas’s “Urania, or heavenly muse,” London, 1589, 4to. 3. A Translation from Spanish into English of “Au manzor, the learned and victorious king that conquered Spain, his life and death,” London, 1627, 4to. 4. A Translation from Italian into English of “II Davide perseguitate,” i.e. David persecuted, London, 1637, written originally by the marquis Virgilio Malvezzi. Wood tells us, that part of the impression of this book had a new title put to it, bearing date 1650, with the picture before it of Charles I. playing on a harp, like king David, purposely to carry off the remaining copies.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

On the death of his father-in-law, sir William Dugdale, Jan. 10, 1686, Mr. Ashmole declined a second time the office of garter king at arms, and recommended his brother Dugdale, in which, though he did not fully succeed, yet he procured him the place of Norroy. This was one of the last public acts of his life, the remainder of which was spent in an honourable retirement to the day of his demise, which happened on May 18, 1692, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He was undoubtedly a great benefactor to, and patron of, learning. His love of chemistry led him to preserve many valuable Mss. relating to that science, besides those that he caused to be printed and published. He was deeply skilled in history and antiquities, as sufficiently appears by his learned and laborious works, both printed and manuscripts. He was likewise a generous encourager and protector of such ingenious and learned men as were less fortunate in the world than himself, as appears by his kindness to sir'George Wharton in the worst of times, his respect to the memory of his friend Mr. John Booker, and the care he took in the education of the late eminent Dr. George Smalridge. His corpse was interred in the church of Lambeth in Surrey, May 26 1692, and a black marble stone laid over his grave, with a Latin inscription, in which, though there is much to his honour, there is nothing which exceeds the truth. He may be considered as one of the first and most useful collectors of documents respecting English antiquities, but the frequent application of the epithet genius to him, in the Biographia Britannica, is surely gratuitous. His attachment to- the absurdities of astrology and alchemy, and his association with Lilly, Booker, and other quacks and impostors of his age, must ever prevent his being ranked among the learned wise, although he never appears to have been a confederate in the tricks of Lilly and his friends, and certainly accumulated a considerable portion of learning and information on various useful topics. His benefaction to the university of Oxford will ever secure respect for his memory. It was towards the latter end of October 1677, that he made an offer to that university, of bestowing on it all that valuable collection of the Tradescants, which was so well known to the learned world, and which had been exceedingly improved since it came into his possession, together with all the coins, medals, and manuscripts of his own collecting, provided they would erect a building fit to receive them to which proposition the university willingly assented. Accordingly, on Thursday the 15th of May 1679, the first stone of that stately fabric, afterwards called Ashmole’s Museum, was laid on the west side of the theatre, and being finished by the beginning of March 1682, the collection was deposited and the articles arranged by Robert Plott, LL.D. who before had been intrusted with their custody. This museum was first publicly viewed, on the 2 1st of May following, by his royal highness James duke of York, his royal consort Josepha Maria, princess Anne, and their attendants, and on the 24th of the same month, by the doctors and masters of the university. In a convocation held on the 4th of June following (1683) a Latin letter of thanks, penned by him who was then deputy orator, being publicly read, was sent to Mr. Ashmole at South Lambeth, In July 1690, he visited the university with his wife, and was received with all imaginable honour, and entertained at a noble dinner in his museum; on which occasion Mr. Edward Hannes, A. M. the chemical professor, afterwards an eminent physician, made an elegant oration to him. His benefaction to the university was very considerably enlarged at his death, by the addition of his library, which consisted of one thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight books, of which six hundred and twenty were manuscripts, and of them three hundred and eleven folios, relating chiefly to English History, Heraldry, Astronomy, and Chemiftry, with a great variety of pamphlets, part of which had been sorted by himself, and the rest are methodized since, and a double catalogue made one classical, according to their various subjects, and another alphabetical. He bequeathed also to the same place, two gold chains and a medal, the one a filigreen chain of ninety links, weighing twenty-two ounces, with a medal of the elector of Brandenburg, upon which is the effigies of that elector, and on the reverse, a iHew of Straelsund, struck upon the surrender of that important city; a collar of S. S. with a medal of the king of Denmark; and a gold medal of the elector Palatine; and a George of the duke of Norfolk, worn by his grandfather when he was ambassador in Germany. All these he had received as acknowledgments of the honour which he had done the garter, by his labours on that subject. This museum has been since enriched by the Mss. of Anthony Wood, Aubrey, and others. It has been remarked as something extraordinary, that Mr. Ashmole was never knighted for his services as a herald. It is perhaps as extraordinary that the university of Oxford bestowed on him the degree of doctor of physic, who never regularly studied or practised in that faculty, unless we conceive it as a compliment to his chemical studies.

Mr. Ashmole' s published and unpublished works are, 1. The work above mentioned, published under a fictitious name, “Fasciculus Chemicus or, chymical collection, expressing the ingress, progress, and egress, of the secret Hermetick science, out of the choicest and most famous authors. Whereunto is added, the arcanum, or grand secret of Hermetick philosophy. Both made English by James Hasolle, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1650, 12mo, with a hieroglyphical frontispiece, representing the mystic absurdities of the alchy mists.

, one of the most learned critics of his age, was a native of Derbyshire, where he was born about 1665. He was admitted of Queen’s college, Cambridge, May 18, 1682, and having taken his degree of B. A. was elected fellow of that college, April 30, 1687, to be admitted to profits upon a future vacancy, which did not happen till April 9, 1690. He became chaplain to bishop Patrick, by whom he was presented to the rectory of Rattenden in Essex, March 10, 1698-9, which living he exchanged, in June following, for a chaplainship of Chelseacollege or hospital and that preferment also he soon after quitted, on being collated by his patron to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Ely, July 3, 1701, and the next day to the mastership of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, both vacant by the death of Dr. Say well the same year he proceeded to his degree of D. D. and was elected vice-chancellor of the university in 1702. His mastership and prebend (both of which he was in possession of above fifty years) were the only preferments he held afterwards, not choosing to accept of any parochial benefice, but leading a very retired and studious life in his college, except when statutable residence, and attendance at chapters, required his presence at Ely, on which occasions he seldom or never failed to be present, till the latter part of his life. He died in March 1752, in the eighty-seventh year of his age, and was buried in Jesus’ college chapel. He had great knowledge in most branches of literature, but particularly in ecclesiastical antiquities and in chronology. In the classics he was critically skilled. Dr. Taylor always spoke with rapture of his correction of the inscription to Jupiter Urios, which he considered as uncommonly felicitous anct Mr. Chishull on the same occasion calls him “Aristarchus Cantabrigiensis summe eruditus.” There were many valuable pieces of his published in his life-time, but without his name, among which are “Locus Justini Martyris emendatus in Apol. I. p. 11. ed. Thirlby,” in the Bibliotheca Literaria, published by the learned Mr. Wasse of Aynho, Northamptonshire, 1744, No. VIII. “Tully and Hirtius reconciled as to the time of Caesar’s going to the African war, with an account of the old Roman year made by Ceesar,” ib. No. III. p. 29. “Origen de Oratione,” 4to, published by the Rev. Mr. Reading, keeper of Sion college library“and he is also supposed to have contributed notes to Reading’s edition of the Ecclesiastical Historians, 3 vols. fol.” Hierpclis in Aurea Carmina Pythagorea Comment." Lond. 1742, 8vo, published with a preface by Dr. Richard Warren, archdeacon of Suffolk. Dr. Harwood pronounces this to be the best edition of a most excellent work that abounds with moral and devotional sentiments. After his death a correct edition of Justin Martyr’s Apologies was published from his Mss. by the Rev. Mr. Keller, fellow of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, and rector of Kelshali in Herefordshire. It is too honourable for the parties not to be mentioned, that it used to be observed, that all the other colleges, where the fellows chuse their master, could not show three such heads, as the only three colleges where the masters are put in upon them: viz. Bentley of Trinity, by the crown; Ashton of Jesus, by the bishop of Ely; and Waterland of Magdalen, by the earl of Suffolk.

, a clergyman in the time of the usurpation, was the son of Thomas Ashton, and born at Teuerdly in Lancashire, in 1631. At sixteen years of age, he was admitted a servitor of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, and took the degree of B. A. February 7, 1650. He was chosen fellow of his college, and took holy orders. Mr. Wood tells us, he was a “forward and conceited scholar,” and “became a malapert preacher in and near Oxford.” Being appointed to preach at St. Mary’s, on Tuesday (a lecture-day) July 25, 1654, he gave so great effence by a very indecent sermon, that he was in a fair way of expulsion but, by the intercession of friends, the matter was compromised yet he was obliged, about two years after, to quit his fellowship upon some quarrel which he had with Dr. Greenwood, principal of his house. In 1656, he was intrusted with a commission from the protector to be chaplain to the English forces in the island of Jersey, but was soon after displaced upon the arrival of a new governor. After the king’s restoration, he was beneficed somewhere near Hertford in Hertfordshire; where, Mr. Wood says, “he soon after finished his restless course. 111 He published, 1.” Blood-thirsty Cyrus unsatisfied with blood; or, the boundless cruelty of an Anabaptist’s tyranny, manifested in a letter of colonel John Mason, governor of Jersey, 3d Nov. 1659; wherein he exhibits seven false, ridiculous, and scandalous articles against quartermaster William Swan," &c. London, 1659, in one sheet 4to. 2. “Satan in Samuel’s Mantle, or, the cruelty of Germany, acted in Jersey; containing the arbitrary, bloody, and tyrannical proceedings of John Mason, of a baptised church, commissionated to be a colonel, and sent over into the island of Jersey, governor, in July 1656, against several officers and soldiers in that small place,” &c. London, 1659, in four sheets in 4to.

, an English divine, the son of Dr, Ashton, usher of the grammar school at Lancaster (a place of only thirty-two pounds per annum, which he held for near fifty years), was born in 1716, educated at Eton, and elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, 1733. He was the person to whom Mr. Horace Walpole addressed his epistle from Florence, in 1740, under the title of “Thomas Ashton, esq. tutor to the earl of Plymouth.” About that time, or soon after, he was presented to the rectory of Aldingham in Lancashire, which he resigned in March 1749; and on the 3d of May following was presented by the provost and fellows of Eton to the rectory of Sturminster Marshall in Dorsetshire. He was then M. A. and had been chosen a fellow of Eton in December 1745. In 1752 he was collated to the rectory of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate; in 1759 took the degree of D. D. and in May 1762, was elected preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, which he resigned in 1764. In 1770 he published, in 8vo, a volume of sermons on several occasions to which was prefixed an excellent metzotinto by Spilgbury, from an original by sir Joshua Reynolds, and this motto, “Insto pnepositis, oblitus praeteritorum.” Dr. Ashton died March 1, 1775, at the age of fifty-nine, after having for some years survived a severe attack of the palsy. His discourses, in a style of greater elegance than purity, were rendered still more striking by the excellence of his delivery. Hence he was frequently prevailed on to preach on public and popular occasions. He printed a sermon on the rebellion in 1745, 4to, and a thanksgiving sermon on the close of it in 1746, 4to. la 1756, he preached before the governors of the Middlesex hospital, at St. Anne’s, Westminster a commencement sermon at Cambridge in 1759; a sermon at the annual meeting of the chanty schools in 1760; one before the House of Commons on the 30th of January 1762; and a spital sermon at St. Bride’s on the Easter Wednesday in that year. All these, with several others preached at Eton, Lincoln’s inn, Bishopsgate, &c. were collected by himself in the volume above mentioned, which is closed by a “Clerum habita Cantabrigige in templo beatae Mariae, 1759, pro gradu Doctoratus in sacra theologii.” His other publications were, 1. “A dissertation on 2 Peter i. 19,” 1750, 8vo. 2. In 1754, the Rev. Mr. Jones of St. Saviour’s, delivered a sermon at Bishopsgate-churcb, which being offensive to Dr. Ashton, he preached against it; and an altercation happening between the two divines, some pamphlets were published on the occasion, one of which, entitled “A letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Jones, intended as a rational and candid answer to his sermon preached at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate,” 4to, was probably by Dr. Ashton. 3. “An extract from the case of the obligation of the electors of Eton college to supply all vacancies in that society with those who are or have been fellows of King’s college, Cambridge, so long as persons properly qualified are to be had within that description,” London, 1771, 4to, proving that aliens have no right at all to Eton fellowships, either by the foundation, statutes, or archbishop Laud’s determination in 1636. This is further proved in, 4. “A letter to the Rev. Dr. M. (Morell) on the question of electing aliens into the vacant places in Eton college. By the author of the Extract,” 1771, 4to. 5. “A second letter to Dr. M.” The three last were soon after re-published under the title of “The election of aliens into the vacancies in Eton college an unwarrantable practice. To which are now added, two letters to the Rev. Dr. Morell, in which the cavils of a writer in the General Evening Post, and others, are considered and refuted. Part I. By a late fellow of King’s college, Cambridge.” London, 1771, 4to. Part II. was never published. He lived long in habits of intimacy with Horace Walpole, afterwards earl of Orford, who, Mr. Cole informs us, procured him the Eton fellowship but a rupture separated them. Mr. Cole adds, what we have some difficulty in believing, that the “Sermon on Painting,” in lord Orford’s works, was preached by Dr. Ashton at Houghton, before the earl of Orford (sir Robert Walpole) in 1742.

, rector of Hanwell, near Banbury in Oxfordshire, was the son of Robert Ashwell of Harrow on the Hill, in Middlesex, and was born in the parish of St. Martin, Ludgate, London, Nov. 18, 1612. He was admitted a scholar of Wadham college, Oxford, in 1627, took the degrees in arts, was elected fellow, and became a celebrated tutor in that house. In the time of the great rebellion he continued in Oxford, and preached several times before the king, court, and parliament. A little before the surrender of the garrison of Oxford, he had the degree of B. D. conferred upon him and about the latter end of 1658 he was presented to the living of Hanwell, having been before, as Mr. Wood thinks, chaplain in the family of sir Anthony Cope, lord of the manor of Hanwell. He had the character of a very peaceable and religious man, and was well versed in logic, the schoolmen, and fathers. He wrote, 1 “Fides Apostolica, or, a discourse asserting the received authors and authority of the Apostles’ Creed,” Oxon, 1653, 8vo; to which was added a double appendix, the first touching the Athanasian, the second the Nicene creed. Baxter, who, in his “Reformed Pastor,” had advanced some things against this work, expressed his regret afterwards, in his “Catholic Theology,” for having said any thing against it. 2. “Gestus Eucharisticus, concerning the Gesture to be used at the receiving the Sacrament,” Oxon. 1663, 8vo. 3. “De Socino et Socinianismo a treatise on the Socinian heresy,” said to be part of a greater work in manuscript. 4. “De Ecclesia, &c. a dissertation concerning the church of Rome;” also a part of his great work on Controversies, published at Oxford, 1688, 4to. 5. “An Answer to Plato Redivivus,” in manuscript. He also translated, from Pocock’s edition, “Philosophus Autodidactus, sive Epistola Abi Gioaphar Ebn Tophail de Hai Ebn Yokdan,” &c. Lond. 1686, 8vo. Our author died at Hanwell, Feb. 8, 1693, and was buried in the church of that place, of which he had been thirty-­five years rector.

, count de Camerano, a nobleman ef Asti in Piedmont, flourished about 1550. In his youth he followed the profession of arms, and was sent by the duke of Savoy, with four hundred men, to assist Maximilian II. when he held a diet to oppose the army of Soliman, an event which is said to have been commemorated by a medal, with the inscription, “Fredericus Asinarius co. Camerani.” Asinari amused his leisure hours with poetry, and submitted his compositions to the celebrated Annibal Caro and they were afterwards published in various collections. 1 “Two Sonnets,” in the second part of the “Scelta di Rime di diversi excellenti Poeti,” by Zabata, 1579, 12mo. 2. “Four Canzoni, and a Sonnet,” in the “Muse Toscane” of Gherard Borgogni, 1594, 8vo. 3. “Eighty-two pieces, sonnets, canzoni, madrigals,” &c. in Borgogni’s “Rime di diversi illustri Poeti,” Venice, 1599, 12mo. Among his other works, which remain in manuscript, there are, in the library of Turin, “Vari Sonetti e Canzoni” “II Tancredi,” a tragedy “Tre libri delle transformazioni” and “Tre libri dell‘ via d’Orlando.” Copies of these are also in the library of St. Mark at Venice. The tragedy of Tancred was printed at Paris, 1587, 8vo, under the title of “Gismonda,” one of the dramatis persons, and attributed to Torquato Tasso. Next year an edition was printed at Bergamo, 4to, in which this error was corrected, but another substituted by stating, that it was the performance of Ottavio Asinari, the father of our author and the editor, Gherard Borgogni, either was; or affected to be ignorant of the edition previously printed at Paris.

On the 23d of March, a relation, who had obtained permission to visit her, endeavoured to bail her, and his earnest application to the mayor, to the chancellor, and to Bonner, the bishop of London, was at length successful. On this occasion she was brought before the bishop, who affected concern for what she had suffered, while he endeavoured to entrap her by ensnaring questions. Mr. Britagne, her relation, and Mr. Spilman, of Gray’s inn, became her sureties. But a short time after, she was again apprehended, and summoned before the king’s council, at Greenwich, when Wriothesely the chancellor, Gardiner bishop of Winchester, and other prelates, once more ques ­tioned her on the doctrines of the church of Rome. She replied with firmness, and without prevarication, and ou finding her impracticable, her judges determined on other measures, and remanded her to Newgate, though she was at the time suffering under a severe indisposition. Having entreated, in vain, to be allowed a visit from Dr. Latimer, she addressed a letter to tke king himself, declaring “That respecting the Lord’s supper, she believed as much as had been taught by Christ himself, or as the Catholic church required.” But' still refusing her assent to the popish meaning, her letter served only to aggravate her crime. She then wrote to the chancellor, inclosing her address to the king, but with no better success. From Newgate she was conveyed to the Tower, where she was interrogated respecting her patrons at court with several ladie^of whiph she held a correspondence, but, heroically maintaining her fidelity, she refused to make any discoveries of that kind. This magnanimity, so worthy of admiration, so incensed her barbarous persecutors, that they endeavoured by the rack to extort from her what she had refused to their demands, but she sustained the torturewith unshaken fortitude and meek resignation. Wriothesely, with unmanly and infernal rage, commanded, with menaces, the lieutenant of the Tower to strain the instrument of his vengeance, and when he refused, he himself became executioner, and every limb of the innocent victim was dislocated. When recovered from a swoon into which she fell, she remained sitting two hours on the bare ground, calmly reasoning with her tormentors, who were confounded by her courage and resolution. Pardon was afterwards offered if she would recant, but having rejected every offer of the kind, she was condemned to be burnt at the stake, which was accordingly executed, July 16, 1546. She bore this inhuman punishment with amazing courage and firmness, adhering to the last to the principles of her faith.

Having finished his travels, he returned to Cambridge, and in the year 1750 commenced M. D. He was soon after admitted fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and of the Royal Society, in London. What time could be afterwards spared from attending his professional engagements was dedicated to the conversation of literary men, and to increasing and arranging his collection of books. He died at Hampstead, in the neighbourhood of London, Feb. 27, 1774. Amongst his books and Mss. was a complete collection of the editions of Æschylus, some illustrated with ms notes, and likewise one or two, if not more, Mss. of the same author; which were collected purposely for the intention of publishing at some future period an edition of JEschylus. In 1746, he printed a specimen of this intended edition in a small quarto pamphlet under the following title “Novae Editionis Tragoediarum Æschyli Specimen, curante Antonio Askew, M. B. Coll. Emman. apud Cantabrigienses hand ita pridem socio commensal!, Lugduni Batavorum, 1746.” This pamphlet, which is now become extremely scarce, was dedicated to Dr. Mead, and consisted only of twenty-nine lines, namely, from v. 563 to v. 596 of the Eumenides (edit. Schultz). It contained various readings from his Mss. and printed books, and the Notse Variorum. Dr. Askew was indeed reckoned one of the best Grecians in England. Dr. Taylor, usually called Demosthenes Taylor, was his great friend, from a similarity of taste and study, and left him his executor, and heir to his noble collection of books and manuscripts.

, a Flemish painter, was born at Antwerp in 1610, and was a disciple of Esaias Vandervelde, and under the guidance of so able a master, he became an excellent painter of landscape. His companions nicknamed him Crabbetje, from a crooked turn in his fingers and his hand, which caused him to hold his pallet with some degree of awkwardness. And yet, by the lightness, freedom, and spirit of his touch, it could not be supposed that his hand had the smallest imperfection. He was one of the first Flemish painters who adopted the clean and bright manner of landscape painting. He studied after nature in the country about Rome, improving his taste by the delightful situations of towns, villas, antiquities, figures, and animals, which he sketched upon paper, to make a proper use of them in his designs. In the style of his landscape he chose particularly to imitate Claude Lorraine but in other parts of his painting he seemed fond of making Bamboccio his model. He enriched his landscapes with the vestiges of noble buildings, and the views of such seats as he observed to be beautiful, by their situation or construction. His colouring is extremely bright and clear his skies are warm his touch is free and firm his figures and animals are w r ell drawn, and judiciously disposed and his pictures justly merit the approbation which they have always received.

, or Asser, or Asker (called, by Pitts, John,) a learned monk of St. David’s, and historian, was of British extraction, probably of that part of South Wales called Pembrokeshire, and was bred up in the learning of those times, in the monastery of St. David’s (in Latin Menevia), whence he derived his surname of Menevensis. There he is said to have had for his tutor Johannes Patricius, one of the most celebrated scholars of his age, and had also the countenance of Nobis, or Novis, archbishop of that see, who was his relation but it does not appear that he was either his secretary or his chancellor, as some writers would have us believe. From St. David’s he was invited to the court of Alfred the Great, merely from the reputation of his learning, probably about the year 880, or somewhat earlier. Those who had the charge of bringing him to court, conducted him from St. David’s to the town of Dene (Dean) in Wiltshire, where the king received him with great civility, and shewed him in a little time the strongest marks of favour and affection, insomuch that he condescended to persuade him not to think any more of returning to St. David’s, but rather to continue with him as his domestic chaplain and assistant in his studies. Asserius, however, modestly declined this proposal, alledging, that it did not become him to desert that holy place where he had been educated, and received the order of priesthood, for the sake of any other preferment. King Alfred then desired that he would divide his time between the court and the monastery, spending six months at court, and six at St. David’s. Asserius would not lightly comply even with this request, but desired leave to return to St. David’s, to ask the advice of his brethren, which he obtained, but in his journey falling ill at Winchester of a fever, he lay there sick about a year and as soon as he recovered he went to St. David’s, where, consulting with his brethren on the king’s proposal, they unanimously agreed that he should accept it, promising themselves great advantages from his favour with the king, of which, at that time, they appear to have had need, to relieve them from the oppressions of one Hemeid, a petty prince of South Wales. But they requested of Asserius, that he would prevail on the king to allow him to reside quarterly at court and at St. David’s, rather than that he should remain absent six months together. When he came back he found the king at Leoneforde, who received him with every mark of distinction. He remained with him then eight months at once, reading and explaining to him whatever books were in his library, and grew into so great credit with that generous prince, that on Christmas-eve following, he gave him the monasteries of Anigresbyri, and Banuwille, that is, Ambrosbury in Wiltshire, and Banwell in Somersetshire, with a silk pall of great value, and as much incense as a strong man could carry, sending together with them this compliment, “That these were but small things, and by way of earnest of better which should follow them.” Soon after, he had Exeter bestowed upon him, and not long after that, the bishopric of Sherburn, which, however, he seems to have quitted in the year 883, though he always retained the title, as Wilfred archbishop of York was constantly so styled, though he accepted of another bishopric. Thenceforward he constantly attended the court, in the manner before stipulated, and is named as a person, in whom he had particular confidence, by king Alfred, in his testament, which must have been written some time before the year 885; since mention is made there of Esna bishop of Hereford, who died that year. He is also mentioned by the king, in his prefatory epistle placed before his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral, addressed to Wulfsig bishop of London and there the king does not call him bishop of Sherburn, but “my bishop,” acknowledging the help received from him and others in that translation. It appears to have been the near resemblance, which the genius of Asserius bore to that of the king, that gained him so great a share in his confidence and very probably, it was on this account, that Asserius drew up those memoirs of the life of Alfred which we still have, and which he dedicated and presented to the king in the year 893. la this work we have a curious account of the manner in which that prince and our author spent their time together. Asserius tells us, that having one day, being the feast of St. Martin, cited in conversation a passage of some famous author, the king was mightily pleased with it, and would have him write it down in the margin of a book he carried in his breast; but Asserius finding no room to write it there, and yet being desirous to gratify his master, he asked king Alfred whether he should not provide a few leaves, in which to set dawn such remarkable things as occurred either in reading or conversation the king was delighted with this hint, and directed Asserius to put it immediately in execution. Pursuing this method constantly, their collection began to swell, till at length it became of the size of an ordinary Psalter and this was what the king called his “Hand-book, or Manual.” Asserius, however, calls it Enchiridion. In all probability, Asserius continued at court during the whole reign of Alfred, and, probably, several years after but where, or when he died is doubtful, though the Saxon Chronicle positively fixes it to the year 910. The editor of his life in the Biog. Brit, takes Asser the monk, and Asser bishop of Sherburnj for one and the same person, which some however have denied, and asserts him to have been also archbishop of Sk David’s, upon very plausible authority. He admits, however, i that if there was such a reader in the public schools at Oxford as Asser the monk, he must have been some other person of the same name, and not our author but this point rests almost wholly on the authority of Harpsfiekl nor is the account consistent with itself in several other respects,as sir John S'pelman has justly observed. There is no less controversy about the works of Asserius, than about his preferments for some alledge that he never wrote any thing but the Annals of king Alfred whereas, Pitts gives us the titles of no less than five other books of his writing, and adds, that he wrote many more. The first of these is a “Commentary on Boetius,” which is mentioned by Leland, on the authority of the Chronicle of St. Neot’s but he probably only explained this author to king Alfred when he made his Saxon translation. The second piece mentioned by Pitts, is the Anjials of Alfred’s life and reign. The third he styles “Annales Britannia;,” or the Annals of Britain, in one book, mentioned also by Leland and Bale, and which has been since published by the learned Dr. Gale. The fourth piece, he calls “Aurearum Sententiarum Enchiridion, lib. 1” which is without question the Manual or common-placebook made for king Alfred, and reckoned among his works by Pitts himself. Leland has also spoken of this Enchiridion, as an instance of the learning and diligence of Asser, which it certainly was and though the collections he made concerning this author, are much better and larger than those of Bale and Pitts, yet he modestly, upon this subject, apologizes for speaking so little and so obscurely of so great a man. The next in Pitts’ s catalogue, is a “Book of Homilies,” and the last, “A Book of Epistles” but the existence of these seems unsupported by any authority; nor is it known where he was interred. He appears to have been one of the most pious and learned prelates of the age in which he lived.

1, “That the Company will take in subscriptions at any time, till the sum of 100,000l. be subscribed, but will never exceed that sum, 2. That all married men, at the age of thirty years or under, may subscribe any sum not exceeding 1000l. That all married men, not exceeding the age of forty years, may subscribe any sum” not exceeding 500l. And that all married men, not exceeding the age of sixty years, may subscribe any sum, not exceeding 300l. And that the widows of all persons, subscribing according to these limitations, shall receive the benefit of 30 per cent, per annum, according to the former proposal^ free of all taxes and charges, at the two usual feasts of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and St. Michael the Archangel and that the first of these payments shall be made at the first of the said feast days, which shall happen four months or more after the decease of the person or persons so subscribing excepting such as shall voluntarily make away with themselves, or by any act of theirs occasion their own death either by duelling or committing any crime, whereby they shall be sentenced, and put to death by justice in any, or either of these cases, the widows to receive no annuity; but, upon delivering up the company’s bond, to have the subscription money paid to them. 3. That no seafaring men may subscribe, who follow it as their business or vocation; nor others, who go farther than Holland, Ireland, or the coasts of England and that any person may subscribe for any others, whom he shall nominate in his last will, during the natural life of his wife, if she survive, and his intention be declared in his subscription." The company had several meetings in committees with the doctor, about settling a sufficient security in which they satisfied him that their estates, being clear rents, amounted to 2888l. Ss. lOd. besides the payments of the benefactors, to be paid out of the same which, by a moderate calculation, would yield, when the leases came out, above 13,500l. per annum. All things being agreed upon, the deed of settlement was executed by the company and trustees, at a general court of the said company, held on Wednesday the 4th of October, 1699. This deed is enrolled in the high court of chancery, and an authentic copy of it kept by the company but owing to some miscalculations, the scheme did not ultimately succeed, as originally planned.

A few years before his death, he was invited to accept the headship of the college, then vacant, but modestly declined it. He died at Beckenham, Sept. 1711, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of that church. The writer of his life gives him the highest character for piety, probity, and inflexible adherence to the doctrines and interests of the church of England. His general sentiments and turn of mind may be discovered in the titles of his various works 1. “Toleration disapproved and condemned by the authority and convincing reasons of, I. That wise and learned king James, and his privycouncil, Anno Reg. II do II. The honourable Commons assembled in this present parliament, in their Votes, &c. Feb. 25, 1662. III. The Presbyterian ministers in the city of London, met at Sion College, December 18, 1645. IV. Twenty eminent divines, most (if not all) of them members of the late assembly; in their Sermons before the two houses of parliament on solemn occasions. Faithfully collected by a very moderate hand, and humbly presented to the serious consideration of all dissenting parties,” Oxford,! 670. He published a second edition of this book, the same year, with his name, and the pro-vice-chancellor of Oxford’s imprimatur, prefixed to it. 2. “The Cases of Scandal and Persecution being a seasonable inquiry into these two things I. Whether the Nonconformists, who otherwise think subscription lawful, are therefore obliged to forbear it, because the weak brethren do judge it unlawful II. Whether the execution of penal laws upon Dissenters, for non-communion with the Church of England, be persecution Wherein they are pathetically exhorted to return into the bosom of the church, the likeliest expedient to stop the growth of Popery,” London, 1674. 3. “The Royal Apology or, An Answer to the Rebel’s Plea wherein are the most noted anti-monarchical tenets, first published by Doleman the Jesuit, to promote a bill of exclusion against king James I. secondly, practised by Bradshaw, and the regicides, in the actual murder of king Charles I. thirdly, republished by Sidney, and the associates to depose and murder his present majesty,” London, 1685, the second edition. 4. “A seasonable Vindication of their present Majesties,” London. 5. “The Country Parson’s Admonition to his Parishioners against Popery with directions how to behave themselves, when any one designs to seduce them from the Church of England,” London, 1686. 6. “A full Defence of the former Discourse against the Missionaries Answer being a farther examination of the pretended Infallibility of the Chuvch of Rome” or, as it is intitled in the first impression, “A Defence of the Plain Man’s Reply to the Catholic Missionaries,” &c. 1688. 7. “A short Discourse against Blasphemy,” 1691. 8. “A Discourse against Drunkenness,” 1692. 9. “A Discourse against Swearing and Cursing,” 1692. 10. “Directions in order to the suppressing of Debauchery and Proprmneness,” 1693. 11. “A Conference with an Anabaptist; Part I. Concerning the subject of Baptism: being a Defence of Infant-Baptism,” 1694. It was occasioned by a separate congregation of Anabaptists being set up in Dr. Assheton’s parish but the meeting soon breaking up, the author never published a second part. 12. “A Discourse concerning a Death-bed Repentance.” 13. “A Theological Discourse of last Wills and Testaments,” London, 1696, 14. “A seasonable Vindication of the blessed Trinity being an answer to this question, Why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the works of the most reverend doctor John Tillotson, late lord archbishop of Canterbury, and the right reverend doctor Edward Stillingfleet, now lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1679. 15. “A brief state of the Socinian Controversy, concerning a Trinity in Unity” collected from the Works of Dr, Isaac Barrow, London, 1698. 16. “The Plain Man’s Devotion, Part I. In a method of daily Devotion and, a method of Devotion for the Lord’s Day. Both fitted to the meanest capacities,” 1698. 17. “A full Account of the rise, progress, and advantages of Dr. Assheton’s Proposal (as now improved and managed by the worshipful company of Mercers, London,) for che benefit of Widows of Clergymen, and others, by settled Jointures and Annuities, at the rate of thirty per cent. With directions for the widow how to receive her annuity, without any delay, charges, or deductions. ‘ Plead for the widow,’ Isa. i. 17. 1713. 18.” A Vindication of the Immortality of the Soul, and a Future State,“London, 1703. 19.” A brief exhortation to the Holy Communion, with the nature and measures of Preparation concerning it fitted to the meanest capacities,“1705. 20.” A Method of Devotion for sick and dying persons with particular directions from the beginning of Sickness to the hour of Death,“London, 1706. 21.” The Possibility of Apparitions being an answer to this question ‘ Whether can departed souls (souls separated from their bodies) so appear, as to be visibly seen, and converse here on earth’ This book was occasioned by the remarkable story of one dying at Dover, and appearing to her friend at Canterbury. 22. “Occasional Prayers from bishop Taylor, bishop Cosins, bishop Kenn,” &c. and “A devout collection of Divine Hymns and Poems, on several occasions,” London, 1708. 23. “A seasonable Vindication of the Clergy being an answer to some reflections in a late book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, &c. Humbly submitted to the serious consideration of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain. By a Divine of the Church of London,” 1709. 24. “Directions for the Conversation of the Clergy collected from the Visitation Charges of the. right reverend father in God, Edward Stillingfleet, D. D. late lord bishop of Worcester,” London, 1710. 25. "Two Sermons one preached before the Sons of the Clergy, at St. Paul’s, December 6, 1699 the other before the Honourable Society of the Natives of the County of KenVat St. Mary le Bow, Nov. 21, 1700. Mr. Wood mentions another Sermon on the Danger of Hypocrisy, preached at Guildhall chapel, Aug. 3, 1673.

When Dr. D' Avenant published his “Moderation a Virtue,” and his “Essay on Peace and War,” she answered him in 1704, in a tract entitled “Moderation truly stated.” The same year D' Avenant published a new edition of his works, with remarks on hers, to which she immediately replied in a postscript, and although without her name, she was soon discovered, and distinguished with public approbation. Some eminent men of the time bear testimony to the merit of her works, as Hickes, Walker, Norris, Dodwell, Evelyn, and bishop Atterbury, who praises her controversial powers, but with a hint that a little more urbanity of manner would not have weakened her arguments. Among her other works was “An impartial Inquiry into the Causes of Rebellion and Civil Wars in this kingdom, in an examination of Dr. Rennet’s Sermon, Jan. 30, 1703-4.” “A fair way with Dissenters and their Patrons, not writ by Mr. Lindsay, or any other furious jacobite, whether a clergyman or a layman but by a very moderate person and dutiful subject of the queen,” 1704. “The Christian Religion, as practised by a daughter of the Church of England,” 1705. This was suspected to be the work of Atterbury. “Six familiar Essays upon Marriage, Crosses in Love, and Friendship,” 1706. “Bart'lemy Fair, or an Inquiry after Wit,” 1700, occasioned by colonel Hunter’s celebrated Letter on Enthusiasm. It was republished in 1722, without the words * Bart‘lemy Fair.’ Although living and conversing with the fashionable world, she led a pious life, generally calm and serene, and her deportment and conversation were highly entertaining and social. She used to say, the good Christian only has reason, and he always ought to be cheerful and that dejected looks and melancholy airs were very unseemly in a Christian. But though she was easy and affable to others, she was severe towards herself. She was abstemious in a very great degree frequently living many days together on bread and water and at other times, when at home, rarely eat any dinner till night, and then sparingly. She would frequently say, abstinence was her best physic and that those who indulge themselves in eating and drinking, could not be so well disposed or prepared, either for study, or the regular and devout service of their Creator.

She enjoyed an uninterrupted state of health, till a few years before her death, when a cancer in her breast, which she concealed, except from a few of her most intimate acquaintance, impaired her constitution very much. She managed it herself, till it was absolutely necessary to submit to amputation, which she did without discovering the least timidity or impatience, without a groan or a sigh; and shewed the same resolution and resignation during her whole illness. When she was confined to her bed by a gradual decay, and the time of her dissolution drew near, she ordered her shrowd and coffin to be made, and brought to her bed-side, and there to remain in her view, as a constant memento of her approaching fate, and to keep her mind fixed on proper contemplations. She died May 24, 1731, in the 63d year of her age, and was buried at Chelsea.

, the name, or assumed name of a person who lived in the ninth century, and wrote “The life of the emperor Lewis le Debonnaire,” at whose court he is supposed to have enjoyed some office. He is said to have had many conferences with that prince on astronomical s’ubjects. The life was written in Latin, and has been translated into French by the president Cousin. The original is in Du Chesne’s Collection of Historians.

, a very celebrated French physiciaiTj was born in 1684, at Sauve in the diocese of Alais. His father, who was a Protestant clergyman, bestowed great pains upon his early education, after which he was sent to the university of Montpelier, where he was created M. A, in 1700. He then began the study of medicine; and in two years obtained the degree of bachelor^ having upon that occasion written a dissertation on the cause of fermentation, which he defended in a very able manner. On Jan. 25, 1703, he was created doctor of physic, after which, before arriving at extensive practice, he applied to the study of medical authors, both ancient and modern, with uncommon assiduity. The good effects of this study soon appeared; for in 1710 he published a treatise concerning muscular motion, from which he acquired very high reputation. In 1717 he was appointed to teach medicine at Montpelier, which he did with such perspicuity and eloquence that his fame soon rose to a very great height; the king assigned him an annual salary, and he was at the same time appointed to superintend the mineral waters in the province of Languedoc. But as Montpelier did not afford sufficient scope for one of his celebrity, he went to Paris with a great numher of manuscripts, which he designed for the press. Soon afterwards, however, he left it, having in 1729 accepted the office of first physician to the king of Poland, which was then offered to him; but here his stay was very short, as he disliked the ceremonious restraint of a court. He again therefore returned to Paris, and upon the death of the celebrated Geoffroy, in 1731, he was appointed regins professor. The duties of this office he discharged in such a manner as toanswer the most sanguine expectations; and he drew, from the other universities to that of Paris, a great concourse of medical students, foreigners as well as natives. At the same time he was not more celebrated as a professor than as a practitioner, and his private character was in all respects truly amiable. He reached a very advanced age, and died May 5, 1766. Of his works, which are very numerous, the following are the principal 1. “Origine de la Peste,” 1721, 8vo. 2. “De ia Contagion cle la Peste,” 1724. 8vo. 3. “De Motu Musculari,” 1710, 12mo. 4. “Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire naturelle cle Languedoc,” 1737, 4to. 5. “De Morbis Veuereis, libri’sex,” 1736, 4 to, afterwards enlarged to -t 8vo Vols. and translated into French by Jault, 4 vols. 12mo, “Traitedes maladies desFemmes,” 1761—1765, 6vols. 12tno. 7. “L'Art crAccoucher reduit a ses principles,” 1766, 12mo. 8. “Theses de Phantasia,” &c. 9. “De motus Fermentativi causa,” 1702, 12mo. 10. “Memo ire sur la Digestion,” 1714, 8vo. 11.“Tractatus Pathologicus,” 1766, 8vo. Besides these, in 1759 he published “Trait des Tumeurs,” 2 vols. 12mo; and one or two treatises not connected with medicine, one with the singular title of “Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux qui ont servi a Moise pour ecrire la Genese,” Paris, 1753, 12mo, and a dissertation on the immateriality and immortality of the Soul, Paris, 1755. His work on the venereal disease, and those on the diseases of women, and on midwifery, have been translated into English.

After the death of the emperor, he was recalled by his successor Constantine the younger, and restored to his see, and received by his people with great joy. This emperor’s reign was short, and his enemies soon found means to draw down upon him the displeasure of Constantius so that, being terrified with his threats, he sought his safety by flight, and by hiding himself in a secret and obscure place. Julius, at this time bishop of Rome, being greatly affected with the injurious treatment of Athanasius, sought him out in his obscurity, and took him under his protection. He summoned a general council at Sardis, where the Nicene creed was ratified, and where it was determined, that Athanasius, with some others, should be restored to their churches. This decree the emperor shewed great unwillingness to comply with, till he was influenced by the warm interposition of his brother in the west for at this time the empire was divided between the two surviving brothers. Being thus prevailed upon, or rather indeed constrained by necessity, he wrote several letters with his own hand, which are still extant, to Athanasius, to invite him to Constantinople, and to assure him of a safe conduct. He restored him, by an edict, to his bishopric wrote letters both to the clergy and laity of Alexandria to give him a welcome reception and commanded that such acts as were recorded against him in their courts and synods, should be erased.

When the emperor restored Athanasius, he told him, that there were several people in Alexandria who differed in opinion from him, and separated themselves from his communion; and he requested of him, that he would permit them to have one church for themselves. The bishop replied, the emperor’s commands should be obeyed; but he humbly presumed to beg one favour in return, viz. that he would be pleased to grant one church in every city for such as did not communicate with the Arians. The proposal was made at the suit, and through the insinuations, of the Arians who, when they heard the reply, and had nothing either reasonable or plausible to object to it, thought proper to desist from their suit, and make no more mention of it. This is one proof among many others, that the Arians had no reason to reproach Athanasius with intolerant principles. At the death of Constans, which happened soon afterwards, he was again deposed, ana Constantius gave orders that he should be executed wherever he was taken. He was re-instated by Julian; but, before the end of that apostate’s reign, was again obliged to have recourse to flight for safety. When orthodoxy found a patron in Jorian, and the Nicene creed became again the standard of catholic faith, Athanasius recovered his credit and his see, which he enjoyed unmolested in the time of Valentinian and even Valens, that furious and persecuting Avian, thought it expedient to let him exercise his function unmolested, because he found there was a great multitude of people in Egypt and Alexandria, who were determined to live and die with Athanasius. He died in peace and tranquillity in the year 373, after having been bishop forty-six years. His works were published in Greek and Latin, at Heidelberg, 1601; at Paris, 1627; at Cologne, 1686; but the best edition is that given by Montfaucon, at Paris, 1698, in 3 vols. folio. There has been a reprint of this, however, at Padua, in 1777, 4 vols, folio, which some prefer as being more complete and more elegantly printed.

Photius greatly extols Athanasius as an elegant, clear, and excellent writer. It is controverted among learned men, whether Athanasius composed the creed commonly received under his name. Baronius is of opinion that it was composed by Athanasius when he was at Rome, and offered to pope Julius as a confession of his faith which circumstance is not at all likely, for Julius never questioned his faith. However, a great many learned men have ascribed it to Athanasius as cardinal Bona, Petavius, Bellarmine, and Rivet, with many others of both communions. Scultetus leaves the matter in doubt; but the best and latest critics- make no question but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution. Vossius and Quesnel have written particular dissertations in favour of this opinion. Their arguments are, 1. Because this creed is wanting in almost all the manuscripts of Athanasius’ s works. 2. Because the style and contexture of it do not bespeak a Greek but a Latin author. 3. Because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the council of E^phesus, nor pope Leo, nor the council of Chalcedon, have ever mentioned it in all that they say against the Nestorians or Eutychians. 4. Because this Vigilms Tapsensis is known to have published others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this creed is commonly joined. These reasons have persuaded Pearson, Usher, Cave, and Dupin, critics of the first rank, to come into the opinion, that this creed was not composed by Athanasius, but by a later and a Latin writer.

, or Adelard, was a learned monk of Bath in England, who flourished about 1150, as appears by some manuscripts of his in the libraries of Corpus Christi and Trinity colleges, Oxford. Vossius says, he was universally learned in all the sciences of his time, and that, to increase his knowledge, he travelled into France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Egypt, and Arabia. He wrote many books himself, and translated others from different languages among the latter, he translated from Arabic into Latin, Euclid’s Elements, at a time before any Greek copies had been discovered, and “Erichiafarim” upon the seven planets. He wrote a treatise on the several liberal arts, another on the astrolobe, another on the causes of natural compositions, besides several on physics and on medicine. Some manuscripts of his referred to by Vossius remain in the colleges in Oxford as in Oriel, “De decisionibus naturalibns,” and “De philosophia Danielis,” in Corpus Christi,

, a Greek grammarian, born at Naucratis in Egypt, flourished in the third century. He was one of the most learned men in his time, and had read so much, and had such an uncommon memory, that he might be styled the Varro of the Greeks. Of all his writings none remain but the work entitled “The Deipnosophists,” or, the Sophists discoursing at Table. Here an infinite variety of facts and quotations are preserved, which are to be met with no where else and hence, as Bayle truly observes, it is probable that this author is more valued by us than he was by his contemporaries, who could consult the originals from which these facts and quotations were taken. Athenaeus is supposed to have been injured by transcribers the omissions, transpositions, and false readings in him being extremely numerous. The work consists of fifteen books, the two, first and beginning of the third of which are wanting, but, with many hiatuses in the rest, have been supplied from an abridgment which is extant. It was first printed in 1514, by Aldus Manutius, Venice, folio, and reprinted under the inspection of Casaubon, Leyden, 1600, folio. The last edition is that of Shweighaeuser, Strasburgh, 1801—1807, 14 vols. 8vo, which Mr. Dibdin has copiously described, and highly praised. The French critics, and perhaps others, have, however, objected that this editor was not sufficiently versed in the rules of Greek versification, and that he neglected to consult some modern critics, in whose works he might have found many passages of Athenaeus corrected.

, a Stoic philosopher, was probably of Pergamus, where he lived till he was very much advanced in years. He constantly refused to accept the favours which kings and generals would have bestowed upon him. Cato the younger, being in Asia at the head of an army, and knowing the merit of this eminent character, was very desirous of having him with him; but thinking that a letter would not prevail upon him to leave his retirement, he resolved to go himself to Pergamus, and by his intreaties and prayeVs he prevailed upon Athenodo, rus to follow him to the camp, whither he returned in a triumphant manner, being more remarkable for his new acquisition than Lucullus or Pompey could be for the conquests they had made. Athenodorus continued with Cato till his death, which happened about fifty before the Christian era. He is perhaps the same who is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, in the life of Zeno Citticus.

, the son of Sandon, was another celebrated Stoic philosopher. He was born at Tarsus, or perhaps at Cana, a village near it, whence he was surnamed Cananita. He lived at Rome and on account of his learning, wisdom, and moderation, was highly esteemed by Augustus. His opinion and advice bad great weight with the emperor, and are said to have led him into a milder plan of government than he had at first adopted. He obtained, for his fellow-citizens, the inhabitants of Tarsus, relief from a part of the burthen of taxes which had been imposed upon them, and was on this account honoured with an annual festival. Athenodorus was intrusted by Augustus with the education of the young prince Claudius and that he might the more successfully execute his charge, his illustrious pupil became for a while resident in his house. This philosopher retired in his old age to Tarsus, where he died in his eighty-second year. Other particulars of him are given in the General Dictionary, and in the authorities cited by Brucker, but there appear to have been two of the name (besides the one of whom we have before given an account), or there is much confusion in all the writers we have had an opportunity of consulting respecting this one.

"Sir, I am not without the apprehensions of danger that may arise by advising in, or so much as discoursing of, public affairs yet no fear of danger shall hinder me from performing the duty we owe one to another, to counsel those that need our advice, how to make their just defence when they are called in question for their lives especially if they are persons that have, by their general carriage and conversation, appeared to be men of worth, and lovers of their king and country, and of the religion established among us. I will follow the method you use, and answer what you ask in the order I find it in your letters.

“I cannot see any disadvantage or hazard, by pleading the general plea of Not Guilty. If it fall out upon the proofs, that the crime is only misprision of treason, and not the very crime of treason, the jury must find the prisoner not guilty of treason; and cannot, upon an indictment of treason, find the party guilty of misprision, because he was not indicted for the offence of misprision; and treason and misprision of treason, are offences that the law hath distinguished the one from the other; and therefore, if the proofs reach no farther than to prove a misprision, and amount not to treason, the prisoner may urge it for himself, and say, that the proofs do not reach to the crimes charged in the indictment; and if the truth be so, the court ought so to direct the jury not to find it. Now being in company with others, where those others do consult and conspire to do some treasonable act, does not make a man guilty of treason, unless by some words or actions he signify his consent to it, and approbation of it; but his being privy to it, and not discovering of it, makes him guilty of misprision of treason, which consists in the concealing it; but it makes him not guilty of treason and if the same person be present a second time, or oftener, this neither does not makehim guilty of treason, only it raises a strong suspicion that he likes, and consents to it, and approves of it, or else he would have forborne after being once amongst them. But the strongest suspicion does not sufficiently prove a guilt in treason, nor can it go for any evidence, and that upon two accounts first, dig proofs in case of treason must be plain, and clear, and positive, and not by inference or argument, or the strongest suspicion imaginable. Thus said sir Edward Coke, in many places in his Third Institutes, in the chapter of High Treason. Secondly, in an indictment of high treason there must not only be a general charge of treason, nor is it enough to set forth of what sort or species the treason is, as killing the king, or levying war against him, or coining money, or the like but there must be also set forth some overt or open act, as the statute of the 25th of Edward IIL calls it, or some instance given by the party or offender, whereby it may appear he did consent to it, and consult it, and approve of it; and if the barely being present should be taken and construed to be a sufficient overt or open act, or instance, then there is no difference between treason and misprision of treason for the being present without consenting makes no more than misprision therefore there must be something more than being barely present, to make a man guilty of treason, especially since the law requires an overt or open act to be proved against the prisoner accused. See sir Edward Coke’s Third Institutes, fol. 12. upon those words of the statute. Per overt fact. And that there ought to be direct and manifest proofs, and not bare suspicions or presumptions, be they never so strong and violent; see the same fol. in the upper part of it, upon the word Proveablement. And the statute of the 5th of Edward VI. cap. 2, requires that there should be two witnesses to prove the crime so that if there be but one witness, let him be never so credible a person, and never so positive, yet if there be no other proof, the party ought to be found not guilty; and those two witnesses must prove the person guilty of the same sort or species of treason. As for example, if the indictment be for that species of treason, of conspiring the, king’s death, both witnesses must prove some fact, or words tending to that very sort of treason but if there be two witnesses, and one proves the prisoner conspired the death of the king, and the other witness proves the conspiring to do some other sort of treason, this comes not home to prove the prisoner guilty upon that indictment for the law will not take away a man’s life in treason, upon the testimony and credit of one witness $t is so tender of a man’s life, the crime and the forfeitures are so great and heavy. And as there must be two witBesses, so by the statute made in the thirteenth year of his present Majesty, cap. i. (entitled for the safety of his Majesty’s person) those two witnesses must not only be lawful,” but also credible persons. See that statute in the fifth paragraph and the prisoner must be allowed to object against the credit of all, or any of the witnesses and ff there be but one witness of clear and good credit, and the rest not credible, then the testimony of those that are not credible rriust go for nothing, by the words and meaning of this statute See the statute. Now were I a juryman, I should think no such witness a credible witness, as should appear, either by his own testimony, or upon proof made by others against him, to have been particeps criminis, for that proves him to be a bad, and consequently not so credible a man especially if it can appear the witness has trepanned the prisoner into the committing of the crime Then the witness will appear to be guilty of a far higher crime than the prisoner, and therefore ought not to be believed as a credible witness against the prisoner for he is a credible witness that has the credit of being a good and honest man, which a trepanner cannot have and this trepanning proves withal, that the trepanner did bear a spite and malice against the person trepanned, and intended to do him a mischief, and designed to take away his life. Shall such a one be a credible witness, and believed against him God forbid Then again, it cannot but be believed, that such persons as have been guilty of the same crime, will, out of a natural self-love, be very forward and willing to swear heartily, and to the purpose, in order to the convicting of others, that they may, by this service, merit their pardon and save their own lives and for this reason are not so credible witnesses, such as the statute of 13 Car. II. does require. Read over the whole chapters of sir Edward Coke, of high treason, and of petty treason for in this latter, of petty treason, there is much matter that concerns high treason.

"I wish with all my soul, and I humbly and heartily pray to almighty God, that these gentlemen who have given so great proof of their love to the true religion, and of the just rights and liberties of their country, and of their zeal against popery, may upon their trial appear innocent. I am so satisfied of their great worth, that I cannot easily believe them guilty of so horrid a crime. I pray God stand by them in the time of their distress. I wish I might have the liberty fairly to give them what assistance I could in that wherein I might be any way capable of doing it. I beseech almighty God to heal our divisions, and establish us upon the sure foundation of peace and righteousness. I thank you for the favour you have done me by imparting some public affairs, which might perhaps have been unknown to me, or not known till after a long time, for I keep no correspondence. When there is any occasion, pray oblige me by a farther account, especially what concerns these gentlemen and though I have written nothing here but what is innocent and justifiable, yet that J may be the surer against any disadvantage or misconstruction, pray take the pains to transcribe what notes you think fit, out of this large paper, but send me this paper back again, inclosed in another, by the same hand that brings it.

“There is, nor ought to be, no such thing as constructive treason this defeats the very scope and design of the statute of the 20th of Edward III. which is to make a plain declaration, what shall be adjudged treason by the ordinary courts of justice. The conspiring any thing against the king’s person is most justly taken to be, to conspire against his life but conspiring to levy war, or to seize the guards, is not conspiring against the king’s life for these are treasons of a different species.”

In 1684 he appears to have given a fresh proof of his deep learning, in the case between the king and sir William Williams. An information was exhibited against William Williams, esq. late speaker of the House of Commons, for endeavouring to stir up sedition, and procure ill-will between the king and his subjects, by appointing a certain seditious and infamous libel, entitled “The information of Thomas Dangerfield,” to be printed and published. The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, setting forth that he was speaker of the House of Commons, and that, in obedience to their order, he had appointed that narrative to be printed; wherefore he demanded the judgment of the court of king’s bench, whether it ought to take farther cognizance of the matter. Sir Robert Atkyns undertakes, in his argument in support of this plea, to prove three propositions First, that what was. done in this case was done in a course of justice, and that in the highest court of the nation, and according to the law and custom of parliament. Secondly^ that., however, that which was done in this case was not to be imputed to the defendant, who acted in it but as a servant or minister of the parliament, though in a very honourable station. Thirdly, that these, being matters transacted in parliament, and by the parliament, the court of king’s bench ought not to take cognizance of them, nor had any jurisdiction to judge or determine them.

An action was brought in Easter-term, in the second year of king James II. against sir Edward Hales, for acting as a colonel of foot without receiving the sacrament, or taking certain oaths appointed by an act of parliament to be taken within a certain time whereupon being legally indicted in the county of Kent, and convicted, the plaintiff became entitled to the forfeiture of five hundred pounds. To this the defendant pleaded, that the king, by his letters patent, had dispensed with his taking the sacrament or the oaths, and therefore demurred generally; the plaintiff joined in demurrer, and judgment was given in the king’s bench for the defendant. This gave occasion to sir Robert’s excellent inquiry into the power of dispensing with penal statutes, wherein the doctrine of dispensations is largely handled.

October 30, 1693, when the lord mayor of London elect was sworn in before sir Robert, in the exchequer, he made a famous speech, wherein, after drawing a terrible picture of the designs of Lewis XIV. and of the means employed to accomplish them, he has the following passage, which will assist our readers in judging of the baron’s character "There is one piece of policy of his, wherein he outdoeth all other princes whatsoever and that is, the great thing of maintaining and managing intelligence. He can tell when your merchant-ships set out, and by what time they shall return nay, perhaps, he does take upon him to know, by the help of some confederacy with him that is prince of the power of the air, that the wind shall not serve in such or such a corner till such a time he knoweth when our royal navy is to be divided, and when it is united.

, son of the preceding, by Anne, daughter of sir Thomas Dacres of Hertfordshire, was born in 1646, and educated with great care under the eye of his father. He became early attached to the study of antiquities, and as he had a very considerable estate settled upon him, he lived chiefly upon it, pursuing his studies and exercising old English hospitality. He was elected to represent his county in parliament as often as he chose to accept that honour, and his knowledge and integrity induced many of his neighbours to make him the arbitrator of their differences, which he readily undertook, and generally executed to the satisfaction of both parties. He married Louisa, daughter to sir John Carteret, of Hawnes in Bedfordshire but having by her no issue male, his father settled his estate on the male issue of sir Edward Atkyns, which settlement was the unfortunate cause of a law-suit between the father and son. Sir Robert differed in other respects from his father’s opinions, being more attached to the house of Stuart, yet he inherited both his prudence and his probity, and was equally esteemed and beloved by men of all parties. His design of writing “The History of Gloucestershire,” took its rise from an intention of the same sort in Dr. Parsons, chancellor of the diocese of Gloucester, who had been at great pains and trouble to collect the materials for such a work, in the compiling of which he was hindered by the infirm and declining state of his health. Sir Robert, however, did not live to see it published, which was done by his executors. It appeared in 1712, in one volume folio. It was very expensive to the undertaker, who printed it in a pompous manner, adorning it with variety of views and prospects of the seats of the gentry and nobility, with their arms and he has inserted some, which, in Mr. Gough’s opinion, very little deserve it. It were to be wished, says the same excellent antiquary, that more authorities had been given, and the charters and grants published in the original language. The transcripts of all these were collected by Parsons. The price of this work, which was five guineas, has been greatly raised by an accidental fire, Jan. 30, 1712-13, which destroyed most of the copies in the house of Mr. Bowyer, printer, in White Fryars. All the plates, except two or three, falling into the hands of Mr. Herbert, engraver of charts, he caused the lost ones to he supplied, and republished this book in 1768, correcting the literal errors, but without so much as restoring in their proper place several particulars pointed out in the original errata. Great part of this second edition was also destroyed by fire.

, an Augustin monk, was torn at St. Philip of Agire, or Argire, an ancient town of Sicily, and became professor of church history in the university of Catania, and in 1758 provincial of his order in Sicily and Malta. He wrote, 1. a Bilancia della Verita,“Palermo, 1738, 4to. This was an answer to a book entitled” Paulus apostolus in Mari, quod hunc Venetus sinus dicifcur, naufragus," by P. Ignatius Giorgi, a Benedictine of Hagusa. The dispute respected the name of the island on which St. Paul was shipwrecked, called in Latin Melita. Giorgi was of opinion that it was an island in Dalmatia, now called Melada, while Attardi maintained the more common opinion that it was the well known island of Malta.

, a learned writer of the sixteenth century, was the son of an able engineer of the same name, and born at Capua. He became a secular priest, and was distinguished not only for his knowledge of modern languages, to which he added the Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek, but for his poetry, and the active part he took in the famous dispute between the academy of La Crusca and Camille Pelegrino, on the subject of Tasso’s “Jerusalem delivered.” Attendolo espoused the cause of Tasso, although himself a member of the academy, and highly respected by his brethren. He was killed by the overturning of a carriage, the wheels of which went over his body, and injured him so much that he died in a few hours. This accident happened in 1592, or 1593. His works are, 1. “Orazione nell‘ essequie di Carlo d’ Austria principe di Spagna,” Naples, 1571, 4to. 2. “Orazione militare, all’ altezza del serenissimo D. Giovanni d' Austria, per la vittoria navale ottenuta dalla Santa Lega nell 7 Echinadi,” Naples, 1573, 4to. 3. “Rime, con un breve discorso dell' epica poesia,” Florence, 1584, 8vo, Naples, 1588, 4to, with additions. 4. “Bozzo di XII. Lezioni sopra la canzone di M. Francesco Petrarca Vergine Bella, &c.” Naples, 1604, 4to, a work left imperfect by the death of the author. 5. “Unita della materia poetica sotto dieci predicamenti e sentiment! ne' due principi della Toscana e Latina poesia, Petrarca eVirgilio,” Naples, 1724, 8vo, the second edition the first is uncommonly rare. He also, after the death of Tansillo, corrected and published his poem, “La Lacrime di S. Pietro,” which the author had left imperfect, but the friends of Tansillo were of opinion he had taken too great liberties, which in the subsequent editions they endeavoured to obviate by restoring the poem more nearly to the state in which Tansillo left it.

, born about the year 1631. He was the son of Francis Atterbury, rector of Middleton Malser, or Milton, in Northamptonshire, who among other ministers subscribed the solemn league and covenant in 1648. He was entered a student of Christ-church, Oxford, 1647, toofc the degree of B. A. Feb. 23, 1649, and was created M. A. by dispensation from Oliver Cromwell the chancellor, March I, 1651. He was one of those who had submitted to the authority of the visitors appointed by the parliament. In 1654 he became rector of Great or Broad Rissington, in Gloucestershire and after the restoration, took a presentation for that benefice under the great seal, and was instituted again to confirm his title to it. Sept. 11, 1657, he was admitted rector of Milton, or MiddletonKeynes, in Bucks; and at the return of Charles II. took the same prudent method to corroborate his title to this living. July 25, 1660, he was made chaplain extraordinary to Henry duke of Gloucester; and D. D. Dec. 1, the same year. Returning from Condon, whither the law-suits he was frequently involved in had brought him, he had the jnisfortune to be drowned near his own house, Dec. 7,1693. He published three occasional Sermons, entitled “The good old Subject or the right Test of Religion and Loyalty,” London, 1684, 4to. “The Ground of Christian Feasts,” 1686, 4to, and “Babylon’s Downfall,” 1691, 4to, ibid.

, eldest son of the preceding, was born at Caldecot, in the parish of Newport Pagnel, in Bucks, on May 2, 1656. He was educated at Westminsterschool under Dr. Busby, and sent to Christ-church, Oxford, at the age of eighteen. He was ordained deacon in Sept. 1679, being then B. A. and priest the year following, when also he commenced M. A. In 1683, he served the office of chaplain to sir William Pritchard, lord mayor of London. In Feb. 1684 he was instituted rector of Symel in Northamptonshire, which living he afterwards resigned upon his accepting of other preferments. July 8, 1687, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor aud doctor of civil law. In 1691 we find him lecturer of St. Mary Hill in London. Soon after his marriage he settled at Highgate, where he supplied the pulpit of the reverend Mr. Daniel Lathom, who was very old and infirm, and had lost his sight and, upon the death of this gentleman, was in June 1695 elected by the trustees of Highgate chapel to be their preacher. He had a little before been appointed one of the six preaching chaplains to the princess Anne of Denmark at Whitehall and St. James’s, which place he continued to supply after she came to the crown, and likewise during part of the reign of George I. When he first resided at Highgate, observing what difficulties the poor in the neighbourhood underwent for want of a good physician or apothecary, he studied physic and acquiring considerable skill, practised it gratis among his poor neighbours. In 1707, the queen presented him to the rectory of Shepperton in Middlesex and in March 1719, the bishop of London collated him to the rectory of Hornsey, which was the more agreeable to him, because the chapel of Highgate being situate in that parish, many of his constant hearers became now his parishioners. In 1720, on a report of the death of Dr. Sprat, archdeacon of Rochester, he applied to his brother, the celebrated bishop, in whose gift this preferment was, to be appointed to succeed him. The bishop giving his brother some reasons why he thought it improper to make him his archdeacon the doctor replied, “Your lordship very well knows that Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, had a brother for his archdeacon and that sir Thomas More’s father was a puisne judge when he was lord chancellor. And thus, in the sacred history, did God himself appoint that the safety and advancement of the patriarchs should be procured by their younger brother, and that they with their father should live under the protection and government of Joseph.” In answer to this, which was not very conclusive reasoning, the bishop informs his brother, that the archdeacon was not dead, but well, and likely to continue so. He died, however, soon after; and, on the 20tli of May 1720, the bishop collated Dr. Brydges, the duke of Chandos’s brother, to the archdeaconry, after writing thus in the morning to the doctor “I hope you are convinced by what I have said and written, that nothing could have been more improper than the placing you in that post immediately under myself. Could I have been easy under that thought, you may be sure no man living should have had the preference to you.” To this the doctor answered: “There is some shew of reason, I think, for the non-acceptance, but none for the not giving it. And since your lordship was pleased to signify to me that I should overrule you in this matter, I confess it was some disappointment to me. I hope I shall be content with that meaner post in which I am my time at longest being but short in this world, and my health not suffering me to make those necessary applications others do nor do I understand the language of the present times for, I find, I begin to grow an old-fashioned gentleman, and am ignorant of the weight and value of words, which in our times rise and fall like stock.” In this affecting correspondence there is evidently a portion of irritation on the part of Dr. Lewis, which is not softened by his brother’s letters but there must have been some reasons not stated by the latter for his refusal, and it is certain that they lived afterwards in the strictest bonds of affection.

His works are, 1. Two volumes of “Sermons,” 1699, 8vo, and 1703. 2. “The Penitent Lady translated from the French of the famous madam la Valliere,” 1684, 12mo. 3. Some Letters relating to the history of the Council of Trent. 4. “An Answer to a popish book, entitled, A true and modest account of the chief points in controversy between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, By N. Colson,” whose real name was Cornelius Nary, an Irish priest, and author of a Church History from the creation to the birth of Christ some controversial Tracts against Archbishop Synge and an English version of the New Testament. In his “True and modest account” Synge had reflected upon Dr. Tillotson, which induced Atterbury to answer him. 5. “The Re-union of Christians translated from the French,” 1708, and one or two occasional Sermons.

, bishop of Rochester in the reigns of queen Anne and king George I. was born March 6, 1662-3, at Milton or Middleton Keynes, near Newport- Pagnel, Bucks. He was admitted a king’s scholar in 1676 at Westminster-school; and thence, in 1680, was elected a student of Christ-Church college, Oxford, where he soon distinguished himself by his wit and learning and gave early proofs of his poetical talents, in a Latin version of Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel,” published in 1682; and in 1684 he edited the “Ανθολογια, seu selecta quædam poematum Italorum qui Latin escripserunt,” which was afterwards enlarged and published by Pope in 1740, with the omission, however, of Atterbury’s excellent preface. In 1687 he made his first essay in controversial writing, and shewed himself as an able and strenuous advocate for the Protestant religion, in “An Answer to some Considerations on the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation.” These Considerations were published under the name of Abraham Woodhead, who was a popish writer, but were really written by Obadiah Walker, master of University college, Oxford. Mr. Atterbury’s answer was soon after animadverted upon by Mr. Thomas Deane, fellow of University college, at the end of “The Religion of Martin Luther, whether Catholic or Protestant, proved from his own works.” This spirited performance of Atterbury induced bishop Burnet to rank the author among the eminent divines who had distinguished themselves by their admirable defences of the Protestant religion. Atterbury also pleads this pamphlet in his speech at his trial, as a proof of his zeal in that cause, and the same was urged by his counsel.

The time of his entering into the church is not exactly known but may be very nearly ascertained by his “Epistolary Correspondence;” where a letter to his father in 1690 is highly expressive of a superior genius, impatient of the shackles of an humble college life whilst the father’s answer displays the anxiety, together with a mixture of the severity, of the paternal character, offended by the quemlousness of the son, and his dissatisfaction. He had taken the degree of B. A. June 13, 1684 (when he was little more than twenty-two years old) ayd that of M.A. April 20, 1687; and it has been ingeniously conjectured, that he had applied to the college for permission to take pupils whilst he xv.is B. A. only (winch is unusual), and that he was refused. After passing two or three years more in the college, he then seems to have thought too highly of himself (when now become M. A.) to take any at all, and to be “pinned down, as,” he says, “it is his hard luck to be, to this scene.” This restlessness appears to have broken out in October 1690, when he was moderator of the college, and had had Mr. Boyle four months under his tuition, who a took up half his time,“and whom he never had a thought of parting with till he should leave Oxford; but wished he” could part with him to-morrow on that score.“The father tells him in November,” You used to say, when you had your degrees, you should be able to swim without bladders. You used to rejoice at your being moderator, and of the quantum and sub-lecturer but neither of these pleased you; nor was you willing to take those pupils the house afforded you when master nor doth your lecturer’s place, or nobleman satisfy you.“In the same letter the father advises his marrying into some family of interest,” either bishop’s or archbishop’s, or some courtier’s, which may be done, with accomplishments, and a portion too.“And to part of this counsel young Atterbury attended for he soon after married Miss Osborn, a relation (some say a niece) of the duke of Leeds, a great beauty, who lived at or in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and by whom he had a fortune ofTOOO/. In February 1690-1, we find him resolved” to bestir himself in his office in the house,“that of censor probably, an officer (peculiar to Christ Church) who presides over the classical exercises he then also held the catechetical lecture founded by Dr. Busby. About this period he probably took orders, and entered into” another scene, and another sort of conversation;“for in 1691 he was elected lecturer of St. Bride’s church in London, and in October 1693, minister and preacher at Bridewell chapel. An academic life, indeed, must have been irksome and insipid to a person of his active and aspiring temper. It was hardly possible that a clergyman of his fine genius, improved by study, with a spirit to exert his talents, should remain long unnoticed and we find that he was soon appointed chaplain to king William and queen Mary. The earliest of his sermons in print was preached before the queen at Whitehall, May 29, 1692. In August 1694 he preached his celebrated sermon before the governors of Bridewell and Bethlem,” On the power of charity to cover sins“to which Mr. Hoadly (afterwards bishop) published sorne^” Exceptions“in the postscript to his” Second Letter to Dr. Atterbury,“mentioned hereafter. In this he accuses Atterbury, and not without reason, of endeavouring to maintain the proposition that” God will accept one duty (charity) in lieu of many others.“In” October that year he preached before the queen p “The scorncr incapable of true wisdom” which was also warmly attacked by a friend of sir Robert Howard, author of “The History of Religion,” supposed to be alluded to in this sermon. The pamphlet was entitled “A two-fold Vindication of the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the Author of the History of Religion, &c.” 1696, 8vo.

In 1700, a still larger field of activity opened, in which Atterbury was engaged four years with Dr. Wake (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) and others, concerning the rights, powers, and privileges of convocations in which he displayed so much learning and ingenuity, as well as zeal for the interests of his order, that the lower house of convocation returned him their thanks; and in consequence of this vote a letter was sent to the university of Oxford, expressing, that, “whereas Mr. Francis Atterbury, late of Christ Church, had so happily asserted the rights and privileges of an English convocation, as to merit the solemn thanks of the lower house for his learned pains upon that subject; it might be hoped, that the university would be no less forward in taking some public notice of so great a piece of service to the church and that the most proper and seasonable mark of respect to him, would be to confer on him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, without doing exercise, or paying fees.” The university approved the contents of this letter, and accordingly created Mr. AtterburyD.D. Out author’s work was entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake’s, entitled ‘ The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted,’ &c. and several other pieces,” 8vo. The fame of this work was very great; but it was censured by Burnet, and in November the judges had a serious consultation on it, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. Holt, then chief justice, was strongly of that opinion, and the same idea was encouraged by archbishop Tenison, Dr. Wake, and others. Endeavours were made to prejudice king William against him, but his majesty remained indifferent; and on the other hand, Atterbury gained the steady patronage of sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, of Lawrence earl of Rochester, and of bishop Sprat. In December 1700, he published a second edition of “The Rights,” considerably enlarged, and with his name, and a dedication to the two archbishops. This was immediately answered by Drs. Kennet, Hody, and Wake. Another controversy of some importance was at this time also ably agitated by Atterbury, the execution of the prtemunienles, a privilege enjoyed by the several bishops of issuing writs to summon the inferior clergy to convocation. Bishops Compton, Sprat, and Trelawny, were his strenuous supporters on this occasion, and by the latter he was presented to the archdeaconry of Totness, in which he was installed Jan. 29, 1700-1. His attendance in convocation was regular, and his exertions great. In placing Dr. Hooper in the prolocutor’s chair, as the successor of Dr. Jane in the examination of obnoxious books in the controversy between the lower and upper houses in considering the methods of promoting the propagation of religion in foreign parts and in preparing an address to the king, his zeal distinguished itself. About this time he was engaged, with some other learned divines, in revising an intended edition of the Greek Testament, with Greek Scholia, collected chiefly from the fathers, by Mr. archdeacon Gregory. On the 29th of May he preached before the House of Commons; and on Aug. 16, published “The power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,” which was a sort of analysis of the whole controversy. He also published “A letter to a clergyman in the country, concerning the Choice of Members, &c.” Nov. 17, 1701; a second, with a similar title, Dec. 10, 1701; and a third, in defence of the two former, Jan. 8, 1701-2. In October he published “The parliamentary origin and rights of the Lower House of Convocation, cleared, &c.” At this period he was popular as preacher at the Rolls Chapel, an office which had been conferred on him by sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, in 1698, when he resigned JBridewell, which he had obtained in 1693. Upon the accession of queen Anne, in 1702, Dr. Atterbury was appointed one of her majesty’s chaplains in ordinary and, in July 1704, was advanced to the deanery of Carlisle but, owing to the obstacles thrown in his way by bishop Nicolson, he was not instituted tintil Oct. 12, and the same year Sir Jonathan Trelawny bestowed on him a canonry of Exeter. About two years after this, he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Hoadly, concerning the advantages of virtue with regard to the present life, occasioned by his sermon, preached August 30, 1706, at the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, a bookseller. The doctrine of this sermon Mr. Hoadly examined, in “A letter to Dr. Francis Atterbury, concerning Virtue and Vice,” published in 1706.; in which he undertakes to shew, that Dr. Atterbury has extremely mistaken the sense of his text. Dr. Atterbury, in a volume of Sermons published by himself, prefixed a long preface to the sermon at Mr. Bennet’s funeral in which he replies to Mr. Hoadly’s arguments, and produces the concurrent testimonies of expositors, and the authorities of the best writers, especially our English divines, in confirmation of the doctrine he had advanced. In answer to this “Preface,” Mr. Hoadly published in 170&, “Asecond letter,” &c. and in the Preface to his “Tracts,” tells us, these two letters against Dr. Atterbury were designed to vindicate and establish the tendency of virtue and morality to the present happiness of such a creature as man is which he esteems a point of the utmost importance to the Gospel itself. In Jan. 1707-8 he published a volume of Sermons, 8vo, and in the same year “Reflections on a late scandalous report about the repeal of the Test Act.” In 1709, he was engaged in a fresh dispute with Mr, Hoadly, concerning Passive Obedience, occasioned by his Latin sermon, entitled “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem, habita in Ecclesia S. Elphegi.” Atterbury, in his pamphlet entitled “Some proceedings in Convocation, A. D. 1705, faithfully represented,” had charged Mr. Hoadly (whom he sneeringly calls “the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadly”) with treating the body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state.“This induced Mr. Hoadly to set about a particular examination of Dr. Atterbury' s Latin Sermon; which he did in a piece, entitled” A large Answer to Dr. Atterbury’s Charge of Rebellion, &c. London a 1710,“wherein he endeavours to lay open the doctor’s artful management of the controversy, and to let the reader into his true meaning and design which, in an” Appendix“to the” Answer,“he represents to be” The carrying on two different causes, upon two sets of contradictory principles“in order to” gain himself applause amongst the same persons at the same time, by standing up for and against liberty; by depressing the prerogative, and exalting it by lessening the executive power, and magnifying it by loading some with all infamy, for pleading for submission to it in one particular which he supposeth an mcroachment, and by loading others with the same infamy for pleading against submission to it, in cases that touch the happiness of the whole community.“” This,“he tells us,” is a method of controversy so peculiar to one person (Dr. Atterbury) as that he knows not that it hath ever been practised, or attempted by any other writer.“Mr. Hoadly has likewise transcribed, in this Appendix, some remarkable passages out of our author’s” Rights, Powers, and Privileges, &c." which he confronts with others, from his Latin Sermon.

In 1710 came on the celebrated trial of Dr. Sacheverell, whose remarkable speech on that occasion was generally supposed to have been drawn up by our author, to whom Sacheverell, in his last will, bequeathed 500l. in conjunction with Smalridge and Freind. The same year Dr. Atterbury was unanimously chosen prolocutor of the lower house of convocation, and had the chief management of affairs in that house. This we learn from bishop Burnet.In his account of this convocation, having observed, that the queen, in appointing a committee of bishops to be present, and consenting to their resolutions, not only passed over all the bishops made in king William’s reign, but a great many of those named by herself, and set the bishops of Bristol and St. David’s, then newly consecrated, in a distinction above all their brethren, by adding them to the committee, upon the indisposition of the archbishop and others, he adds “All this was directed by Dr. Atterbury, who had the confidence of the chief minister and because the other bishops had maintained a good correspondence with the former ministry, it was thought fit to put the marks of the queen’s distrust upon them, that it might appear with whom her royal favour and trust wa^ lodged.” May 11, 1711, he was appointed, by the convocation, one of the committee for comparing Mr. Whiston’s doctrines with those of the church of England and, in June following, he had the chief hand in drawing up “A Representation of the present State of Religion.” In 1712, Dr. Atterbury was made dean of Christ Church, notwithstanding the strong interest and warm applications of several great men in behalf of his competitor Dr. Smalridge but, “no sooner was he settled there,” says Stackhouse, “than all ran into disorder and confusion. The canons had been long accustomed to the mild and gentle government of a dean, who had every thing in him that was endearing to mankind, and could not therefore brook the wide difference that they perceived in Dr. Atterbury. That imperious and despotic manner, in which he seemed resolved to carry every thing, made them more tenacious of their rights, and inclinable to make fewer concessions, the more he endeavoured to grasp at power, and tyrannize. This opposition raised the ferment, and, in a short time, there ensued such strife and contention, such bitter words and scandalous quarrels among them, that it was thought adviseable to remove him, on purpose to restore peace and tranquillity to that learned body, and that tether colleges might not take the infection a new method of obtaining preferment, by indulging such a temper, and pursuing such practices, as least of all deserve it In a word,” adds this writer, “wherever he came, under one pretence or other, but chiefly under the notion of asserting his rights and privileges, he had a rare talent of fomenting discord, and blowing the coals of contention which made a learned successor (Dr. Smalridge) in two of his preferments complain of his hard fate, in being forced to carry water after him, to extinguish the flames, which his litigiousness had every where occasioned.” The next year saw him at the top of his preferment, as well as of his reputation for, in the beginning of June 1713, the queen, at the recommendation of lord chancellor Harcourt, advanced him to the bishopric of Rochester, with the deanery of Westminster in commendam he was confirmed July 4, and consecrated at Lambeth next day.

In this memorable year, the government, on a suspicion of his being concerned in a plot in favour of the Pretender, had him apprehended August 24, and committed prisoner to the Tower. Two officers, the under-secretary, and a messenger, went about two o'clock in the afternoon to the bishop’s house at Westminster, with orders to bring him and his papers before the council. He happened to be in his night-gown when they came in, and being made acquainted with their business, he desired time to dress himself. In the mean time his secretary came in, and the officers went to search for his papers in the sealing of which the messenger brought a paper, which he pretended to have found in his close-siool, and desired it might be sealed up with the rest. His lordship observing it, and believing it to be a forged one, desired the officers not to do it, and to bear witness that the paper was not found with him. Nevertheless they did it and, though they behaved themselves with some respect to him, they suffered the. messengers to treat him in a very rough manner, threatening him, if he did not make haste to dress himself, they would carry him away undrest as he was. Upon which he ordered his secretary to see his papers all sealed up, and went himself directly to the Cockpit, where the council waited for him. The behaviour of the messengers upon this occasion seems to have been very unwarrantable, if what the author of “A letter to the Clergy of the Church of England,” &c. tells us, be true, that the persons directed by order of the king and council to seize his lordship and his papers, received a strict command to treat him with great respect and reverence. However this was, when he came before the council, he behaved with a great deal of calmness, and they with much civility towards him. He had liberty to speak for himself as much as he pleased, and they listened to his defence with a great deal of attention; and, what is more unusual, after he was withdrawn, he had twice liberty to re-enter the council-chamber, to make for himself such representations and requests as he thought proper. It is said, that while he was under examination, he made use of our Saviour’s answer to the Jewish council, while he stood before them “If I tell you, ye will not believe me and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.” After three quarters of an hour’s stay at the Cockpit, he was sent to the Tower, privately, in his own coach, without any noise or observation.

It has been said that Atterbury’s wishes reached to the bishopric of London, or even to York or Canterbury. But those who were better acquainted with his views, knew that Winchester would have been much more desirable to him than either of the others. And it has been asserted, from respectable authority, that that bishopric was offered to him whenever it should become vacant (and till that event should happen, a pension of 5000l. a-year, besides an ample provision for Mr. Morice) if he would cease to give the opposition he did to sir Robert Wai pole’s administration, by his speeches and protests in the House of Lords. When that offer was rejected by the bishop, then the contrivance for his ruin was determined on but surely no contrivance could have been successful, had he been innocent of the treason laid to his charge.

His body was brought over to England, accompanied by his manuscripts, which underwent a strict examination but as nothing of his is now to be found in the State-paper office, it is probable that the whole was lost by neglect, or wilfully destroyed. He was interred on the 12th of May following, in Westminster abbey, in a vault which, in 1722, had been prepared by his directions. There is no memorial over his grave nor could there well be any, unless his friends would have consented (which it is most probable they refused to do) that the words implying him to have died bishop of Rochester should have been omitted on his tomb. The funeral was performed in a very private manner, attended only by his son-in-law Mr. Morice, and his two chaplains, Dr. Savage and Mr. Moore. Upon the urn which contained his bowels was inscribed,

As to bishop Atterbury’s character, however the moral and political part of it may have been differently represented by the opposite parties, it is universally agreed, that he was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, a fine writer, and a most excellent preacher. His learned friend Smalridge, in the speech he made, when he presented him to the upper house of convocation, as prolocutor, styles him “Vir in nullo literarum genere hospes, in plerisque artibus et studiis diu et feliciter exercitatus, in maxime perfectis literarum disciplinis perfectissimus.” In his controversial writings, he was sometimes too severe upon his adversary, and dealt rather too much in satire and invective but this his panegyrist imputes more to the natural fervour of his wit, than to any bitterness of temper, or prepense malice. In his sermons, however, he is not only every way unexceptionable, but highly to be commended. The truth is, his talent as a preacher was so excellent and remarkable, that it may not improperly he said, that he owed his preferment to the pulpit, nor any hard matter to trace him, through his writings, to his several promotions in the church. We shall conclude bishop Atterbury’s character, as a preacher, with the encomium bestowed on him by the author of “The Tatler” who, having observed that the English clergy too much neglect the art of speaking, makes a particular exception with regard to our prelate; who, says he, “has so particular a regard to his congregation, that he commits to his memory what he has to say to them, and has so soft and graceful a behaviour, that it must attract your attention. His person,” contnues this author, “it is to be confessed, is no small recommendation but he is to be highly commended for not losing that advantage, and adding to a propriety of speech (which might pass the criticism of Longinus) an action which would have been approved by Demosthenes. He has a peculiar force in his way, and has many of his audience, who could not be intelligent hearers of his discourse, were there no explanation as well as grace in his action. This art of his is used with the most exact and honest skill. He never attempts your passions till he has convinced your: reason. All the objections which you can form are laid open and dispersed, before he uses the least vehemence in his sermon; but when he thinks he has your head, he very soon wins your heart, and never pretends to shew the beauty of holiness, till he has convinced you of the truth of it.” In his letters to Pope, &c. bishop Atterbury appears in a pleasing light, both as a writer and as a man. In ease and elegance they are superior to those of Pope, which are more studied. There are in them several beautiful references to the classics. The bishop excelled in his allusions to sacred as well as profane authors.

The following anecdote was first communicated to the public by the late Dr. Maty, on the credit of lord Chesterfield: “I went,” said lord Chesterfield, “to Mr. Pope, one morning, at Twickenham, and found a large folio Bible, with gilt clasps, lying before him upon his table and, as I knew his way of thinking upon that book, I asked him jocosely, if he was going to write an answer to it It is a present, said he, or rather a legacy, from my old friend the bishop of Rochester. I went to take my leave of him yesterday in the Tower, where I saw this Bible upon his table. After the first compliments, the bishop said to me,” My friend Pope, considering your infirmities, and my age and exile, it is not likely that we should ever meet again and therefore I give you this legacy to remember me by it. Take it home with you, and let me advise you to abide by it.“” Does your lordship abide by it yourself“” I do.“If you do, my lord, it is but lately. May I beg to know what new light or arguments have prevailed with you now, to entertain an opinion so contrary to that which you entertained of that book all the former part of your life r” The bishop replied, “We have not time to talk of these things, but take home the book; I will abide by it, and I recommend you to do so too, and so God bless you.” It has been justly remarked^ that whatever were the bishop’s faults, we do not recollect any thing that indicates a disbelief or a doubt of the truth of Christianity. His actions and writings rather display him in the light of a zealous supporter of religion than in that of an infidel. His sermons on the miraculous propagation of the Gospel, and on a standing revelation’s being the best means of conviction, not to mention others of his discourses, are important evidences of his attachment to the Christian religion. It is observable, that he generally treats unbelievers with contempt, as an ignorant, superficial, and conceited set of men, which he vyould scarcely have done had he been of the same sentiments for, though a man may conceal, or deny, or even persecute the opinions which he himself holds, it is not very likely that he should appear to despise the retainers of them. With respect to the above anecdote related by Dr. Maty, the late Mr. Badcock, from a zeal to vindicate the bishop’s character, as if it were insinuated that he had once been an unbeliever, wrote a letter in which he endeavoured to deny the authenticity of the anecdote but, in our opinion, without arriving at that conclusion.

, was a celebrated Roman knight, to whom Cicero wrote a great number of letters, which contain the general history of the times. These are still extant, divided into seventeen books but it is the excellence of Atticus’s private character which has procured him a place in most collections of this description. He was a man of such prudence, that, without departing from his neutrality, he preserved the esteem and affection of all parties. He sent money to the younger Marius, who had been declared an enemy to the commonwealth yet was so much in favour with Sylla, that this Roman general would always have had him with him. He kept himself quiet at Rome during the war between Caesar and Pompey, without giving offence to the one or the other, and he sent money to Brutus, while he was doing kind offices to An­%ony. Afterwards, in the cruel divisions which arose between Antony and Augustus, he contrived to preserve the friendship of both, difficult as it must have been in the case of two such antagonists. The strict friendship he had with Cicero., did not hinder him from being intimate with Hortensius and he was the cause (as Nepos, his biographer, tells us) that these two rivals not only ceased from mutual reproaches, but even lived together upon very good terms. The contests between the parties of Cinna and Marius induced him to go to Athens young, where he continued a long time, and became such a favourite with the Athenians, that the day he left them was a day of mourning. He never attempted to raise himself above the rank of life in which he was born, which was that of knight, although he might have obtained the highest posts in the republic but he chose to renounce all pretensions to them, because, in the then prevailing corruption, he could neither gain nor discharge them according to the laws, and as a man of integrity; no inconsiderable proof of his virtue, notwithstanding he has been charged with avarice and political duplicity. He did not marry till he was fifty-three, and had only a daughter, who was married to Agrippa from which marriage came a daughter, whom Augustus betrothed to Tiberius almost as soon as she was born. He reached the age of seventy-seven years, almost without knowing bodily illness but when his last sickness, which was slight for three months, at length became painful, he sent for Agrippa, his son-in-law, and two other persons, and declared to them a resolution to put an end to his life, by abstinence from food. Agrippa remonstrated with tears, but all in vain. After two days abstinence, the fever left him, and the disease abated but Atticus persisted, and died three days after. This happened in the year of Rome 721.

, patriarch of Constantinople in the beginning of the fifth century, was born at Sebastia, now Soustia, a city of Armenia. He was first educated by the Macedonian monks in the principles of their sect, but when arrived at riper years, he embraced the faith of the Catholic church. In the year 406, being then a priest, he was chosen to succeed St. Chrysostom, who had been deprived of the see of Constantinople, but met with much obstruction from the friends of Chrysostom, and from all the bishops of the East, who considered Chrysostom as unjustly deprived, and refused to communicate with the new patriarch. Atticus, upon this, procured an edict from the emperor to compel them, but finding this produced no other effect than schism and confusion, after the death of Chrysostom he ordered his name to be put in the Diptychs, or ecclesiastical tables, in which were inserted the names of persons who had died in the peace and communion of the church, and those names were read at the altar during divine service. He also wrote to St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, earnestly intreating him to do the same, but Cyril answered that he should by that step appear to condemn those who had deposed Chrysostom. Both these letters are extant in Nicephorus Calixtus’s Ecclesiastical History. There is another letter of his extant to Calliopius, by which he appears to have been a man of moderate principles towards those who differed from him in opinion. There are likewise some fragments of a homily on the birth of Christ, in the general collection of the Councils, and a fragment of a letter of his to Eupsychius, quoted by Theodoret. Writers differ much in their estimate of his general character and learning.

, or Avanzi Giammarie, a celebrated Italian lawyer, was born Aug. 23, 1564. He was educated with great care, and discovered so much taste for polite literature, that Riccoboni, his master, said, he was the only youth he had ever known who seemed to be born a poet and orator. His father wished him to study medicine, but his own inclination led him to study law, in which he soon became distinguished. At Ferrara he acquired an intimacy with Tasso, Guarini, Cremonini, and other eminent characters of that time. He afterwards retired to Rovigo, and practised as a lawyer, but was singularly unfortunate in his personal affairs, not only losing a considerable part of his property by being security for some persons who violated their engagements, but having his life attempted by assassins who attacked him one day and left him for dead with eighteen wounds. He recovered, however, but his brother being soon after assassinated, and having lost his wife, he retired, in 1606, to Padua, where he died, March 2, 1622, leaving several children, of whom Charles, his second son, became a learned physician and botanist. Avanzi wrote a poem “Il Satiro Favola Pastorale,” Venice, 1587, and dedicated it to the emperor Ferdinand, who rewarded him amply, and wished to bring him to his court, by the offer of the place of counsellor of state. He left in manuscript, a church history, “Historia Ecclesiastica a Lutheri apostasia;” and “Concilia de rebus civilibus et criminalibus.”

, a learned physician of the sixteenth century, was born at Vendome, and became a doctor of medicine and philosophy. He died at Lausanne in 1586. His principal works are, 1. “De Metallorum ortu et causis, contra Chymistas, brevis explicatio,” Ley den, 1575, 8vo. 2. “*Duae Apologeticae Responsiones ad Josephum Quercetanum,” ibid. 1576. 3. “Progymnasmata in Johan. Fernelii librum de abditis rerum naturalium et medicamentorum causis,” Basil, 1579, 8vo. 4. “Semeiotica, sive ratio dignoscendarum sediura male affectarum, et affectuum preter naturam,” Lausanne, 1587, and Leyden, 1596, 8vo. 5. “Libellus de Peste,” Lausanne, 1571, 8vo. 6. “Des natures et complexions des hommes, &c.” Lausanne, 1571, Paris, 1572. This w uspect is a French translation. The original is not mentioned by Manget or Haller.

, an eminent English antiquary, descended from an ancient family in Wiltshire, was born at Easton-Piers in that county, Nov. 3, 1625 or 1626. He received the first rudiments of his education in the grammar-school at Malmesbury, under Mr. Robert Latimer; who had also been preceptor to the famous Thomas Hobbes, with whom Mr. Aubrey commenced an early friendship, which lasted as long as Mr. Hobbes lived. In 1642, Mr. Aubrey was entered a gentleman-commoner of Trinity college at Oxford, where he pursued his studies with great diligence, making the history and antiquities of England his peculiar object. About this time the famous “Monasticon Anglicanum” was talked of in the university, to which Mr. Aubrey contributed considerable assistance, and procured, at his own expence, a curious draught of the remains of Osney abbey near Oxford, which were entirely destroyed in the civil wars. This was afterwards engraved by Hollar, and inserted in the Mouasticon with an inscription by Aubrey. In 1646 he was admitted of the Middle Temple, but the death of his father hindered him from pursuing the law. He succeeded to several estates in the counties of Wilts, Surrey, Hereford, Brecknock, and Monmouth, but they were involved in many law-suits. These suits, together with other misfortunes, by degrees consumed all his estates, and forced him to lead a more active life than he was otherwise inclined to. He did not, however, break off his acquaintance with the learned at Oxford or at London, but kept up a close correspondence with the lovers of antiquity and natural philosophy in the university, and furnished Anthony Wood with a considerable part of the materials for his two large works. W r ood, however, in his own life, does not speak very respectfully of his assistant. He calls him a pretender to antiquities, and after giving an account of the origin of their acquaintance, of the gay appearance which Aubrey made at Oxford, and of his subsequent poverty, Wood adds, “He was a shiftless person, roving and magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than erased. And being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and mis-informations, which sometimes would guide him into the paths of error.”

The character Mr. Malone has given him, in his “Historical account of the English Stage,” is worthy of transcription, as the opinion of one who has had every opportunity to investigate his merits. “That,” says Mr. Malone, “the greater part of his life was devoted to literary pursuits, is ascertained by the works which he has published, the correspondence which he held with many eminent men, and the collections which he left in manuscript, and which are now reposited in the Ashtnolean Museum. Among these collection* is a curious account of our English poets and many other writers. While Wood was preparing his Athenoe Oxonienses, this manuscript was lent to him, as appears from many queries in his hand-writing in the margin and his account of Milton, with whom Aubrey was intimately acquainted, is (as has been observed by Mr. Warton) literally transcribed from thence. Wood afterwards quarreled with Mr. Aubrey, whom in the second volume of his Fasti, p. 262, he calls his friend, and on whom, in his History of the University of Oxford he bestows the highest encomium; and, after their quarrel, with his usual warmth, and, in his loose diction, he represented Aubrey as a pretender, &c. But whatever Wood in a peevish humour may have thought or said of Mr. Aubrey, by whose labours he highly profited, or however fantastical Aubrey may have been on the subject of chemistry and ghosts, his character for veracity has never been impeached and as a very diligent antiquary, his testimony is worthy of attention. Mr. Toland, who was well acquainted with him, and certainly a better judge of men than Wood, gives this character of him” Though he was extremely superstitious, or seemed to be so, yet he was a very honest man, and most accurate in his account of matters of fact. But the facts he knew, not the reflections he made, were what I wanted."

The manuscripts mentioned by. Mr. Malone, now in the Museum at Oxford, are, “An Apparatus for the Lives of our English mathematical and other writers an Interpretation of Villare Anglicanum Designatio de Easton-Piers in com. Wilts A volume of Letters and other papers of E. Ashmole’s, relating chiefly to Dr. Dee and sir Edward Kelly two volumes of Letters from eminent persons to John Aubrey, esq.” His principal works besides are, 1. “The Life of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury,” a manuscript written in English, but never published the principal part has been used by Dr. Blackbourne, in his Vitae Hobbianse auctarium,“published in 1681. 2.” Miscellanies on the following subjects 1. Day-fatality. 2. Local fatality. 3. Ostenta. 4. Omens. 5. Dreams. 6. Apparitions. 7. Voices. 8. Impulses. 9. Knockings. 10. Blows invisible. 11. Prophecies. 12. Marvels. 13. Magic. 14. Transportation in the air. 15. Visions in a beril or speculum. 16. Converse with angels and spirits. 17. Corpse candles in Wales. 18. Oracles. 19. Extasies. 20. Glances of love and envy. 21. Second-sighted persons. 22. The discovery of two murders by apparitions,“often reprinted. 3.” A Perambulation of the county of Surry, begun 1673, ended 1692.“This work the author left behind him in manuscript it was published, 1719, in five volumes 8vo, and is now scarce. 4.” Monumenta Britannica, or a discourse concerning Stone-henge and Rollich-stones in Oxfordshire“a manuscript. This is said to have been written at the command of Charles II t who meeting Mr. Aubrey at Stone-henge, as his majesty was returning from Bath, conversed with him in relation to that celebrated monument of antiquity; and also ^approved of his notion concerning it, which was this, that both it and the stones in Oxfordshire were the remains of places dedicated to sacred uses by the Druids, long before the time of the Roman invasion. See a letter from Mr. Paschal to Mr. Aubrey, prefixed to his Memoirs. 5.” Architectonica sacra,“a Dissertation concerning the manner of our Church-building in England,” a manuscript in the Museum at Oxford. 6. " The Idea of universal Education.' 5 There are besides many letters of our author relating to natural philosophy, and other curious subjects, published in several collections.

, president in the election, or court of assessors of Orleans, was a learned lawyer, and esteemed an excellent Latin poet in the sixteenth century. He studied at Bologna under Alciat, and on his return to France, wrote the greater part of his poems. The elogium on Venice induced that republic to bestow upon him the order of St. Mark, with the chain of gold of the order. Henry III. of France also granted him letters of nobility, and permitted him to add to his arms two fleur-de-lis of gold. Notwithstanding these honours, he continued to act as assessor at Orleans for the space of fifty years. He died Dec. 24, 1598, aged about eighty years. “He wrote” Roma, poema,“Paris, 1555, 4to. 2.” Venetia, poema- r Venice, 1583, 4to. 3. “Partenope,” Paris, 1585. These three werepublished together at Hanau, according to Bayle or Hanover, according to Moreri, in 1603. He wrote other poems which would have probably been published by his son, had he lived longer but he died five days after his father.

, an able astronomer and mathematician, was born at Saorgio, near Nice, in Provence, in 1714. At the age of sixteeeri he entered the order of St. Dominic, and made rapid progress in his studies, not only in sacred literature, but in mathematics, and the languages. In his thirty-fifth year he was appointed second librarian of the Casanata, and ten years aftenvards first librarian, which office he held until his death. His studies were extended to mathematics, astronomy, antiquities, natural history, criticism, and bibliography but astronomy was his favourite pursuit, on which he published many pieces. He was appointed by the late pope Pius VI. to make mineralogical observations on the new mines of Tolfa. He died July 3, 1794. His published works are, 1. “Mercurius in sole visus, observatio habita Romae, &c.” Rome, 1753, 4to. 2. “Phenomena ccelestia observata,” Rome, 1754, 8vo. 3. “Otia astronomica,” Rome, 1755, 4to. 4. “Novissimus Mercurii transitus,” Rome, 1756, 8vo. 5. “Passaggio di Venere, &c.” 4to, without place or date, but most probably 1761. 6. “Transitus Veneris, &c.” 1762. This appears to be cither the same work as the preceding, or a Latin translation. 7. “Investigatio Parallaxis Solaris, &c.” Rome,. 1765, 8vo, published under the anagrammatical name of Dadeus Ruffus. 8. “De Solis Parallaxi commentarius,” Rome, 1766, 8vo. 9. “Dimostrazione della theoria, &c.” of the Comet of the year 1769, published in a literary journal at Rome, 1770. 10. “Letere typografiche,” under the name of the abbe Nicolas Ugolini de Foligno, addressed to Xavier Laire, author of the historical essay on the Roman typography of the 15th century, Mentz, 1778, 8vo, a satirical attack on father Laire. 11. “Catalogus historico-criticus Romanarum editionum saeculi 15.” Rome, 1783, 4to. 12. “Catalogus librorum typis impressorum bibliothecae Casanatensis, praestantioribus notis et observationibus illustratus,” 4 vols. fol. 1762, 1768, 1775, 1788. 13. “Specimen historico-criticum editionum Italicarum ssGCuli 15,” Rome, 1794, 4to. In some of the foreign journals, are other essays by him on astronomical subjects.

, a French geographer, iyas a native of Draguignan in Provence, or according to other accounts, of Marseilles, and flourished about the beginning of the 18th century. In 1698, he was appointed envoy extraordinary to the courts of Mantua, Parma, and Modena. His work entitled “Geographic Ancienne, Moderne, & Historique,” Paris, 3 vols. 4to, 1689, 1691, and 5 vols. 12mo. Paris, 1694, has been much esteemed, as uniting very skilfully details of history with geography. It comprehends however only a part of Europej but that so well executed, that it is to be regretted he did not finish it. He died at Nancy, 1733, aged 76.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

In the Parliamentary History, there are the heads of several speeches delivered by sir Thomas Audley on different occasions, chiefly as lord chancellor. But they contain nothing in them peculiarly remarkable being either mere explanations of the business for which the two houses were assembled, or else abounding with the praises of king Henry VIII. In an age of the meanest compliances with the will of the prince, lord Audley undoubtedly equalled, if he did not exceed, all his contemporaries in servility.

, a Spanish writer, and a native of Tordesillas, is principally known as the author of the “Continuation, or second part of the history of Don Quixote,” which was published under the title “La Segunda Parte del Ingenioso Hidalgo D. Quixote de la Mancha,” 1614, 8vo. This, without being absolutely contemptible, is still very inferior to Cervantes’ s admirable production. It was afterwards translated, or rather imitated and new-modelled by Le Sage, and from this edition, an English translation was published about fifty or sixty years ago, in 2 vols. 8vo, but from the English work no proper judgment can be formed of the original. A more recent translation, which we have not seen, appeared in 1807. Pope has versified a tale from it in his Essay on Criticism.

, a Spaniard by birth, but ranks among the Arabian writers and philosophers of the twelfth century, wrote a commentary upon Euclid, and philosophical and theological epistles. He was intimately conversant with the Peripatetic philosophy, and applied it to the illustration of the Islamic system of theology, and to the explanation of the Koran. On this account, he was suspected of heresy, and thrown into prison at Corduba. He is said to have been poisoned at Fez, in the year i 137, or according to others, in 1129. His works were translated into Latin, and were well known to Thomas Aquinas, and the old schoolmen.

, an eminent Arabian physician, flourished about the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century. He was of noble descent, and born at Seville, the capital of Andalusia, where he exercised his profession with great reputation. His grandfather and father were both physicians. The large estate he inherited from his ancestors rendered it unnecessary for him to practise for gain, and he therefore took no fees from the poor, or from artificers, though he refused not the presents of princes and great men. His liberality extended even to his enemies; for which reason he used to say, that they hated him not for any fault of his, but rather out of envy. Dr. Freind thinks that he lived to the age of 135, that he began to practise at 40 or, as others say, at 20, and had the advantage of a. longer experience than almost any one ever had, as he enjoyed perfect health to his last hour. He left a son, known also by the name of Ebn Zohr, who followed his father’s profession, was in great favour with Al-Mansor emperor of Morocco, and wrote several treatises of physic. Avenzoar was contemporary with Averroes, who, according to Leo Africanus, heard the lectures of the former, and learned physic of him. Avenzoar, however, is reckoned by the generality of writers an empiric, although Dr. Freind observes that this character suits him less than any of the Arabians. He wrote a book on the “Method of preparing Medicines,” which is much esteemed. It was translated into Hebrew in the year 1280, and thence into Latin by Paravicius, and printed at Venice in 1490, fol. and again in 1553.

was born at Florence the 19th of March 1662, the youngest of the three sons of John Francis Averani. Benedict, the eldest, made himself famous for his eloquence and the thorough knowledge he had of the Greek and Roman classics while Nicholas, the other brother, so greatly excelled in jurisprudence and all kinds of mathematical learning, as to be reckoned among the foremost in those studies. Joseph received the first rudiments of learning from his father, after which he was put under the tuition of Vincent Glarea, a Jesuit, who then gave public lectures on rhetoric at Florence, with whom he made uncommon progress. He was taught Greek by Antonius Maria Salvini, and advanced so rapidly in his studies, that, in a short time, whether he wrote in Italian, or Latin, or Greek, he shewed an intimate acquaintance with the ancient writers. Young as he was, however, he did not confine himself to oratorical performances alone, but exercised himself in poetry, for which he had much taste. He next applied to the study of the peripatetic philosophy, taking for his guide John Francis Vannius, the Jesuit. After pursuing a variety of studies, with astonishing success, he at length attached himself to mathematics and natural philosophy. When at Pisa he applied to the study of the law and at his leisure hours, in the first year of his residence there, he translated Archimedes with the commentaries of Eutocius Ascalonita out of Greek into Latin, adding many remarks of his own in explanation and illustration of those books which treat of the sphere and cylinder, the circles, the spheroids and conies, and the quadrature of the parabola. He shortly after wrote a treatise on the Momenta of heavy bodies on inclined planes, in defence of Galileo against the attacks of John Francis Vannius, but did not publish it. He cleared up many obscurities in Apollonius Pergaeus. These and other studies did not retard the wonderful progress he made in jurisprudence, which induced Cosmo III. of Medicis to appoint him public teacher of the institutes of civil law in the academy of Pisa. It is to be lamented that none of the orations which he made in this capacity have reached us, except one on the principles of jurisprudence, medicine, and theology. He published two books of the interpretations of the law. The applause with which these were received, induced him to join to them three more books, in the composition and arrangement of which he passed many years. He made a great variety of discoveries in experimental philosophy. He applied himself earnestly to ascertain the time in which sound is propagated, and to discover whether its velocity is retarded by contrary and increased by fair winds. These and other experiments he made at the request of Laurentio Magoloti, who communicated them to the royal society of London i.nd the society in return admitted Averani as an honorary member. Upon the death of his brother Benedict, he sought for consolation in composing an elegiac poem in his praise, and in writing his life in Latin. He died on the 22d of September 1738, lamented as one of the ablest and best of men.

This rapid advancement of Averroes brought upon him the envy of his rivals at Corduba who conspired to lodge an accusation against him, for an heretical desertion of the true Mahometan faith. For this purpose, they engaged several young persons among their dependants, to apply to him for instruction in philosophy. Averroes, who was easy of access, and always desirous of communicating knowledge, complied with their request, and thus fell into the snare that had been laid for him. His new pupils were very industrious in taking minutes of every tenet or opinion advanced by their preceptor, which appeared to contradict the established system of Mahometan theology. These minutes they framed into a charge of heresy, and attested upon oath, that they had been fairly taken from his lips. The charge was signed by an hundred witnesses. The caliph listened to the accusation, and punished Averroes, by declaring him heterodox, confiscating his goods, and commanding him for the future to reside among the Jews, who inhabited the precincts of Corduba where he remained an object of general persecution and obloquy. Even the boys in the streets pelted him with stones, when he went up to the mosque in the city to perform his devotions. His pupil, Maimonides, that he might not be under the necessity of violating the laws of friendship and gratitude, by joining the general cry against Averroes, left Corduba. From this unpleasant situation Averroes at last found means to escape. He fled to Fez, but had been there only a few days, when he was discovered by the magistrate, and committed to prison. The report of his flight from Corduba was soon carried to the king, who immediately called a council of divines and lawyers, to determine in what manner this heretic should be treated. The members of the council were not agreed in opinion. Some strenuously maintained, that a man who held opinions so contrary to the law of the prophet deserved death. Others thought that much mischief, arising from the dissatisfaction of those among the infidels who were inclined to favour him, might be avoided, by only requiring from the culprit a public penance, and recantation of his errors. The milder opinion prevailed and Averroes was brought out of prison to the gate of the mosque, and placed upon the upper step, with his head bare, at the time of public prayers and every one, as he passed into the mosque, was allowed to spit upon his face. At the close of the service, the judge, with his attendants, came to the philosopher, and asked him whether he repented of his heresies. He acknowledged his penitence, and was dismissed without further punishment, with the permission of the king. Averroes returned to Corduba, where he experienced all the miseries of poverty and contempt. In process of time the people became dissatisfied with the regent who had succeeded Averroes, and petitioned the king that their former governor might be restored. Jacob Al-Mansor, not dar.ng to show sucli indulgence to one who had been infamous for heresy, without the consent of the priesthood, called a general assembly, in which it was debated, whether it would be consistent with the safety of religion, and the honour of the law, that Averroes should be restored to the government of Corduba. The deliberation terminated in favour of the penitent heretic, and he was restored, by the royal mandate, to all his former honours. Upon this fortunate change in his affairs, Averroes removed to Morocco, where he remained till his death, which happened, as some say, in 1195, or according to others in 1206.

In philosophy, he partook of the enthusiasm of the times with respect to Aristotle, and paid a superstitious deference to his authority but extravagant as he was in this respect, it is unquestionably true, that he was unacquainted with the Greek language, and read the writings of his oracle in wretched Arabic translations, taken immediately from Latin or Syriac versions. The necessary consequence was, that his “Commentaries on Aristotle” were nothing better than a confused mass of error and misrepresentation. Yet such is the power of prejudice, that many learned men, since the revival of letters, have passed high encomiums upon Averroes as an excellent commentator. His writings of this kind were exceedingly numerous, and were so much admired by the Jews, that many of them were translated into Hebrew. Besides these, he wrote “a paraphrase of Plato’s Republic” and a treatise in defence of philosophy against Al-Gazal, entitled “Happalath hahappalah,” commonly cited under the name of “Destructorium Destructorii,” and many other treatises in theology, jurisprudence, and medicine. He took great pains to improve the theory of medicine by the help of philosophy, and particularly to reconcile Aristotle and Galen, but it does not appear that he practised physic. Few of his writings are to be met with, except in Hebrew or Latin translations. His “Commentary on Aristotle” was published in Latin at Venice, in folio, 1495. An edition of his works was published in 4to, at Lyons, in 1537 another, in folio, with the former Latin translations, by Bagolin, at Venice, in 1552 and a third by Mossa, at Venice, in 1608.

Much has been asserted concerning the impiety of Averroes, but as Brucker thinks, without sufficient proof. It is probable, however, that he adhered with more devotion to Aristotle than to Mahomet, or any other legislator for it appears that, after Aristotle, he held the eternity of the world, and the existence of one universal intellect, inferior to Deity, the external source of all human intelligence, and consequently denied the distinct existence and immortality of the human soul.

, a very ancient English historian, of whose personal history, however, we know little. In the title of his history he calls himself register of the archbishop of Canterbury’s court, His design seems to have been to compose a history of the reign of Edward III. from such authentic materials as came to his hands but when he had laboured about thirty years, he was surprised by death, in the latter end of 1356, or in the beginning of the year following. In this work we have a plain narrative of facts, with an apparent candour and impartiality but his chief excellence lies in his accuracy in point of dates, and his stating all public actions from records, rather than from his own notions. This work, however, remained long in manuscript, and undiscovered by some of our most industrious antiquaries. It was unknown to Leland and to Bale, and the first who mentioned it and had seen it was Fox the martyrologist. ^Archbishop Parker had also perused it, and so had Stowe, who mentions Avesbury in his Chronicle, and from him Pits ventures to tell us, that he flourished about 1340, but does not add that he had any acquaintance with his works. Du Fresne, in his Index of Writers, places Avesbury in the same year. Mr. Jocelyn, however, who was chaplain to archbishop Parker, never saw this ms. though in his patron’s possession, nor did it fall under the inspection of Anthony Wood.

, in Latin Augentius, a native of Villeneuve, in the diocese of Sens in Champagne, lived in the sixteenth century, and was esteemed on account of his learning and writings. The office of the king’s professor in the Greek tongue in the university of Paris was designed for him in 1574, and he took possession of it in 1578. He was also preceptor to the son of that Francis Olivier who was chancellor of France, as appears from the preliminary epistle of a book, which he dedicated to Anthony Olivier bishop of Lombes, and uncle to his pupil, dated from Paris the 1st of March 1555. The time of his death is not certainly known but Francis Parent, his successor in the professorship of the Greek tongue, entered upon it in 1595, and Moreri gives that as the date of Auge’s death. He wrote, 1. “A consolatory oration upon the death of Messire Francis Olivier, chancellor of France,” Paris, 1560. 2. “Two dialogues concerning Poetical Invention, the true knowledge of the Art of Oratory, and of the Fiction of Fable,” Paris, 1560. 3. “A discourse upon the Decree made by the parliament of Dole in Burgundy with relation to a man accused and convicted of being a Werewolf.” 4. “The institution of a Christian Prince, translated from the Greek of Synesius, bishop of Syrene, with an oration concerning the True Nobility, translated from the Greek of Phiio Judseus,” Paris, 1555. 5. “Four homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian,” Paris, and Lyons 1559. 6. “A letter to the noble and virtuous youth Anthony Thelin, son of the noble Thelin, author of the book entitled `Divine Tracts,' in which is represented the true Patrimony and Inheritance which fathers ought to leave to their children.” This letter is printed in the beginning of the above-mentioned “Divine Tracts,” Paris, 1565. He revised and corrected them, Paris, 1556. 6. “A French translation of the most beautiful Sentences and Forms of Speaking in the familiar Epistles of Cicero.” The “Discourse upon the Decree,” &c. relates to a man convicted of having murdered and eat one or two persons, for which he was burnt alive.

, a distinguished French critic, was born at Paris, Dec. 12, 1724, embraced the clerical profession, and obtained the chair of the professor of belles lettres in the college of Rouen. The bishop of Lescar No6 made him his grand vicar, and usually called him his grand vicar in partibus Atheniensium, in allusion to his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, from which he had made translations of the greater part of the orators, with much purity. He was received into the academy of Inscriptions, where he was much esteemed for his learning and personal virtues. He lived, it is said, among the great, and told them truth, and to his opponents was remarkable for canckmr and urbanity. In his private character he appears to have been distinguished for a love of letters, and an independent and philosophic spirit which kept him from soliciting patronage or preferment. He died Feb. 7, 1791. His principal works were, “The Orations of Demosthenes and Eschines on the crown,” Rouen,. 1768, 12mo; “The whole works of Demosthenes and Eschines,” 6 vols. 8vo, 1777 and 1788. This is accompanied with remarks upon the genius and productions of these two great orators, with critical notes on the Greek text, a preliminary discourse concerning eloquence; a treatise on the jurisdiction and laws of Athens and other pieces, relative to Grecian laws and literature, which have great merit. His countrymen, however, do not speak highly of his translations, as conveying the fire and spirit of the original. They say he is exact and faithful, but cold. In 1781 he published, in 3 vols. 8vo, “The Works of Isocrates.” This is thought preferable to the former, yet still the French critics considered the translator as better acquainted with Greek than French the truth perhaps is, that the French language is less capable of receiving the fire and sublimity of the great orators than those critics are willing to suspect. In 1783 he published the “Works of Lysias,” 8vo; in 1785 “The homilies, discourses, and letters ef S. John Chrysostom,” 4 vols. 8vo; in 1787, “Select orations of Cicero,” in 3 vols. 8vo; in 1788, “Orations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and the works of Xenophon,” 2 vols. 8vo. In 1789, he published “Projet d' Education Publique” at least such is the title of the work, but we suspect it to be a re-publication of some “Discourses on Education, delivered in the Royal college at Rouen, to which are subjoined, Reflections upon Friendship,” which appeared first in 1775, and were commended for their spirit, taste, and judgment. Some political works were published in his name after his death, and a piece entitled De la Tragedie Grecque,“1792, 8vo. To his works also may be added an edition of” Isocrates, in Gr. and Lat." 3 vols. 8vo, and 4to, a very beautiful book. As an editor and critic, he discovers, in all his editions, much taste and judgment; but perhaps his countrymen do him no injury in supposing that the latter in general predomU nated.

, a French Jesuit, was born in 1530, at Allernan, a village in the diocese of Troyes, and became noted for his extraordinary skill in the conversion of heretics, that is, llugonots, or Protestants, of whom he is said to have recovered many thousands to the church. He was often in danger from his unsought services, and was once narrowly saved from the gallows by a minister of the reformed church, who hoped to gain him over to his party. This, however, only served to excite his ardour in the cause of proselytism, and he distinguished himself very remarkably at Lyons during the ravages of the plague. Henry III. appointed him to be his preacher and confessor, the first time in which this latter honour had been conferred. He was, however, either so conscientious or so unfortunate as neither to gain the affections of his prince, nor to preserve the good opinion and confidence of the Jesuits. After the death of Henry III. his superiors recalled him to Italy, and sent him from house to house, where he was considered as an excommunicated person, travelling on foot in the depth of winter; and of such fatigues he died in the sixty-first year of his age, in 1591. He wrote some controversial works in a very intemperate style. One of his pieces was published in 1568, under the title of “Pedagogue d‘armes a un Prince Chretien, pour entreprendre et achever heureusement une bonne guerre, victorieuse de tous les ennemis de son etat et de l’eglise.” Father Dorigny published the life of Auger in 1716, 12mo.

, an Italian, highly praised by Paul Jovius, and as much condemned by Scaliger, was born in 1441, at Rimini, of a noble family. He studied at Padua, and was professor of belles lettres in several universities, particularly Venice and Trevisa in the latter place he obtained the rank of citizen, and died there in 1524. His principal poem, “Chrysopoeia,” or the art of making, gold, occasioned his being supposed attached to alchymy but there is no foundation for this, unless his employing 'the technicals of the art in the manner of a didactic poet, who studies imagination more than utility. Leo X. to whom he dedicated the work, is said to have rewarded him by an empty purse, the only article he thought necessary to a man who could make gold. This poem was first printed at Venice, with, another on old age, entitled “Geronticon,” 1515 and as some proof that it was seriously consulted by alchymists, it has obtained a place in Grattorolo’s collection of alchymical authors, Bale, 1561, fol. in vol. III. of the “Theatrum Chemicum,” Strasburgh, 1613, and in Mangel’s “Bibl. Chemica.” His other Latin poems, consisting of odes, satires, and epigrams, were published under the title “Carmina,” Verona, 1491, 4to, and at Venice, 1505, 8vo. They are superior to most of the poetry of his age in elegance and taste, and in Ginguene’s opinion, approach nearly to the style and manner of the ancients. Augurello was also an accomplished Greek scholar, and well versed in antiquities, history, and philosophy, and in his poetry, without any appearance of pedantry, he frequently draws upon his stock of learning.

In the year 418, a general council was held at Carthage against the Pelagians. Augustin, who had formerly refuted their errors, now prepared nine articles against them, and evinced a zeal on the subject, which procured him the title of the “Doctor of grace.” After having thus triumphed over the enemies of the church, he had to contend with those of the empire. The Vandals, who had passed from Africa into Spain, under the conduct of their king Genseric, in the year 428, made themselves masters of a considerable part of that country, but Carthage and Hippo resisted them a long time. Augustin, when consulted by his associates, whether they ought to escape by flight, or wait for the barbarians, gave his opinion for the latter, as more becoming their duty and when the episcopal city was besieged by a great army, he encouraged his flock by his example and exhortations, He dreaded, nevertheless, lest Hippo should fall into the hands of the enemy, and prayed to God that he might be taken away before that calamity happened. His prayer, it would appear, was answered, as he was cut off, during the siege, by a violent fever, on the 2Sth of August, in the year 430, at the age of seventy-six. The Vandals, who took Hippo the year following, showed respect to his library, his works, and his body. The catholic bishops of Africa carried his body to Sardinia, the place to which they were driven by Thrasamond, king of* the Vandals and Luitprand, king of Lombardy, caused it to be conveyed, nearly two hundred years after, to Pavia. His works have been printed at Paris in 1679 and 1700, in eleven volumes, folio. But the author of the Bibliographical Dictionary says, there are two editions under the same date, and that the first is preferred, and is distinguished by the preface at the beginning of the first volume. In the first edition there are only five lines of the preface on the first page in the second edition there are more. In the tenth volume of the first edition there is a little tract, of half a leaf, preceding page 747, before the book “De Corruptions et Gratia,” which is not found in the second edition. There was another edition in 12 vols. fol. published also by the Benedictines at Antwerp, 1700 1703.

, or by contraction Austin (St.), usually styled the Apostle of the English, and the first archbishop of Canterbury, was originally a monk in the convent of St. Andrew at Rome, and was educated under St. Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory I. who undertook the conversion of the island of Britain. His inducement to this, in the life of St. Gregory, written by John Diaconus, introduces us to a string of puns, which we must refer to the manners and taste of the times, without surely impeaching the seriousness of Gregory, who in his present situation, as well as when pope, had no other visible motive for his zea], than the propagation of Christianity. Walking in the forum at Rome, he haprfened to see some very handsome youths exposed to sale, and being informed that they were of the island of Britain, and that the inhabitants of that island were Pagans, he regretted that such handsome youths should be destitute of true knowledge, and again asked the name of the nation. “Angli” was the answer on which he observed, “In truth they have angelic countenances, and it is a pity they should not be coheirs with angels in heaven.” When informed that they came from the province of Deira (Northumberland), he observed, “It is well, de mz, snatched from the wrath of God, and called to the mercy of Christ and when, in answer to another interrogatory, he was told that the name of their king was Ella, he said,” Alleluia, should be sung to God in those regions." More seriously impressed with a sense of his duty on this occasion, he requested pope Benedict to send some persons to our island on a mission, and offered to be one of the number. He was himself, however, too much a favourite with the Roman citizens to be suffered to depart, and it was not until he became pope, that he was enabled effectually to pursue his purpose. After his consecration in the year 595, he directed a presbyter, whom he had sent into France, to instruct some young Saxons, of seventeen or eighteen years of age, in Christianity, to act as missionaries and in the year 597, he sent about forty monks, including perhaps some of these new converts, with Augustine at their head. Having proceeded a little way on their journey, they began to dread the attempt of committing themselves to a savage and infidel nation, whose language they did not understand. In this dilemma, doubtful whether to return or proceed, they agreed to send back Augustine to Gregory, to represent their fears, and intreat that he would release them from their engagement. Gregory, however/ in answer, advised them to proceed, in confidence of divine aid, undaunted by the fatigue of the journey, or any other temporary obstructions, adding, that it would have been better not to have begun so good a work, than to recede from it afterwards. He also took every means for their accommodation, recommending them to the attention of Etherius, bishop of Aries, and providing for them such assistance in France, that at length they arrived safely in Britain.

Before proceeding to their success here, it is necessary to advert to some circumstances highly in their favour. Christianity, although not extended over the kingdom, was not at this period unknown in Britain, notwithstanding it had been much persecuted by the Saxons. They were at this time, however, disposed to look upon their Christian brethren with a more favourable eye, and the marriage of Ethelbert, king of Kent, in the year 570, with Birtha, or Bertha, daughter of Cherebert, king of France, a Christian princess of great virtue and merit, contributed not a little to abate the prejudices of that prince and his subjects against her religion, for the free exercise of which she had stipulated in her marriage contract. She was also allowed the use of a small church without the walls of Canterbury, where Luidhart, a French bishop, who came over in her retinue, with other clergymen, publicly performed all the rites of Christian worship, and by these means Christianity had some, although probably a very confined influence.

It is easy to suppose that a queen, thus sincere in her principles, would be very earnest in persuading her husband to give Augustine and his followers a hospitable reception, and Ethelbert accordingly assigned Augustine an habitation in the isle of Thanet. By means of French interpreters, whom the missionaries brought with them, they informed the king that they were come from Rome, and brought with them the best tidings in the world eternal life to those who received them, and the endless enjoyment of life hereafter. After some days, Ethelbert paid them a visit but being afraid of enchantments, things which, true or false, were then objects of terror, chose to receive them in the open air. The missionaries met him, singing litanies for their own salvation, and that of those for vvhojse sake they came thither; and then, by the king’s direction, unfolded the nature of their mission, and of the religion they wished to preach. The substance of the king’s answer was, that he could not, without further consideration, abandon the religion of his forefathers, but as they had come so far on a friendly errand, he assigned them a place of residence in Canterbury, and allowed them to use their best endeavours to convert his subjects. The place assigned them was in the parish of St. Alphage, on the north side of the High or King’s street, where, in Thorn’s time, the archbishop’s palace stood, now called Stable-gate. Accordingly they entered the city, singing in concert a short litany, recorded by Becle, in these words “We pray thee, O Lord, in all thy merc^, that thine anger and thy fury may be removed from this city, and from thy holy house, for we have sinned. Alleluia.”

In this city they employed example and precept in the introduction of their doctrines. They prayed, lasted, watched, preached, wherever they had opportunity, and received only bare necessaries in return. They practised also what they taught, and showed a firmness and zeal, even, to death, if it should be necessary, which produced considerable effect on the people and at length the king himself was converted, and gave the missionaries his license to preach every where, and to build or repair churches. The king, however, declared that no compulsion should be used in making converts, although he could not avoid expressing greater partiality to those who embraced Christianity.

During this success, Augustine went to France, and was there, by the archhishop of Aries, consecrated archbishop of the English nation, thinking that this new dignity would give additional influence to his exhortations. When he returned into Britain, he sent Laurentius the presbyter, and Peter the monk, to acquaint Gregory with what had been done, and to consult him upon several points of doctrine and discipline. Some of these points savour, undoubtedly, of the superstitious scruples of the monastic, austerity, but others lead to some information respecting the early constitution of the church. To his inquiries concerning the maintenance of the clergy, Gregory answered, that the donations made to the church were, by the custom of the Roman see, divided into four portions one for the bishop and his family to support hospitality, a second to the clergy, a third to the poor, and a fourth to the reparation of churches. As the pastors were all monks, they were to live in common, but such as chose to marry were to be maintained by the monastery. With respect to diversities of customs and liturgies, Gregory’s answer was truly liberal, implying that Augustine was not bound to follow the precedent of Rome, but might select whatever parts or rules appeared the most eligible and best adapted to promote the piety of the infant church of England, and compose them into a system for its use. Gregory also, at Augustine’s request, sent over more missionaries, and directed him to constitute a bishop at York, who might have other subordinate bishops yet in such a manner, that Augustine of Canterbury should be metropolitan of all England. He sent over also a valuable present of books, vestments, sacred utensils, and holy relics. He advised Augustine not to destroy the heathen temples, but only to remove the images of their gods, to wash the walls with holy water, to erect altars, deposit relics in them, and so gradually convert them into Christian churches not only to save the expence of building new ones, but that the people might be more easily prevailed upon to frequent those places of worship to which they had been accustomed. He directs him further, to accommodate the ceremonies of the Christian worship, as much as possible, to those of the heathen, that the people might not be too much startled at the change and in particular, he advises him to allow the Christian converts, on certain festivals, to kill and eat a great number of oxen, to the glory of God, as they had formerly done to the honour of the devil. It is quite unnecessary, in our times, to offer any remark on this mixture of pious zeal with worldly policy.

The next great event of Augustine’s life was his attempt to establish uniformity of discipline and customs in the island, and as a necessary step to gain over the British (Welch) bishops to his opinion. These Britons, from the first time of planting Christianity in the island, had constantly followed the rules and customs left them by their first masters. But the church of Rome had made certain alterations in the manner of celebrating divine service? to which it pretended all other churches ought to conform, The churches of the West, as being the nearest to Rome, were the most easily gained and almost all of them, excepting those of France and Milan, conformed at last to the Roman ritual. But Britain still continued, as kwere, a world apart. Since the embassy of Lucius to pope Eleutherius, the Britons bad very little communication with the bishops of Rome. They acknowledged them only as bishops of a particular diocese, or, at most, as heads of a patriarchate, on which they did not think the British church ought to be any way dependent. They were so far from receiving orders from the pope, that they were even strangers to his pretensions. But Augustine, full of zeal for the interests of the see of Rome, made an attempt to bring them to acknowledge the superiority of the pope over all other churches. For this purpose he invited the Welch bishops to a conference, and began to admonish them to enter into Christian peace and concord, that they might join with him in converting the Pagans but this proved fruitless, as they would hearken to no prayers or exhortations, and Augustine, therefore, had recourse to a miracle. A blind man. was introduced to be healed, and was healed by Augustine’s prayers, when those of the ancient Britons failed. They were obliged, therefore, to confess that Augustine was sent of God, but pleaded the obstinacy of their people as a reason for their non-compliance. A second synod was appointed, attended by seven British bishops, and many of their learned men, belonging to the ancient monastery of Bangor, of which Dinoth was at that time abbot. Before these came to the synod, they asked the advice of a person of reputed sanctity, whether they should give up their own traditions on the authority of Augustine or not. “Let humility,” said he, “be the test; and if you find, when you come to the synod, that he rises up to you at your approach, obey him if not, let him be despised by you.” On such precarious evidence was a matter to rest which they thought so important. It happened that Augustine continued sitting on their arrival, which might easily have been the case without any intentional insult but it answered the purpose of the Britons, already averse to join him, and they would now hearken to no terms of reconciliation. Augustine proposed that they should agree with him only in three things, leaving other points of difference undetermined namely, to observe Easter at the same time with the rest of the Christian world to administer baptism after the Roman manner; and to join with him in preaching the gospel to the English but all this they rejected, and refused to acknowledge his authority. This provoked Augustine to tell them, that if they would not have peace with brethren, they should have war with enemies and it hap, pened afterwards, that in an invasion of the Pagan Saxons. of the North, the Bangorian monks were cruelly murdered; but this was lon^ after the death of Augustine, who, nevertheless, has been accused by some writers of exciting the animosity which ended in that massacre. For this there seems no solid foundation. Augustine betrayed an improper warmth, and was not free from ambition but in all his history we can find no instance of a sanguinary spirit, or any inclination to propagate Christianity by any other weapons than those he had at first employed. The Britons undoubtedly had a right to their independence, and Augustine is not to be praised for endeavouring to destroy what had so long existed, and over which he had no legal controul.

Possessed with an extreme avidity to be acquainted with every science, he likewise devoted himself to the study of medicine. Persuaded that this divine art consists as much in practice as in theory, he sought all opportunities of seeing the sick and afterwards confessed, what can seldom be denied, that he had learned more from experience than from all the hooks he had read. He was now only in his sixteenth year, and already was celebrated as the luminary of his age. He resolved, however, to resume his studies of philosophy, which medicine had interrupted and he spent a year and a half in this painful labour, without ever sleeping all this time a whole night together. If he felt himself oppressed by sleep, or exhausted by reading, a glass of wine refreshed his wasted spirits, and gave him new vigour for study if in spite of him his eyes for a few minutes shut out the light, we are told that he then recollected and meditated upon all the things that had occupied his thoughts before sleep. At the age of twentyone, he conceived the bold design of incorporating, in one work, all the objects of human knowledge, and carried it into execution in an Encyclopedia of twenty volumes, to which he gave the title of the “Utility of Utilities.”

Avicenna pretended to obey, but, instead of repairing to Gazna, he took the road to Giorgian. Mahmoud, who had gloried in the thought of keeping him at his palace, was greatly irritated at his flight, and dispatched portraits of this philosopher to all the princes of Asia, with orders to have him conducted to Gazna, if he appeared in their courts. But Avicenna eluded the most diligent search, and arrived in the capital of Giorgian, where, under a disguised name, he performed many admirable cures. Cabous then reigned in that country, and a favourite nephew having fallen sick, he consulted the most able physicians, none of whom were able to discover his disorder, or to give him any relief. Avicenna was at last consulted, who discovered, as soon as he felt the young prince’s pulse, that his disorder was concealed love, and he commanded the person, who had the care of the different apartments in the palace, to name them all in their respective order. A more lively motion in the prince’s pulse, at hearing mentioned one of those apartments, betrayed a part of his secret. The keeper then had orders to name all the slaves that inhabited that apartment. At the name of one of those beauties, the young prince, by the extraordinary beating of his pulse, completed the discovery of what he in vain desired to keep concealed. Avicenna, now fully assured that this slave was the cause of his illness, declared that she alone had the power to cure him. The Sultan’s consent being necessary, he expressed a desire to see his nephew’s physician, and had scarcely looked at him when he knew in his features those of the portrait sent to him by Mahmoud but Cabous, far from forcing Avicenna to repair to Gazna, retained him for some time with him, and heaped honours and presents on him.

, descended from a family originally of Nanci in Lorraine, but long established at Paris, was born in the latter city in 1653. From his earliest years, he discovered a taste for architecture, and studying the art with eagerness, soon made very considerable progress. At the age of twenty he was sent to an academy at Rome, founded by the king of France for the education of young men of promising talents in painting, architecture, &c. He was accompanied in the voyage by the celebrated Antony Desgodets, whose measurements of the ancient Roman edifices are so well known. They embarked at Marseilles about the end of 1674, with all the impatience of youthful curiosity, but had the misfortune to be taken by an Algerine corsair, and carried into slavery. Louis XIV. no sooner heard of their disaster, than he made interest for the liberation of Desgodets and A viler, and likewise for John Foi Vaillant, the celebrated antiquary, who had been a passenger with them. Sixteen months, however, elapsed before the Algerines admitted them to be exchanged for some Turkish prisoners in the power of France. Aviler and his friends obtained their liberty, Feb. 22, 1676. During their slavery, Aviler could not conceal his art, although the admiration with which it struck the Algerines, might have afforded them a pretext for detaining one who could be so useful to them. On the contrary, he solicited employment, and had it at least there was extant some time ago, an original plan and elevation of a mosque which he made, and which was built accordingly at Tunis. On being released, however, he went to Rome, where he studied for five years with uninterrupted assiduity, and on his return to France was appointed by M. Mansart, first royal architect, to a considerable place in the board of architecture. While in this situation, iie began to collect materials for a complete course of architectural studies. His first design was to reprint an edition of Vignola, with corrections but perceiving that the explanations of the plates in that work were too short, he began to add to them remarks and illustrations in the form of commentary and, what has long rendered his work valuable, he added a complete series, in alphabetical order, of architectural definitions, which embrace every branch, direct or collateral, of the art, and which have been copied into all the subsequent French dictionaries. He prefixed also a translation of Scamozzi’s sixth book, which treats of the orders.

, an ingenious English musician, was born probably at Newcastle, where he exercised his profession during the whole of his life. In 1736, July 12, he was appointed organist of St. John’s church in that town, which he resigned for the church of St. Nicholas in October following. In 1748, when the organ of St. John’s required repair, which would amount to 160l. Mr. Avison offered to give 100l. if the parish would raise the other 60l. upon condition that they appointed him organist, with a salary of 20l. and allow him to supply the place by a sufficient deputy. This appears to have been agreed upon, and the place was supplied by his son Charles. In 1752 he published “An essay on Musical Expression,” London, 12mo. In this essay, written with neatness and even elegance of style, he treats of the power and force of music, and the analogies between it and painting of musical composition, as consisting of harmony, air, and expression and of musical expression so far as it relates to the performer. To the second edition, which appeared in 1753^ was added, an ingenious and learned letter to the author, concerning the music of the ancients, now known to be written by Dr. Jortin. Mr. Avison’s treatise was very favourably received, but some were dissatisfied with his sentiments on the excellencies and defects of certain eminent musicians, and particularly his preference of Marcello and Geminiani, or at least, the latter, to Handel. In the same year, therefore, was published, “Remarks on Mr. Avison’s essay, &c. wherein the characters of several great masters, both ancient and modern, are rescued from the misrepresentations of the above author and their real merit ascertained and vindicated. In a letter, from a gentleman to his friend in the country.” In this tract, which was written by Dr. Hayes, professor of music at Oxford, Mr. Avison is treated with very little ceremony, and accused of being ignorant, or neglectful of our ancient English musicians, and of having spoke too coldly of the merits of Handel. It is also insinuated that he was obliged to abler pens for the style and matter of his essay. This last was probably true, as both Dr. Brown and Mr. Mason are supposed to have assisted him, but in what proportions cannot now be ascertained. Mr. Avison wrote a reply to Dr. Hayes, nearly in the same uncourtly style, which was republished in the third edition of his essay in 1775. Avison had been a disciple of Geminiani, who, as well as Giardini, had a great esteem for him, and visited him at Newcastle, where the latter played for his benefit. Whenever Geminiani affected to hold Handel’s compositions cheap, it was usual with him to say, “Charley Avison shall make a better piece of music in a month’s time.” Avison died at Newcastle, May 10, 1770, and was succeeded in the church of St. Nicholas, by his son Edward, who himself died in 1776, and in the church of St. John, by his son Charles, who resigned in 1777. Avison assisted in the. publication of Marcello’s music to the psalms adapted to English words. Of his own composition there are extant five collections of concertos for violins, forty-four in number; and two sets of sonatas for the harpsichord, and two violins, a species of composition little known in England till his time. The music of Avison is light and elegant, but wants originality, a consequence of his too close attachment to the style of Geminiani.

, the son of Antonio Aulisio, was born at Naples, Jan. 14, 1649 (or 1639, according to Diet. Hist.), studied Latin under Floriati and Martena, and made such rapid and successful progress in his other studies, that at the age of nineteen, he taught rhetoric and poetry with reputation. We are also told, that he understood, and could write and speak all the languages of the East and West, and that he acquired a knowledge of them without the aid of a master. He was equally well acquainted with the sciences, and yet with all this knowledge he was for a long time extremely poor, owing to the loss of his father and mother, and the charge of a younger brother and five sisters. At the age of twenty-six he taught as professorextraordinary, without any salary, but about eight years after he obtained the chair of the institutes, which was worth about one hundred ducats, and at forty he held that of the code, worth one hundred and forty. From his forty-sixth year to the end of his life, he was principal professor of civil law, with a salary of 1100 ducats. He died Jan. 29, 1717, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. As he had been a public teacher at Naples about fifty years, he acquired, according to custom, the title of Count Palestine, and was interred with the honours due to that rank. For twenty-three years, also, he had been superintendant of the school of military architecture, by order of Charles II. with a salary of twenty-five ducats per month. During all this time he lived a retired life, and had no ambition to exchange it for the bustle of ambition. In the course of his studies, he became a great admirer of Plato, and when his maternal uncle Leonardi di Capoa, wrote a work agreeable to the principles of Des Cartes, Aulisio became his antagoist but instead of argument, substituted satirical verses, which contributed little to his own fame, and excited the displeasure of his uncle’s learned friends. This dispute induced him to break off all correspondence with them, and employ his time on several works, particularly, 1. “De Gymnasii constructione De Mausolei architectura; de Harmonia Timaica, et numeric niedicis.” These three were printed in a quarto volume, Naples, 1694. 2. “Commentarii juris civilis ad tit. Pandect.” 3 vols. 4to. 3. “Delle Scuole sacre,” 1723, 4to. 4. “Historia deortu et progressu Medicinse,” Venice, 1700. His life is prefixed to the “Scuole sacre.”

, a French historian, was born at Caen in 1675, and admitted & Paris into the society of the Jesuits, Sept. 15, 169 1, The fatigues he underwent in this society injured his health, and after his theological studies he was sent to Alengon, where he was employed as procurator of the college. He died either there or at Quimper, April 24, 1719. He is the author of two works which have been often reprinted. 1. “Memoires chronologiques et dogmatiques, pourservir a l‘histoire ecclesiastique, depuis 1600jusqu’en 1716, avec des reflexions et des remarques critiques,” 4 vols. 12mo, 1720. 2. “Memoires pour servir a l‘histoire universelle de l’Europe, depuis 1600 jusqu'en 1716, &c.” 4 vols. 12mo, Paris, 1725, reprinted the same year at Amsterdam, and again in 1757.

, an eminent poet of the fourth century, was the son of a physician, and born at Itourdeaux. Great care was taken of his eJucation, the whole family interesting themselves in it, either because his genius was very promising, or that the scheme of his nativity, which had been cast by his grandfather on the mother’s side, led them to imagine that he would rise to great honour. Whatever their motive, it is allowed that he made an uncommon progress in classical learning, and at the age of thirty was chosen to teach grammar at Bourdeaux, He was promoted some time after to be professor of rhetoric, in which office he acquired so great a reputation, that he ivas sent for to court to be preceptor to Gratian the emperor Valentinian’s son. The rewards and honours conferred on him for the faithful discharge of his office remind us of Juvenal’s maxim, that when fortune pleases she can liaise a man from a rhetorician to a consul. He was actually appointed consul by the emperor Gratian, in the year 379, after having filled other considerable posts; for, besides the dignity of questor, to which he had been nominated by Valentinian, he was made prefect of the pnetorium in Italy and Gaul after that prince’s death. His speech returning thanks to Gratian on his promotion to the consulship is highly commended. The time of his death is uncertain he was living in 392, and lived to a great age. He hud several children by his wife, who died young. The emperor Thcodosius had a great esteem for Ausonius, and pressed him to publish his poems. There is a great inequality in his productions; and in his style there is a harshness, which was perhaps rather the defect of the times Le lived in, than of his genius. Had he lived in Augustus’s reign, his verses, according to good judges, would have equalled the most finished of that age. He is generally supposed to have been a Christian some ingenious authors indeed have thought otherwise, and the indecency of many of his poems make us not very anxious to claim him. The editio princeps of his works was published at Venice, 1472, fol. of which there are four copies in this country, in the libraries of his majesty, the museum, earl Spencer, and Mr. Wodhull. De Bure was not able to find one in France. The two best editions, the first yery uncommon, are those of Amsterdam, 1671, 8yo, and Bipont, 1785, 8vo.

, a French and Latin poet, voluminous enough to require some notice, although his works are now perhaps but little known or valued even in his own couutry, was born at Charolles about the year 1529, the son of Syacre or Fiacre des Autels, a gentleman of the same couutry. He inherited little from this father, except, as he informs us, a chateau, rather noble than rich. For some time he studied law at Valencia, but it does not appear with what view poetry was his favourite pursuit, although he succeeded very seldom but what was wanting in genuine poetry was made up by an obtrusive display of Greek and Latin, in the manner of Ronsard, whom he called his friend. Like other poets, he affected to have a mistress for whom he cherished a Platonic affection, but it appears that he was married at the age of twenty-four. His death is said to have happened about 1580. MorerL enumerates many volumes of his poems, sonnets, elegies, pieces in imitation of Rabelais, Ronsard, &c. The following are of a different description, and respect a controversy on the orthography of the French language. 1. “Traite touchant Pancienne ecriture de la Langue Francoise, et de sa Poesie,” Lyons, 16 mo, published under the anagranmiatical name of Glaumalis de Vezelet. Louis Meigret, las opponent in the controversy, immediately published his “Defenses touchant son Ortographc Francoise centre les censures et calomnies de Glaumalis,” Paris, 1550, 4to. Autels followed this by “Repliqucs aux furicuses defenses de Louis Meigret,” 16mo, Lyons, 1551, which Meigret answered the same year. Griiter thought some of his Latin poetry of sufficient merit to obtain a place in the “Deliciae poetarum Gallorum,” 1609.

, historiographer of France under Louis XII. abbot of Angle in Poitou, was originally of Saintonge, and of the same family from which, according to some authors, the famous Barbarossa descended. He wrote the history of France from 1490 to 1508, with great fidelity, but M. Gamier says, that “Louis XII. who usually employed the most celebrated pens, chose, with less than his ordinary discernment, Jean d‘Authon, to write the particular history of his reign’: for, though he had bestowed several benefices upon him though he made him commonly travel in the suite of the army, and gave orders to his ministers and generals to conceal nothing frorn Jiim of all that was worthy of being handed down to posterity, he was less happy in this respect than a great number of his predecessors. Authon is but a cold proser, nice in giving the particulars of little matters, but deficient in unfolding motives, &c.” Theodore Godefroi published the four first years of his history in 1620, 4to, and the two last which had appeared in 1615, in 4to, with “l'Histoire de Louis XII.” by Seyssel the three others, whieh have not yet been sent to the press, are now in the Imperial library. This historian died in January 1523, according to Moreri, or 1527 in Diet. Hist, which gives the following productions from his pen: 1. “Les Epistres envoyees au roy par les 6tats de France, avec certaines ballades et rondeaux,” Lyons, 1509, 4to. 2. “L'exil de Gennes le Superbe,” 1508, 4to. 3. te Diverses pieces sur la mort de Thomassine Espinolle (Spinola) ms."

, advocate of the parliament of Bourdeaux, was born in 1587, at Agenois. He undertook an edition of the “Corps du Droit,” the expence of which the chancellor had promised to defray, but in this our author was disappointed, and was exposed to the demands of his creditors, when he was relieved by the generosity of le Bret, a counsellor of state. Automne was a man of study, and wrote several works on professional subjects, which were much approved. The most celeb rated of these is his “Commentaire surla Coutume de Bourdeaux,” the best edition of which was published by Dupin, in 1728, fol. with notes. He wrote also a “Conference du Droit Romain avec le Droit Franois y” 1644, 2 vols. fol. and “Censura Gallica in Jus Civile Romanum,” Paris, 1625, 8vo, or according to Saxius, 1613. Some of these works are thought to be deficiennn judgment and in perspicuity of arrangement. He is said to have been the editor of Juvenal and Persius, with copious notes in Latin, 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1607, which we do not find mentioned in any of the lists of editions of those poets, yet it is noticed by Saxius. Moreri thinks he died about 162^, but in the Diet. Historique it is said he died in 1666 at the age of ninety-nine years, which does not correspond with the date of his birth, which we have given from Moreri.

, an eminent French musician and composer, was born at Clermont in Auvergne, Oct. 4, 1713. Instead of giving any extraordinary proofs of voluntary application, or early pregnancy of genius, he merely complied with the desire of his father, who was a musician, in turning his thoughts, or rather employing his time, in that pursuit. About his eighteenth year, however, an entire change appeared to have taken place in his mind, which became suddenly seized with the most violent enthusiasm, and such was his application night and day, that he soon became a capital performer on the violin, and was in 1739 thought worthy of the honour of being admitted into his majesty’s chamber band. With no other help in composition than the works of Rameau, he composed a trio for two violins and a bass, which he presented to that celebrated author, who, flattered by such a mark of respect, offered the young composer his advice and friendship. Auvergne began to compose a number of works for the court and the opera, which were much admired. In 1766, having the direction of the spiritual concert entrusted to him, and being unable to treat with Mondonville, who asked an exorbitant price for his Motets, Auvergne, undismayed by the vast reputation which the Orpheus of Languedoc (as Mondonville was called) had acquired in that species of composition, turned his own talents to it, and with such success, that his “Te Deum,” “De Profundis,” and his “Miserere,” were considered as first-rate works. In 1753, he composed the music of the first comic opera that was exhibited in France, and thus prepared the way for that style in which Monsigny, Gretry, and Daleyrac have since so ably distinguished themselves. Auvergne was director of the opera from 1767 to 1775, and from 1785 to 1790. Although in this time he had not Studied to accumulate a fortune, he lived in very easy circumstances until the revolution, when he lost all his places, and was thrown into a state approaching to indigence. Jn 1796, he went to Lyons, and was consoled in liis age and poverty by his sisters and his second wife, and here he died Feb. 12, 1797, justly regretted hy all who knew him. Besides the music already mentioned, he composed the following operas, “Canente,” “Enee et Lavinie,” and “Hercule mourant,” all in his younger days, but the dates not specified “Les Amours de Tempe,” 1752 “Les Fetes d'Euterpe,” 1758; “Polyxene,” 1763; “La Venitienne.” He also retouched some former operas, and composed the music of several ballets performed at Versailles and.Fontainbieau. It seems remarkable that so popular a composer, and one who had contributed so much to “gladden life” in the gay metropolis of France, should have been left to end his days in obscurity and poverty.

, born in the Hainaut, lived some time with the abbé des Fontaines, who formed his taste. He entered afterwards into the light -horse-guards, and was killed in the buttle of Dettingen, in 1743, at the age of 3 I He was a man of genius and imagination. His writings are 1. “Memoirs of madame de Barneveldt,” a romance, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “An abridgment of the history of France and of the Roman history,” by question and answer, 2 vols. 12mo. which was recommended as useful to young persons. It used to be, and sometimes yet is, attributed to the abbe des Fontaines, who only revised it, but overlooked several inaccuracies in the dates and negligences in the style. 3. The three first volumes, and half of the fourth, of the “History of Paris,” in 5 vols. 12mo. 4. The eight first volumes of the “Lives of the illustrious men of France,” in 12mo. The ninth and the tenth were published in 1744, by his brother, canon of Prempntre. The work was continued by the abbe Pereau and M. Turpin. D'Auvigny’s part is written with spirit, and contains curious anecdotes and facts but little known. But the author prefers the ornaments of style to historical precision, and sometimes adopts the romantic tone. His cjiction is in general either laboriously inflated, or too negligent.

was a French astronomer, and a picmber of the old academy of France, into which he was received in 1666. He is principally known for having brought to perfection the micrometer, an instrument usually fitted to a telescope, in the focus of the objectglass, for measuring small angles or distances. This he published in 1666, but Mr. Townley, in the Philosophical Transactions, claims it for one of our countrymen, Mr. Gascoigne. He relates that from some scattered letters and papers of this gentlemen, who was killed in the grand rebellion, he had learned that before its breaking out, he had invented a micrometer, of as much effect as that made by M. Auzout, and had made use of it for some years not only in taking the diameters of the planets, and distances upon land, but in determining other matters of nice importance in the heavens, as the moon’s distance, &c. Mr. Gascoigne’s instrument also fell into the hands of Mr. Townley, who says farther, that by the help of it he could make above 40,000 divisions in a foot. The French writers endeavour to deny all this, and conclude with an assertion, as illiberal as it is false, that every nation has a zeal for its literary glory, but that in England alone this zeal is pushed to ardour and to injustice. Auzout, however, was an astronomer of acknowledged abilities. He died in 1691.

, a patron of learning, was the second son of William Aylesbury by his wife Anne, daughter of John Poole, esq. and was born in London in 1576. He was educated at Westminster school, and, in 1598, became a student of Christ church, Oxford where he distinguished himself by his assiduous application to his studies, especially the mathematics. In June 1605, he took his degree of M. A. After he quitted the university, he was employed as secretary to Charles earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral of England, in which post he had an opportunity of improving his mathematical knowledge, as well as of giving many proofs of it. On this account when George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, succeeded the earl of Nottingham as high admiral, Mr. Aylesbury not onlv kept his employment, but was also, by the favour of that‘powerful duke, created a baronet, April 19, 1627, having been before made master of requests, and master of the mint. These lucrative employments furnished him with the means of expressing his regard for learned men. He not only made all men of science welcome at his table, and afforded them all the countenance he could but likewise gave to such of them as were in narrow circumstances, regular pensions out of his own fortune, and entertained them at his house in Windsor-park, where he usually spent the summer. Walter Warner, who, at his request, wrote a treatise on coins and coinage, and the famous Mr. Thomas Harriot, were among the persons to whom he extended his patronage, and Harriot left him (in conjunction with Robert Sidney and viscount Lisle) all his writings and all the Mss. he had collected. Mr. Thomas Allen of Oxford, likewise, whom he had recommended to the duke of Buckingham, confided his manuscripts to sir Thomas, who is said to have been one of the most acute and candid critics ef his time. By this means he accumulated a valuable library of scarce books and Mss. which were either lost at home during the civil wars, or sold abroad to relieve his distresses; for in 1642 his adherence to the king, occasioned his being turned out of his places, and plundered of his estates. This he bore with some fortitude, but the murder of his sovereign gave him a distaste of his country, and retiring with his family to Flanders, he lived for some time at Brussels, and afterwards at Breda, where in 1657 he died. He left a son William, who, at the request of Charles I. undertook to translate D’Avila’s History of the Civil Wars of France, which appeared in 1647 but in the second edition, published in 1678, the merit of the whole translation is given to sir Charles Cotterel, except a few passages in the first four books. The calamities of his country affected this gentleman too, and in 1657, when Cromwell fitted out a fleet to go on an expedition to the West Indies, and to carry a supply to the island of Jamaica, Mr. Aylesbury, from pure necessity, engaged himself as secretary to the governor, and died on the island soon after. His surviving sister, the countess of Clarendon, became heiress of what could be recovered of the family estate.

, master in chancery, was educated in Trinity hall, Cambridge, where in 1614 he commenced LL. D. It was his usual practice to relax himself after his severer studies with poetry. Besides his “Divine and Moral Speculations” in verse, London, 1654, 8vo, he wrote “Susanna, or the Arraignment of the two Elders,” inverse, Lond. 1622, 8vo. Mr. Wood starts a question whether he was author of” Britannia Antiqua illustrata,“published under the name of Aylett Sammes, but said to be written by his uncle. Certain it is that the nominal author was unequal to it, though much learning and labour have been spent on it to very little purpose. The Censura Literaria attributes to Dr. Aylett four pastoral eclogues, entitled” A Wife not ready made, but bespoken" the dedication of which is signed R. A. and the second edition was published in 1653, 8vo.

, an eminent English prelate, descended from a very ancient and honourable family, seated at Aylmer-hall, in Norfolk, was born in 1521, and being a younger brother, was either recommended by his relations, or recommended himself by his pregnant parts, to the marquis of Dorset (Henry Grey), afterwards duke of Suffolk, who honoured him with the title of his Scholar, and gave him an exhibition at the university of Cambridge. When he had there attained competent learning, the marquis took him home, where he became tutor to his children, amongst whom was the lady Jane, who for some days was styled queen, and who, under Aylmer’s tuition, acquired the Latin and Greek tongues, reading and writing in the latter with ease and elegance, By his care also, she received right principles of religion, as he imbibed the opinions of the primitive reformers and having for his patrons the duke of Suffolk and the carl of Huntingdon, in the reign of Edward VI., was for some time the only preacherin Leicestershire; where he had great success in inculcating the, Protestant religion. When the celebrated Ascliam, in a visit to lady Jane in 1550, asked her how so young a lady (not then ahove fourteen) could have arrived at such perfection both in philosophy and the Greek language, she bore the following testimony to the merit of her tutor “1 will tell you,” said she, “and tell you truth, which, perchance, you will marvel at. One of the greatest benefits which ever God gave me, is that he sent so sharp and severe parents, and so gentle a schoolmaster. For when I am in presence either of father or mother, whether I speak, keep silence, sit, stand, or go eat, drink, be merry or sad be sewing, placing, dancing, or doing any thing else, I must do it, as it were, in such weight, measure, and number, and even so perfectly, as God made the world, or else, I am so sharply taunted, so cruelly threatened, yea, presently sometimes with pinches, nips, and bobs (or other ways, which I will not name, for the honour I bear them), so without measure misordereo”, that I think myself in hell, till time come that I must go to Mr. Elmer, who teachfeth me so gently, so pleasantly, with fair allurements to learning, that I think all the time nothing while I am with him and when I am called from him, 1 fall a weeping, because whatsoever I do else but learning, is full of grief, trouble, fear, and wholly misliking unto me and this my book hath been so much my pleasure, and bringeth daily to me more pleasure, and more yet, in respect to it, all other pleasures, in very deed, be but trifles and troubles unto me." Mr. Ascharn was so affected with this interview, that in a letter to lady Jane, dated the eighteenth of January, 1551, he speaks of it in rapture, and by a beautiful apostrophe, addressing himself to Mr. Ay liner, felicitates him on his having so ingenious a scholar, in a strain of compliment, which he says the great Sturmius made use of to him, speaking of his happiness, in having the lady Elizabeth for his pupil. In this letter it is, that he desires Mr. Aylmer, to whom be foresaw it would be shewn, to engage the lady Jane, to write a letter in Greek to himself, and another to Sturmius, and also desires they might continue to live in the same learned friendship and intercourse, which they had hitherto done.

The first preferment bestowed upon Aylmer, was the archdeaconry of Stow, in the diocese of Lincoln, which giving him a seat in the convocation, held in the first year of queen Mary, he boldly opposed that return to Popery, which he saw approaching. He was one of six$ who, in the midst of all the violence of that assembly, offered to dispute all the controverted points in religion, against the most learned champions, of the Papists. But when the supreme power began to employ force, archdeacon Aylmer withdrew^ and escaped abroad in almost a miraculous manner*. He resided first at Strasbourg, afterwards at Zurick in Switzerland, and there in peace followed his studies, employing all his time in acquiring knowledge, or in assist^ ing other men of study. His thoughts, though in a distant country, were continually employed in the service of England, and of Englishmen. He published (as Strype supposes) lady Jane Grey’s letter to Harding, who had been her father’s chaplain, and who apostatized. He assisted Fox in translating the History of English Martyrs into Latin, and also in the version of archbishop Cranmer’s Vindication of the book on the Sacrament, against Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, which, however, was never printed. During these employments he found leisure to visit most of the universities of Italy and Germany, and had an offer from the duke of Saxony, of the Hebrew professorship of Jena, which he refused, on the prospect of speedily returning home* It was during his exile likewise that he wrote the only work of consequence which he ever published, in answer to the famous Scotch reformer, John Knox. In 1556, John Knox printed, at Geneva, a treatise under this title “The first Blast against the monstrous regiment and empire of Women,” to shew that, by the laws of God, women could not exercise sovereign authority. The objects of this attack were the two queens, Mary of Lorrain, then regent of Scotland, and Mary queen of England. It was violent, but not unargumentative, and he could appeal with effect to the laws of France, and to the recent proposal of Edward VI. to adopt the same laWi He intended a second, and a third part; but finding it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design. Still as this first tended to injure the Protestant religion in the minds of Princes, and those in authority, Mr. Aylmer resolved to employ his

After the accession of queen Elizabeth, Aylmer returned home, and was one of the eight divines appointed to dispute with as many popish bishops at Westminster, in the presence of a great assembly. In 1562, he obtained the archdeaconry of Lincoln, by the favour of Mr. secretary Cecil and in right of this dignity, sat in the famous synod held the same year, wherein the doctrine and discipline of the church, and its reformation from the abuses of popery, were carefully examined and settled. In this situation he continued for many years, and discharged the duty of a good subject to the government under which he lived, in church and state being one of the -queen’s justices of the peace, as also an ecclesiastical commissioner. In October, 1573, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor in divinity, in the university of Oxford. The next year the archbishop of Canterbury made choice of him, to answer a book written in Latin against the government of the church of England but after thoroughly considering it, Dr. Aylmer declined the task, which some in those days (perhaps unjustly) attributed to discontent, because he was not made a bishop. To this dignity he had been often named by Parker, then archbishop of Canterbury, but always prevented either by the interest of the archbishop’s enemies, or his own, the latter never failing to suggest, that in the same book where Aylmer had made his court to the queen, he had also shewn his spleen against episcopacy. At last, in the year 1576, on Dr. Edwin Sandys being promoted to the archbishopric of York/ Dr. Ayltner was made bishop of London, not without the furtherance of his predecessor, who was his intimate friend, and had beeii his fellow-exile. Yet, immediately after his promotion, bishop Aylmer found, or thought he found, cause to complain of the archbishop and although his grace assisted at his consecration, on the 24th of March, 3576, bishop Aylmer sued him for dilapidations, which after some years prosecution he recovered. In 1577, our bishop began his first visitation, wherein he urged subscriptions, which some ministers refused, and reviled such as complied, calling them dissemblers, and comparing them to Arians and Anabaptists, he was also extremely assiduous in public preaching, took much pains in examining such as came to him for ordination, and kept a strict eye over the Papists and Puritans in which he acted not only to the extent of episcopal authority, but wrote freely to the treasurer Burleigh, as to what he thought farther necessary. When the plague rageed in London, in the year 1578, our bishop shewed a paternal care of his clergy and people, and without exposing the former to needless perils, took care that these last should not be without spiritual comforts. In 1581 came out Campion’s book, shewing the reasons why he had deserted the reformed, and returned to the popish communion. It was written in very elegant Latin, and dedicated to the scholars of both universities and the treasurer Burleigh thought that it should be answered, and referred the care thereof to our bishop, who though he gave his opinion freely upon the subject, as to the mode in which it should be done, yet declined the task himself on account of the great business he had upon his hands, and it was undertaken and ably executed by Dr. Whitaker. Aylmer was indeed no great friend to controversy, which he thought turned the minds of the people too much from the essence of religion, made them quarrelsome and captious, indifferent subjects, and not very good Christians. On this account, he was more severe with the Puritans than the Papists, imprison ing one Woodcock, a stationer or bookseller, for vending a treatise, entitled “An Admonition to Parliament,” which tended to subvert the church as it was then constituted. He had likewise some disputes with one Mr. Welden, a person of a good estate and interest, in Berkshire, whom he procured to be committed by the ecclesiastical imssioners. These proceedings roused the Puritans, who treated him as a persecutor, and an enemy to true religion but this did not discourage the bishop, who thought the peace of the church was to be secured by the authority of its fathers, and therefore he executed his episcopal power, as far and as often as he thought necessary. Thus he suddenly summoned the clergy of London to his palace on Sunday, September 27, 1579, at one o'clock. On this summons forty appeared and the dean being likewise present, the bishop cautioned them of two things, one was, not to meddle with the Ubiquitarian controversy the other, to avoid meddling with the points treated in Stubb’s book, entitled “The Dfscovery of a gaping Gulph,” &c. written against the queen’s marriage with Monsieur, the French king’s brother, and in which it was suggested, that the queen wavered in her religion. This method being found very effectual, he summoned his clergy often, and made strict inquiries into their conduct, a practice as much approved by some, as censured by others and his unpopularity, perhaps, might occasion, in some measure, that violence with which he was prosecuted before the council, in May 1579, for cutting down his woods, when he was severely checked by the lord treasurer but notwithstanding his angry letters to that great nobleman, and his long and laboured defence of himself, he was, at length, by the queen’s command, forbidden to fell any more.

On the 6th of April, in the same year, there was a dreadful earthquake and in the dead of the night of the 1 st of May, it was felt again, which, as it exceedingly terrified the people, so the bishop, that he might turn their concern to a proper object, and at the same time exhibit to them reasonable grounds of comfort, composed certain prayers to be made use of in the public service. In 1581, the bishop had an angry contest with the lord Rich, who kept one Wright a puritan minister in his house, and would have compelled the bishop to license him to preach in his diocese but on a hearing before the ecclesiastical commissioners, Wright was committed to the Fleet, and others who had interfered in this affair, to other prisons. This increased the number of his enemies, of whom he had not a few before, who daily suggested that he was a violent man, and sought to vest too great a power in churchmen and these representations had such effect, that sometimes messages were sent to him, to abate somewhat of the rigour of his proceedings. His lordship, however, still supported the ecclesiastical commission, by his presence and authority; and though a milder course might have made him more popular, yet he thought it better to suffer himself, than that the church should. He began, however, to have many doubts concerning the treasurer, from whose hands his reproofs usually came but upqn the winding up of his cause before the council about felling of woods, he saw clearly, that he had no friend equal to the treasurer, who, though he endeavoured by his admonitions to prevent his falling into difficulties, yet generously exerted his utmost power to help him out of them, so far as was consistent with equity, and the good of the common weal. From this time forward, therefore, thebishop applied chiefly to the treasurer, for any favours he expected from court, particularly with regard to the business of his translation. He became exceedingly solicitous to be removed from London, either to Winchester or Ely; but, though he had many fair promises, his interest was insufficient, and in the mean time new informations, some with little, many with no cause at all, were exhibited against him, and gave him not a little uneasiness, although, on a thorough examination, his conduct escaped the censure of his superiors. In 1583 he performed his triennial visitation, and having discovered many scandalous corruptions in the ecclesiastical courts, especially in the business of commuting penances, he honestly represented what came to his knowledge to the privy council. About this time also he suspended certain ministers, accused of nonconformity and it appears, that upon a thorough examination of the matter, his lordship did impartial justice, in restoring one Mr. Giffard, whom he had twice suspended, when those who had charged him were able to make nothing out. In this year also he committed Mr. Thomas Cartwright, the celebrated Puritan minister, who had written against the hierarchy. Yet for this his lordship incurred the queen’s displeasure and a little after was informed that he stood accused to her majesty, for impairing the revenues of his bishopric, of which he purged himself, by exhibiting a state of the bishopric as it then stood, compared with the condition it was in when he became bishop. Other difficulties. he met with, on account of the share he had in executing her majesty’s ecclesiastical commission, from which there were Continual appeals to the privy council, where the lords who favoured the Puritans, did not fail to object to the bishop’s conduct, which contributed not a little to irritate his warm temper. In 1585 he composed a prayer to be used on account of the rainy unseasonable weather, which he recommended to private families, as well as directed to be read with the public prayers. He also used his interest to quiet the murmurs of the common people in London, against the crowds of strangers who fled hither, to avoid the persecutions raised against them, for embracing the Protestant religion. In the summer of the year 1586, the, bishop went his next triennial visitation, and at Maiden in Essex, narrowly escaped an outrageous insult, intended against him by some disaffected persons. In 1587, the bishop entered into a new scene of trouble, on account of one Mr. Robert Cawdry, schoolmaster, whom the lord Burleigh had presented to the living of South LufFenhara in Rutlandshire, where, after preaching sixteen years, he was convened before the ecclesiastical commission, and at length, the bishop sitting as judge, deprived. Cawdry would not submit to the sentence upon which the matter was re-examined by the ecclesiastical commission, at Lambeth, where to deprivation, degradation was added. Cawdry, however, still refusing to submit, made new and warm representations to the lord Burleigh, who favoured him as much as with justice he could but after near five years contest, the bishop’s and archbishop’s sentences were supported, both by the civil and common lawyers. In 1588, his lordship restored one Mr. Henry Smith, a very eloquent and much admired preacher, whom he had suspended for contemptuous expressions against the book of Common Prayer, which Smith denied. In 1589, he expressed his dislike of certain libels against the king of Spain, giving it as his reason, that on so glorious a victory, it was better to thank God, than insult men, especially princes. That year also he visited his diocese, though he was grown old and very infirm, and suspended one Dyke at St. Alban’s, though he had been recommended by the lord treasurer. In 1591 he caused the above-mentioned Mr. Cartwright to be brought before him out of the Fleet, and expostulated with him roundly, on the disturbance he had given the church. In 1592, he strongly solicited in favour of Dr. Bullingham, and Dr. Cole, that they might be preferred to bishoprics, but without success, which his lordship foresaw. For he observed when he applied for them, that he was not so happy as to do rmieh good for his friends yet he added, he would never be wanting in shewing his good will, both to them and to the church. About this time, casting his eye on Dr. Bancroft, a rising and very active man, he endeavoured to obtain leave to resign his bishopric to him, as a man every way fit for such a charge but in this also he was disappointed, which it seems lay heavy at his heart for even on his death-bed, he expressed his earnest desire that Bancroft might succeed him. In 1592, the bishop assisted at his son’s visitation, as archdeacon of London, and exerted himself with as much zeal and spirit as he had ever shewn in his life. His great age, and great labours, however, weighed him down by degrees, and he died June 3, 1594, and his body being brought from his palace at Fulham, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral before St. George’s chapel, under a fair stone of grey marble, with an inscription which was demolished by the republicans in Cromwell’s time. Bishop Aylmer married Judith Bure&, or Buers, of a very good family in Suffolk, by whom he had a very numerous offspring, viz. seven sons, and two or three daughters. As to the personal qualities of the bishop, they were, as those of most men are, good and bad, the former, perhaps, too much magnified by his friends, as the latter were by his enemies. He was solidly and extensively learned in all things that became either a great churchman, or a polite man, to know. He was very well versed in the three learned languages, had read much history, was a good logician, and very well skilled in the civil law. As a divine, he had studied, and understood the scripture thoroughly could preach, not only rhetorically but pathetically and in the course of his life-time, never buried his talent . He was in his heart, from the conviction of his head, a Protestant, and opposed Popery warmly, from a just sense of its errors, which he had the courage to combat openly in the days of queen Mary, and the honesty to suppress in the reign of queen Elizabeth. With all this, and indeed with a temper occasionally soured and irritable, he was a good-natured, facetious man, one extremely diligent and painful in the several employments he went through of too generous a temper to be corrupted, and of much too stout a one to be brow-beaten. He was a magnificent man in his house, as appears by his household, which consisted of fourscore persons, to whom he was a liberal and kind master. After his fatigues he was wot to refresh himself, either with conversation or at bowls. As to his failings, his temper was without doubt warm, his expressions sometimes too blunt, and his zeal not guided by wisdom. His enemies charged him with an exorbitant love of power, which displayed itself in various extraordinary acts of severity, with covetousness, which prompted him to spoil his see, and injure a private man; with intemperate heat against Puritans, with a slight regard of the Lord’s day, and with indecencies in ordinary speech some of which charges must be allowed a foundation, while on the other hand they appear to have been greatly exaggerated. But upon the whole there must have been many errors in a conduct which his superiors so often reproved. At the time of his decease he left seven sons, and either two or three daughters. His sons were, first, Samuel, who was bred to the law. He was stiled, of Claydon-hall in the county of Suffolk, and was high-sheriff of that county in the reign of king Charles I. and by two wives left a numerous posterity. His second, Theophilus, a most worthy divine, archdeacon of London, rector of Much-Hadham in Hertfordshire, and doctor of divinity. He was chaplain to king James, an able and zealous preacher, and, like his father, zealous against the Puritans, but so charitable, that he left his own family in indifferent circumstances. He lived a true pattern of Christian piety, and died heroically, closing his own eyelids, and with these words in his mouth, “Let my people know that their pastor died undaunted, and not afraid of death I bless my God, I have no fear, no doubt, no reluctancy, but a sure confidence in the sin-overcoming itierits of Jesus Christ.” This happened January 1625. He was buried in his own parish church, and the excellent primate Usher preached his funeral sermon, no inconsiderable proof of his merit. His third, John, who for some eminent service was knighted, and styled sir John Aylmer, of Rigby in the county of Lincoln, knt. Fourth, fifth, and sixth, Zachary, Nathaniel, and Edmund, of whom we know nothing particularly, except that Zachary and Edmund were the warmest friends that age produced. When Edmund lay sick, Zachary continued with him night and day till his death, and when a person came to measure the body, in order to make a coffin, Zachary would be measured also, and in a very short space took possession of the coffin made for him at the same time with that of his deceased brother. These gentlemen seem to have been divines. His seventh, Tobel, i.e. God is good. Archbishop Whitgift was his godfather, and the reason he was thus named, was his mother’s being overturned in a coach, without receiving any hurt, when she was big with child. He wrote himself Tobel Aylmer, of Writtle, in the county of Essex, gentleman. He married a gentleman’s daughter in that county, and had by her several children. As to the bishop’s daughters, Judith, the eldest, married William Lynch, of the county of Kent, esq. the second, Elizabeth, married sir John Foliot of Perton, in the county of Worcester, knt. Either a third daughter, or else lady Foliot, took for her second husband Mr. Squire, a clergyman, a man of wit, but very debauched, and a great spendthrift, though he had large preferments. He made a very unkind husband to his wife, which her father, the bishop, so much resented, that, as Martin MarPrelate phrasss it, “He went to buffets with his son-inlaw, for a bloody-nose .” This Squire died poor, lerving a son named John, who was well educated, and provided for as a clergyman, at the ex pence, and by the procurement of his uncle, Dr. Theophilus Aylmer, which he repaid with the utmost gratitude. To all his children our bishop, by his will, bearing date the 22d of April, 1594, bequeathed large legacies, as also some to his grand-children, appointing his two sons, Samuel and Theophilus, his executors, with Dr. Richard Vaughan, who was also his relation.

, bart. V.P.A.S. and F.R.S. of Framfield in Sussex, was descended from a Saxon family, anciently seated at Bocton Alof near Wye, in the county of Kent, in the reign of Henry III. who removed to Hornchurch, in the county of Essex, in that of Henry IV. and to Sudbury in that of Edward IV. Sir William Ayloffe of Great Braxtead, in the county of Essex, was knighted by James I. May 1, 1603, and created a baronet, Nov. 25, 1612; and from his eldest son by his third wife, the late baronet was the fourth in descent, and fifth in title. His father Joseph, a barrister, who married a daughter of Bryan Ayliffe, an eminent merchant of London, and died in 1717, and his grandfather, were both of Gray’s Inn. He was born about 1703, received the early part of his education at Westminster school, admitted of Lincoln’s Inn 1724, and in the same year was entered a gentleman-commoner at St. John’s college, Oxford, which college he quitted about 1728; elected F.A.S. Feb. 10, 1731-2, one of the first council under their charter, 1751 vice-president, 17; and F.R.S. June 3, 1731. He prevailed on Mr. Kirby, painter in Ipswich, to make drawings of a great number of monuments and buildings in Suffolk, of which twelve were engraved, with a description, 1748, and others remain unpublished. He had at that time an intention to write a history of the county, and had drawn up proposals for that purpose but, being disappointed of the materials which he had reason to expect for so laborious a work, they were never published. On the building of Westminsterbridge he was appointed secretary to the commissioners, 1737 and on the establishment of the Paper-office on the respectable footing it at present is, by the removal of the state-papers from the old gate at Whitehall to new apartments at the Treasury, he was nominated the first in the commission for the care and preservation of them. In 1747 he circulated “Proposals for printing by subscription, Encyclopaedia; or, a rational Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Trade. By several eminent hands. Methodized, digested, and now publishing at Paris, by M. Diderot, fellow of the Imperial and Royal Academies of Paris and St. Petersburgh and, as to the mathematical part, by M. d'Alembert, member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris and Berlin, aud F. R. S. Translated from the French, with additions and improvements;” in which was to be included a great variety of new articles, tending to explain and illustrate the antiquities, history ecclesiastical, civil, and military, laws, customs, manufactures, commerce, curiosities, &c. of Great Britain and Ireland by sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart. F. R. S. and of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and author of “The Universal Librarian.” Of this work a prospectus was published, in one large sheet, dated Dec. 14, 1751 and the first number of the work itself, June 11, 1752. This nuftiber being badly received by the public, the further prosecution of the business seems to have been dropped. See some account of it in the Gentleman’s Mag. 1752, p. 46. It was proposed to have been finished by Christmas 1756, in ten quarto volumes, price nine guineas, the last two to contain upwards of six hundred plates. In 1772 he published, in 4to, “Calendars of the Ancient Charters, &c. and of the Welsh and Scottish Rolls now remaining in the Tower ofLondon, &c.” (which was begun to be printed by the late Rev. Mr. Morant), and in the introduction gives a most judicious and exact account-of our public records. He drew up the account of the ehapel of London-bridge, of which an engraving was published by Vertue, 1748, and again by the Society of Antiquaries, 1777. His historical description of the interview between Henry VIII. and Francis I. on the Champ de Drap d'Or, from an original painting at Windsor, and his account of the paintings of the same age at Cowdray, were inserted in the third volume of the Archaeologia, and printed separately, to accompany engravings of two of these pictures by the Society of Antiquaries, 1775. His account of the body of Edward I. as it appeared on opening his tomb, 1774, was printed in the same volume, p. 376. Having been educated, as has been observed, at Westminster, he acquired an early affection for that venerable cathedral and his intimate acquaintance witfi every part of it displayed itself in his accurate description of five monuments in the choir, engraved in 1779 by the same society; who must reckon, among the many obligations which they owe to his zeal and attention to their interests, the last exertions of his life to put their affairs on the most respectable and advantageous footing, on their removal to their new apartments in Somerset Place. He superintended the new edition of Leland’s Collectanea, in 9 vols. 8vo, 1770, and also of the Liber Niger Scaccarii, in 2 vols. 8vo, 1771, to each of which he added a valuable appendix to the latter the charters of Kingston-on-Thames, of which his father was recorder. He also revised through the press a new edition of Hearne’s “Curious Discourses,” 1771, 2 vols. 8vo and likewise the “Registrum Roffense,” published by Mr. Thorpe in 1769, folio. At the beginning of the seventh volume of Somers’s Tracts is advertised, “A Collection of Debates in Parliament before the Restoration, from Mss. by sir Joseph Ayloffe, bart.” which is supposed never to have appeared. In January 1734, he married Mrs. Margaret Railton (daughter and heiress of Thomas Railton, esq. of Carlisle, in the county of Cumberland, and relict of Thomas Railton, esq. who died in the commission of the peace for the city of Westminster, Sept. 4, 1732) and by this lady he had one son of his own name, who died of the small-pox, at Trinity hall, Cambridge, at the age of twentyone, Dec. 19, 1756. Sir Joseph died at his house at Kennington-lane, Lambeth, April 19, 1781, aged seventy-two; and was buried in a vault in Henclon church, with his father and his only son. His extensive knowledge of our national antiquities and municipal rights, and the agreeable manner in which he communicated it to his friends and tjie public, made him sincerely regretted hy all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. Such of his Mss. as had not been claimed by his friends, were sold by auction, February 27, 1782.

, in Latin Ærodius, lieutenant-criminal in the presidial of Angers, was born there in 1536. He studied Latin and philosophy at Paris, and law at Toulouse from thence he went to Bourges for the advantage of the public lectures of Duarenus, Cujas, and Doneau, three of the most excellent civilians of that age. Having taken the degree of bachelor at Bourges, he returned to his own country, where he read public lectures upon the civil law, and pleaded several causes. He returned to Paris some time after, and became one of the most famous advocates in the parliament. He published there, in 1563, “The Declamations of Quintilian,” which he corrected in a variety of places, and illustrated with notes. The year following he published, in the same city, a treatise “ coneerning the power of Redemption,” written by Francis Grimaudet, the king’s advocate at Angers, and wrote a preface to it concerning “the nature, variety, and change of Laws.” In 1567 he published “Decretorum Rerumve apud diversos populos et omni antiquitate judicatarum libri duo accedit tractatus de origine et auctoritate rerum judicatarum,” which he much enlarged in the subsequent editions. He left Paris the year following, in order to take upon him the office of lieutenant-criminal in his own country, and performed it in such a manner as to acquire the name of “the rock of the accused.” Some other writings came from his pen, political or controversial, but that which acquired most fame among foreigners was his treatise “De Patrio Jure,” on the power of fathers, written in French and Latin, and occasioned by his son having been seduced by the Jesuits. His father, for the purposes of education, had put him under their tuition, but perceiving that he had a lively genius, a strong memory, and other excellent qualifications, he very earnestly desired both the provincial of that order, and the rector of the college, not to solicit him to enter into their society, which they readily promised, but soon broke their word and, though he made the greatest interest, and even prevailed on the king of France and the pope to take his part, he could never recover him from their snares. The young man answered his father’s book, but his superiors were ashamed to publish it, and employed Richeome, the provincial of the Jesuits at Paris, to answer it, but even this they did not venture to publish. Peter Ayrault died July 21, 1601. His son not until 1644.

, esq. a lieutenant in the first regiment of foot-guards, only son of the rev. Dr. Francis Ayscough (who was tutor to lord Lyttelton at Oxford, and at length dean of Bristol) by Anne, fifth sister to his lordship, who addressed a poem to the doctor from Paris, in 1728, printed in Dodsley’s second volume. And there are some verses to captain Ayscough in the second lord Lyttelton’s poems, 1780. Captain Ayscough was also author of Semiramis, a tragedy, 1777, and the editor of the great lord Lyttelton' s works. In September, 1777, he went to the continent for the recovery of his health, and wrote an account of his journey, which, on his return, he published under the title of “Letters from an Officer in the Guards to his Friend in England, containing some accounts of France and Italy, 1778,” 8vo. He received, however, but a temporary relief from the air of the continent. After lingering for a short time, he died Oct. 14, 1779, a few weeks only before his cousin, the second lord Lyttelton, whose family owes little to his character, or that of the subject of this short article. Two young men of more profligate morals have seldom insulted public decency, by calling the public attention to their many licentious amours and adventures.

Mr. Ayscough was a man of a benevolent and charitable disposition, and frequently consulted how he might exereise these virtues, without reflecting that his means were circumscribed. Having experienced much distress himself with regard to pecuniary matters, he was ever ready to alleviate it in others, and became a patron almost before he ceased to be a dependant. In his office in the Museum he will long be remembered for the pleasure he seemed to take in assisting the researches of the curious, and imparting the knowledge he had acquired of the vast resources in that national repository. With somewhat of roughness, or bluntness, in his manner, he delighted in volunteering his services in all cases where the visitors wished for information and there was a preciseness and regularity in all the arrangements he had made, which enabled him to do this with a facility which often cannot be acquired by veteran bibliographers.

In 1783 Mr. Ayscough published a small political pamphlet, entitled “Remarks on the Letters of an American Farmer or, a detection of the errors of Mr. J. Hector St. John pointing out the pernicious tendency of those letters to Great Britain.” But among his more useful labours must be particularly distinguished his “Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the British Museum, hitherto unclescribed, consisting of five thousand volumes, including the collections of sir Hans Sloane, bart. and the Rev. Thoraas Birch, D. D. and about five hundred volumes bequeathed, presented, or purchased at various times” 2 vqls 1782, 4to. This elaborate catalogue is upon a new plan, for the excellence of which an appeal may safely be made to every visitor of the Museum since the date of its publication. Mr. Ayscough assisted afterwards in the catalogue of printed books, 2 vols. folio, 1787, of which about twothirds were compiled by Dr. Maty and Mr. Harper, and the remainder by Mr. Ayscough. He was also, at the time of his death, employed in preparing* a new catalogue of the printed books, and had completed a catalogue of the ancient charters in the Museum, amounting to about sixteen thousand. As an index-maker his talents are well known by the indexes he made for the Monthly Review, the Gentleman’s Magazine, the British Critic, &c. and especially by a verbal index to Shakspeare, a work of prodigious labour. It remains to be* added, that his knowledge of topographical antiquities was very considerable, and that perhaps no man, in so short a space of time, emerging too from personal difficulties, and contending with many disadvantages, ever acquired so much general knowledge, or knew how to apply it to more useful purposes. The leading facts in this sketch are taken from the Gentleman’s Magazine for December 1804. To that miscellany, we believe, he was a very frequent contributor, and what he wrote was in a style which would not have discredited talents of which the world has a higher opinion.

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, an Italian rabbi of the sixteenth century, published his works in one volume, at Mantua, in 1574. The book is entitled “Meor en ajim,” or “Light of the Eyes.” It discusses several points of history and criticism, and proves that the author is much better acquainted with Christian learning and literary matters than the Jews in ge^ fieral, whose reading is confined to their own authors. He examines also some points of chronology, and has translated into Hebrew, a piece of Aristeus’s concerning the Septuagint version.

, or Azo Portius, a celebrated lawyer of the twelfth century, distinguished himself first at Bologna, about 1193. He had studied under John Bosiani of Cremona, and acquired such reputation, that he was called “Master of the Law,” and “the Source of Law.” The envy, however, which such merit attracted, made him leave Italy, and go to Montpellier, where he succeeded Placentinus. He was afterwards recalled to Bologna, and became yet more celebrated. It is said that he had a thousand auditors. In the warmth of dispute he threw a candlestick at the head of his antagonist, who died in consequence. Azon was then taken up, and tried, although the accident happened without any evil intent The action, however, might be pardoned according to the intent of the law ad bestias de pœnis, which moderates the punishment to any person who excels in any science or art. Azon, whether from the length of his imprisonment, or from his mind being occupied or abstracted, cried out, ad bestias, ad bestias, meaning that his acquittal would be found in that law. But this being reported to the judges, who were ignorant of it, they imagined that he insulted them, and treated them like beasts, and not only condemned him to death, but deprived him of the honour of burial. This sentence was executed in 1200, or according to some, in 1225. Others deny that this was the end of Azon, and treat the story as what it very much resembles, a fiction. Contius published his Law Commentaries" in 1577.

, commonly called Navarre (doctor Navarrus), was born of a noble family, Dec. 13, 1491, at Varasayn, near Pampeluna in Navarre. He was first educated, and took the habit, in the monastery of regular canons at Roncevaux, and afterwards studied at Alcala and at Ferrara, where he made such progress in law, as to be employed in teaching that science at Toulouse and Cahors. Some time after, he returned to Spain, and was appointed first professor of canon law at Salamanca, an office he filled with high reputation for fourteen years, at the end of which John III. king of Portugal, chose him law-professor of his new-founded university at Coimbra, and gave him a larger salary than had ever been enjoyed by any French or Spanish professor. After filling this chair also, with increasing reputation, for sixteen years, he was permitted to resign, and went first into Castile, and afterwards to Rome, on purpose, although in his eightieth year, to plead the cause of Bartholomew de Caranza, archbishop of Toledo, who was accused of heresy before the inquisition, and whose cause, first argued in Spain, was by the pope’s order removed to Rome. Azpilcueta exerted himself to the utmost, but without success, which we cannot be surprised at when we consider that the inquisitors were his opponents and although they could prove nothing against Caranza, they contrived that he should die in prison. Azpilcueta, however, was honourably received at Rome pope Pius V. appointed him assistant to cardinal Francis Alciat, his vice-penitentiary, and Gregory XIII. never passed his door without a visit, or met him in the street, without enjoying some conversation with him. He was much consulted, and universally esteemed for learning, probity, piety, and chanty. Antonio informs us that he used to ride on a mule through the city, and relieve every poor person he met, and that the creature of itself would stop at the sight of a poor person until its master relieved him. He died June 21, 1586, then in his ninetyfourth year. His works, which are either on morals or common law, were published, Rome, 1590, 3 vols. Lyons, 1591, Venice, 1602.

, or Babrius, was a Greek poet who turned Esop’s fables into choliambics, that is, verses with an iambic foot in the fifth place, and a spondee in the sixth or last. Suidas frequently quotes him, but the age and country in which he lived are unknown. Avienus the fabulist, in Prsef. Fab. seems to intimate, that Babrius was prior to Phaedrus, who wrote under the reign of Augustus or Tiberius. Mr. Tynvhitt, the learned author of the “Dissertatio de Babrio,” published at London in 1776, produces a passage from the Homeric lexicon of Apollonius, which appears to be a quotation from Babrius, and as Apollonius is supposed to have lived about the time of Augustus, or some what earlier, Babrius must have written before that period. From the fragments published in the above-mentioned work, Babrius appears to have been a valuable writer his representations are natural, his expressions lively, and his versification harmonious.

, a Christian bishop and martyr, of the third century, became bishop of Antioch in the year 238, and governed that see thirteen years. It is said he died for maintaining the Christian faith, but authors are not agreed about the time or manner of his martyrdom. Eusebius and St. Jerom say, that upon his professing himself a Christian, in the reign of Decius, he was put in prison and died there. St. Chrysostom, who wrote a panegyric upon Baby las, relates that he was brought out of prison and publicly executed. This is supposed to have taken place in the year 250. His relics were highly respected at Antioch, where two churches were built in honour of his memory, and it is said, that when his relics were brought thither, the oracle of Apollo was struck dumb.

In 1696 he published his monastic history, under the title of “DelP Istoria del Monasterio di S. Benedetto di Polirone nella Stato di Mantoua Libri cinque,” Modena, 1696, 4to. This was to have been succeeded by a second volume, but some unwelcome truths in the first having given offence, what he had prepared remained in manuscript The same year he travelled over various parts of Italy, visiting chiefly the libraries and the learned, who received him with the respect due to his talents. At Florence he passed some days with his friend Magliabecchi at Mount Cassin, and at St. Severin, the libraries were laid open, with permission to copy what he pleased and the cardinal d'Aguirre wished much to have procured him a place in the Vatican library, but being unsuccessful, Bacchini returned to Modena, where the duke made him his librarian. While putting the books in order here, he found the lives of the bishops of Ravenna by Agnelli (see Agnelli), which he committed to the press, with chronological dissertations and remarks, and the whole was ready for publication in 1702, but the censors at Rome hesitated so long in granting their permission, that it was not published before 1708. In the course of preparing this work, he wrote a dissertation on ecclesiastical hierarchy, entitled “De Ecclesiasticae Hierarchise origine dissertatio,” Mutina (i.e. Modena), 1703, 4to. In 1704 he was elected prior of the monastery of Modena, and in 1705 he published, under the name of the abbe and monks of the monastery of Parma, “Isidori Clarii ex Monacho Episcopi Fulginatis Epistolse ad amicos, hactenus ineditac,” Modena, 1705. Two years after, he was made chancellor of his order, and in 1708 was elected, in the general chapter, abbé of the monastery of St. Mary at Ragusa. In 1711 and 1719, other promotions of a similar kind were conferred upon him, but he was obliged to remove from place to place on account of his health, injured by a complication of disorders, which at last proved fatal, at Bologna, Sept. 1, 1721. Bacchini, according to the report of all his biographers, was one of the most learned men of his time few equalled and none surpassed him in Italy. His learning was universal, and his taste exquisite. "When young he was much admired for his pulpit eloquence, and it was thought would have proved one of the first preachers of his time, if his delicate temperament could have permitted that exertion. He was critically skilled in Greek and Hebrew, ancient and modern philosophy, and mathematics, but was perhaps most deeply conversant in sacred and profane history and chronology, and he was remarkably expert in decyphering ancient manuscripts. Few men, it may be added, were more admired in their time, or could enumerate among their friends so many men of high rank and learning; of the latter, Bacchini lived in habits of intimacy with Ciampini, Magliabecchi, Muratori, Gimma, Fontanini, Mabillon, Montfaucon, and the marquis Scipio Maffei, and in all his intercourse with the great or the learned, he preserves the character of a modest and humble man.

, a very celebrated Dutch painter, was born in 1631, in the city of Embden his father was secretary of state, and his grandfather had held a post in administration. The first sixteen years of his life were employed in studies suitable to the intentions of his family, which were to breed him up to commerce, and for that purpose he was sent to Amsterdam, where it would appear he first caught an inclination for painting. The earliest instructions he received in this art were from Albert Van Everdingen, but he acquired his principal know r Jedge by frequenting the painting-rooms of different great masters, and observing their various methods of touching and colouring. One of these masters was IJenry Dubbels, whose knowledge of his art was very extensive, and who was very communicative of what he knew. From him Backhuysen obtained more real benefit, than from all the painters of his time, and he had not availed himself long of such an instructor before he became the subject of general admiration, so that even his drawings were sought after, and one of his earliest performances was sold for one hundred florins. It was observed of him, that while he was painting, he would not suffer even his most intimate friends to have access to him, lest his fancy might be disturbed, and the ideas he had formed in his mind might be interrupted. He studied nature attentively in all her forms in gales, calms, storms, clouds, rocks, skies, lights and shadows and he expressed every subject with so sweet a pencil, and such transparence and lustre, as placed him above all the artists of his time in that style, except the younger Vandervelde. It was a frequent custom with Backhuysen whenever he could procure resolute mariners, to go out to sea in a storm, in order to store his mind with grand images, directly copied from nature, of such scenes as would have filled any other head and heart with terror and dismay and the moment he landed, he always impatiently ran to his palette, to secure those incidents of which the traces might, by delay, be obliterated. He perfectly understood ttie management of the chiaro-scuro, and strictly observed the truth of perspective. His works may be easily distinguished by an observant eye, from the freedom and neatness of his touch, from the clearness and natural agitation or quiescence of the water, from a peculiar tint in his clouds and skies, and also from the exact proportions of his ships, and the gracefulness of their positions.

Such early judgment determined his father to send him to France, that he might improve himself under that able and honest statesman, sir Amias Powlet, then the queen’s ambassador at Paris, and his behaviour while tinder the roof of that minister, was so prudent as to induce sir Amias to intrust him with a commission of importance to the queen, which required both secrecy and dispatch and this he executed so as to gain much credit both to the ambassador and to himself. He afterwards returned to Paris, but made occasional excursions into the provinces, where his attention appears to have been principally directed towards men and manners. He applied also with great assiduity to such studies as he conceived came within his father’s intention, and when he was but nineteen, wrote a very ingenious work, entitled, “A succinct view of the state of Europe,” which, it is plain, he had surveyed not only with the eye of a politician, but also of a philosopher. This work, it is probable, he improved on his return, when he was settled in Gray’s Inn. While thus employed abroad, the death of his father obliged him to return, and apply to some profession for his maintenance, as the money he inherited formed a very narrow provision. Accordingly, on his return, he resolved on the study of the common law, and for that purpose entered himself of the honourable society of Gray’s Inn, where his superior talents rendered him the ornament of the house, and the gentleness and affability of his deportment procured him the affection of all its members. The place itself was so agreeable to him, that he erected there a very elegant structure, which many years after was known by the name of “Lord Bacon’s Lodgings,” which he inhabited occasionally through the greatest part of his life. During the first years of his residence here, he did not confine his studies entirely to law, but indulged his excursive genius in a survey of the whole circle of science. It was here, and at that early age, where he formed, at least, if he did not mature, the plan of that great philosophical work, which has distinguished his name with such superior honour. Whether this first plan, or outlines, have descended to us, is a point upon which his biographers are not agreed. It was probably, however, the “Temporis Partus Masculus,” some part of which is preserved by Gruter in the Latin works of Bacon, which he published. The curious reader may receive much satisfaction on this subject from note D. of the Life of Bacon in the “Biographia Britannica.”

His other patron, Robert earl of Essex, proved a warm, steady, and indefatigable friend, and earnestly strove to make him queen’s solicitor, in 1594, although unsuccessfully, from the superior influence of the Cecils. He endeavoured, however, to make him amends for his disappointment out of his own fortune. This, it might be supposed, demanded on the part of Mr. Bacon, a high sense of obligation, and. such he probably felt at the time but it is much to be lamented, that he afterwards sullied his character by taking a most forward and active part in bringing that unfortunate nobleman to the block for he not only appeared against him as a lawyer for the crown, but after his death, endeavoured to perpetuate the shame of it, by drawing a declaration of the treasons of the earl of Essex, which was calculated to justify the government in a very unpopular measure, and to turn the public censure from those who had ruined the earl of Essex, and had never done Mr. Bacon any good. It is but fair, however, that we should give the outline of the apology which he found it necessary to make for his conduct. It amounts to this, that he had given the earl good advice, which he did not follow that upon this a coldness ensued, which kept them at a greater distance than formerly that, however, he continued to give his advice to the earl, and laboured all he could to serve him with the queen that in respect to his last unfortunate act, which was, in truth, no better than an act of madness, he had no knowledge or notice whatever that he did no more than he was in duty bound to do for the service of the queen, in the way of his profession and that the declaration was put upon him altered, after he had drawn it, both by Uie ministers and the queen herself. Such an apology, however, did not satisfy the public at that time, and the utmost investigation of the affair since has only tended to soften some parts of his conduct, without amounting to a complete justification.

Enemies he certainly had, whether from this cause, or from a jealousy of his high talents; and among other accusations, they represented him as a man, who, by applying too much of his time to other branches of knowledge, could not but neglect that of his profession but this appears to have been a foolish calumny. Most of his works on law were written, although not published, in this reign. About the year 1596, he finished his “Maxims of the Law.” As these are now published, they make only the first part of what are styled “The Elements of the Common Law of England.” The second treatise was entitled “The Use of the Law for preservation of our persons, goods, and good name, according to the laws and customs of this land,” a work of great value to students. His “Maxims of Law” he dedicated to queen Elizabeth, but, for whatever reason, the work was not published in his lifetime. The next year he published a work of another kind, entitled “Essays, or Counsels Civil and Moral.” This work is well known, and has been often reprinted. The author appears to have had a high opinion of its utility and of the excellent morality and wisdom it inculcates there probably never has been but one opinion. Some of these essays had been handed about in manuscript, which he assigns as the reason why he collected and published them in a correct form. About the close of the succeeding year, 1598, he composed his “History of the Aliena tion Office,” which was not published till many years after his decease, indeed not until the publication of his works in 1740, when it was copied from a ms. in the Inner Temple library. It is needless to mention some smaller instances of his abilities in the law, which, nevertheless, were received by the learned society of which he was a member, with all possible marks of veneration and esteem, and which they have preserved with the reverence due to so eminent an ornament of their house. As a farther proof of their respect, they chose him double reader in the year 1600, which office he discharged with his usual ability. He distinguished himself likewise, during the latter part of the queen’s reign, in the house of commons, where he spoke often, and with so much impartiality as to give occasional umbrage to the ministers. To the queen, however, he preserved a steady loyalty, and after her decease, composed a memorial of the happiness of her reign, which did equal honour to her administration, and to the capacity of its author. He transmitted a copy of this to Thuanus, who made use of it in his history, but Mr. Bacon contented himself with enjoining that it should be printed after his’ decease. It is a work of much elegance and ability.

In the mean time he gave evidence of the steady prosecution of his studies by publishing, in 1605, the first specimen of his great work, in his book “Of the Advancement of Learning,” a performance of much value even in its detached state. He continued, however, his diligence in parliament, and among other topics, endeavoured to second the views the king had entertained of an union between England and Scotland but his efforts for the crown were more successful in Westminster-hall than in that assembly. About this time he married Alice, daughter of Benedict Barnham, esq. alderman of London, a lady who brought him an ample fortune, but by whom he never had any children. In 1607, he succeeded in his application for the solicitorship, on a vacancy, and with that his practice encreased most extensively, there being few causes of importance in which he was not concerned. He assured the king, before he obtained this employment, that it would give him such an increase of capacity, though not of zeal, to serve his majesty, that what he had done in times past should seem as nothing, in comparison with the services he should render for the future and in this respect he is said to have kept his word, for in the session of parliament hold in the year in which he was made solicitor, he ran through a great variety of business, and that of a nature which required a man not only of great abilities but of great policy, and of equal reputation. He was, in the first place, employed by the house of commons to represent to the king the grievances under which the nation laboured and though the paper relating to them was couched in terms not very agreeable to the king’s temper, sir Francis, by his accompanying address, so abated their harshness as to perform this difficult commission with universal applause. He was likewise employed by the house at a conference with the lords, to persuade them to join in an application to the crown, for the taking away the ancient tenures, and allowing a certain and competent revenue in lieu of them and in his speech on this occasion, sir Francis Bacon set the affair in so clear a light, as excited that spirit, which at length procured the dissolution of the court of Wards, a point of the highest consequence to the Jiberties of this kingdom. He likewise satisfied the house at a time when they were much out of temper at the manner in which the king’s messages were conveyed to them and procured their acquiescence in the supplies by a well-timed speech, which must have convinced the king of what importance his services were likely to prove. Amidst all these political and professional engagements, he found leisure to digest the plan of the second part of his great work, which he transmitted to some judicious friends for their opinion. This piece was entitled “Cogitata et Visa,” and contained the ground-work or plan of his “Novum Organum,” so essential a part of his “Instauration,” that it sometimes bears that title. Bishop Andrews and sir Thomas Bodley w r ere two of the persons whose advice he solicited on this occasion, and their answers are printed in his works, where we have likewise a small discourse in English, under the Latin title of “Filum Labyrinthi,” which was the original draught of the “Cogitata et Visa.” While availing himself of the opinions of his learned contemporaries, he published in 1610, his celebrated treatise “Of the Wisdom of the Ancients,” a work which received and has ever retained the justest applause. It is not easy to say which is most conspicuous in this, his diligence in procuring the materials, or his judgment in disposing of them.

In the mean time the chancellor continued to supreintend the king’s affairs in general, and particularly the concerns of the civil list. There are many of his letters extant, both to the king and to Buckingham, upon this subject, which demonstrate an independence of mind, and an intrepidity in the discharge of his duty, very remote from the servile temper of which his enemies have accused him. In the beginning of January 1618, he had the title given him of lord high chancellor of England and in July of the same year, he was created baron of Verulam in the county of Hertford. This new honour excited his lordship to new services, and it appears from his own writings, that he was very attentive to every thing that might conduce, either to the immediate benefit of the king, or to the general good of his subjects. Some of his particulartransactions are detailed in the history of the times, and in his life in the Biographia but it would swell this article beyond all useful bounds were we to enter upon these. With regard to his more personal history, it may, however, be necessary to subjoin that while high chancellor, he procured from the king the farm of the alienation-office, which was of considerable benefit, and proved a great part of his subsistence, after he lost his office. He likewise procured York-house for his residence, for which he seems to have had an affection, as being the place of his birth, and where his father had lived all the time he possessed the high office of lord keeper of the great seal.

With his colleagues in administration, or in the law departments, he appears to have endeavoured to live upon good terms. Buckingham he contrived to keep in apparent humour, although he frequently refused to put the seal to what he thought improper grants and he even agreed better with sir Edward Coke than was expected, always representing that judge to the king in the most favourable light. About this time, however, an attempt was made to the prejudice of the chancellor, which might have given him some warning of his fall. One Wrenbam, against whom he had made a decree, surmising he had wrong done him, the general case with clients who lose their cause, presented a libellous petition to the king against him, the suggestions of which were thoroughly examined, and it clearly appeared that the chancellor had acted as became him, and that he had in truth been very much injured by this Wrenham the suggestions, however, appear to have produced those effects on some minds which afterwards were displayed more conspicuously.

The end of his political life, however, was now approaching, and was precipitated by means in which he had a considerable share, by advising his majesty to call a parliament, and grant redress of public abuses. In the course of investigating these, on the loth of March 1620-1, the committee appointed to inquire into the abuses in the courts of justice, reported that two charges of corruption had been brought against the lord chancellor; a farther inquiry was ordered by the house of commons, which produced stronger circumstances, and the complaint was sent up to the house of lords. When it came to be debated there, Buckingham presented a letter from the lord chancellor, who was then sick, in which he desired four things of their lordships first, that they would maintain him in their good opinion till his cause was heard secondly, that they would give him a convenient time, as well in regard of his ill state of health, as of the importance of the charge, to make his defence; thirdly, that they would allow him to except against the credit of the witnesses against him, to cross-examine them, and to produce evidence in his own defence and fourthly, that in case there came any more petitions of the like nature, that their lordships would not take any prejudice at their number, considering they were against a judge that made two thousand orders, and decrees in a year. Their lordships returned a respectful answer to this letter but within a few days, their own committee reported above twenty instances, in which he had taken bribes to the amount of several thousands of pounds. Of all this, the proof was so clear, as to determine the chancellor to relinquish his intended defence, and to throw himself upon the mercy of the house. This not being explicit, he sent a second full and particular confession and submission to the house, in which he acknowledged most, but extenuated some, of the many instances of corruption with which he had been charged, and once more threw himself entirely on the mercy of his peers. The lords having heard this paper read, a committee of lords were sent to him, who told him that the lords do conceive it to be an ingenuous and full confession, and demanded of him, whether it be his own hand that is subscribed to the same and whether he will stand to it or not To which the lord chancellor answered, “My lords, it is my act, my hand, my heart. I beseech your lordships to be merciful to a broken reed.”

In consequence of these proceedings, his lordship delivered up the great seal to his majesty, and the house of peers adjudged, that lord viscdunt St. Albans, lord chancellor of England, shall undergo fine and ransom of fortythousand pounds, that he shall be imprisoned in the Tower during the king’s pleasure, that he shall for ever be incapable of any office or employment in the state or commonwealth, and that he shall never sit in parliament, or come within the verge of the court. After a short confinement in the Tower, however, he was discharged, and in some measure regained his favour with the king, who, on the prorogation of parliament, was pleased to consult him, as to the proper methods of reforming the courts of justice, and taking away other grievances which that parliament had inquired into and his lordship accordingly drew up a memorial, which is extant in his works. Other marks of favour and indulgence were shewn him, which, amidst the anguish of a blasted character, so far appeased his troubled mind, that he resumed his studies with his accustomed vigour. In the spring of the succeeding year, 1622, he published his history of, Henry VII. which has not added so much to his reputation as his other works. When the new parliament was called, in which the house of commons shewed great zeal for his majesty’s service, he composed “Considerations of a war with Spain,” and likewise “Heads of a Speech” for his friend sir Edward Sackville, upon the same subject and these services were so well received, that upon an application to the king for a full pardon, he easily obtained it. In the warrant directed for this purpose to the attorney-general, his majesty took notice of his lordship’s having already satisfied justice by his sufferings, and. that himself being always inclined to temper justice with mercy, and likewise calling to remembrance his former good services, and how well and profitably he had spent his time since his troubles, he was graciously pleased to remove from him that blot of ignominy which yet remained upon him, of incapacity and disablement, and to remit to him all penalties whatsoever, inflicted by that sentence.

The political character of lord Bacon is sufficiently determined by those events in his life, about which there can now be no dispute. However we may lament the fall of such a man, it appears too plain that it was owing entirely to his own misconduct, and neither to the intrigues of his enemies, or the temper of the times. He remains an awful example of the brightest character upon record, sullied by the vices of ambition and ostentation; for the latter betrayed him into expences which he was glad to defray without consideration of the means, nor is it much palliation of his great offence, that he was neither covetous nor avaricious.

In 1773, he presented to the Society forthe encouragement of arts, two statues in plaster, which by a vote of that society, were directed to be placed in their great room, and he received on the same occasion their gold medal. His first work in sculpture is in Christ Church college, already mentioned the first figures he executed in marble, are at the duke of Richmond’s at Goodwood and his first monument was that of Mrs. Withers, in St. Mary’s, Worcester. In 1777, he was employed to prepare a model of a monument to be erected in Guy’s hospital, South wark, to the memory of the founder. It was this work that chiefly recommended him to the execution of lord Chatham’s monument in Guildhall. His other works, about this period, were the monument of Mrs. Draper; a marble statue of Mars, for lord Yarborough two groupes for the top of Somerset-house the monument of lord Halifax in Westminster abbey the statue of judge Blackstone for All Souls college, Oxford, and that of Henry VI. for the Anti-chapel at Eton. It is not our intention, however, nor would our limits permit, to enumerate all the works executed by this artist, within twenty years after he attained his just and high fame. There are few of our cathedrals or puhlic edifices without some specimen of his skill, but it would be unpardonable to omit one of his grandest efforts, the monument of lord Chatham, in Westminster abbey, which was begun in 1778, and finished in 1783. It is alone a proof of the excellence he had attained, without the aid of foreign travel and observation and how various that excellence was, may be further proved from the bronze gfoupe in the square in Somersetplace the monuments of lady Miller at Bath of lord Rodney at Jamaica of lord Heathfield at Buckland of the earl and countess of Effingham at Jamaica of Howard and Johnson in St. Paul’s, &c. c.

Mr. Bacon’s private characfer is entitled to much praise. He vyas a man of unfeigned piety and extensive benevolence. Prosperity had not corrupted him, although it appeared to superficial observers that he was cautious in matters of expence, which they were apt to impute to motives which never entered into his mind. The want of education, he supplied by useful reading, and without the more ostensible attainments of a scholar, his conversation as far as it regarded common life and common topics, had none of those deficiencies which academical education is supposed to supply. In his temper, the irritability of the artist was corrected by much meekness and forbearance, and he had that noble candour which never denies just praise to a rival or contemporary. With respect to his attainments in his profession, they might be said to be all his own. Having arrived at the highest rank of English artists in sculpture, he lias amply proved that foreign travel confers a merit which is rather useful than necessarv a distinction which will not be misunderstood by those who know to what caprices the success of modern artists is often indebted.

, lord keeper of the great seal in the reign of queen Elizabeth, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Suffolk. His rather was Robert Bacon of Drinkstxm in that county, esq. and his mother was Isabel, the daughter of John Gage of Pakenhain in the said county, esq. Nicholas, their second son, was born in 1510, at Chislehurst in Kent. After having received the first rudiments of learning, probably at home, or in the neighbourhood, he was sent when very young to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, where having improved in all branches of useful knowledge, he went to France, in order to give the last polish to his education. On his return he settled in Gray VInn, and applied himself with such assiduity to the study of the law, that on the dissolution of the monastery of St. Edmund’s-Bury in Suffolk, he had a grant from king Henry VIII. in the thirty-­sixth year of his reign, of the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Worthanf, as also the tithes of Redgrave to hold in capite by knight’s service, a proof of the estimation in which he was held by his majesty. In the thirtyeighth of the same king, he was promoted to the office of attorney in the court of wards, a place both of honour and profit, and his patent was renewed in the first year of Edward VI. and in 1552, which was the last year of his reign, Mr. Bacon was elected treasurer of Gray’s-Inn. His great moderation and consummate prudence, preserved him through the dangerous reign of queen Mary. In the very dawn of that of Elizabeth he was knighted, and the great seal of England being taken from Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, was delivered to sir Nicholas Bacon, on the 22d of December 1558, with the title of lord keeper. He was also of the privy council to her majesty, who had much regard to his advice. The parliament met Jan. 23, but was prorogued on account of the queen’s indisposition to the 25th, when the lord keeper opened the session with a most eloquent and solid speech. Some of the queen’s counsellors thought it necessary that the attainder of the queen’s mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper thought the crown purged all defects, and in compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen’s title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother. The principal business of this session was the settlement of religion, in which no man had a greater share than the keeper, and he acted with such prudence as never to incur the hatred of any party. On this account he was, together with the archbishop of York, appointed moderator in a dispute between eight Protestant divines, and eight Popish bishops and the latter behaving very unfairly in the opinion of both the moderators, and desiring, to avoid a fair disputation, to go away, the lord keeper put that question to each of them, and when all except one insisted on going, his lordship dismissed them with this memorandum, “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us” and accordingly for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the tower, and the rest were bound to appear before the council, and not to quit the cities of London and Westminster without leave. The whole business of the session, than which there was none of greater importance during that reign, was chiefly managed by his lordship, according to his wise maxim, “Let us stay a little, that we may have done the sooner.” From this time he stood as high in the favour of the queen as any of her ministers, and maintained a cordial interest with other great men, particularly with those eminent persons, who had married into the same family with himself, viz. Cecil, Hobby, Rowlet, and Killigrew. By their assistance he preserved his credit at court, though he sometimes differed in opinion from the mighty favourite Leicester, who yet once bad fair his ruin, when certain intrigues were carried on respecting the succession. Some statesmen, and particularly the earl of Leicester, pretended to favour the title of the queen of Scots, but others were more inclined to the house of Suffolk. The queen sometimes affected a neutrality, and sometimes shewed a tenderness for the title of the Scottish queen. In 1564, when these disputes were at the height, Mr. John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, published a treatise which seems to have been written a considerable time before, in favour of the Suffolk line, and against the title of the queen of Scots. This book was complained of by the bishop of Ross, ambassador from the queen of Scots, and Ross being warmly supported by the earl of Leicester, Hales was committed to prison, and so strict an inquiry made after all who had expressed any favour for this piece, that at last the lord-keeper came to be suspected, which drew upon him the queen’s displeasure, and he was forbidden the court, removed from his seat at council, and prohibited from meddling with any affairs but those of the chancery nay, Camden says he was confined . At last, however, Cecil, who is suspected to have had some share in the above treatise, with much difficulty restored him to the queen’s good opinion, as appears by her setting him at the head of that commission, granted in the year 1568, for hearing the difference between the queen of Scots, and her rebellious subjects; and in 1571, we find him again acting in the like capacity, though very little was done before the commissioners at either time, which was what queen Elizabeth chiefly desired, and the covering her inclination with a decent appearance of justice, was perhaps not a little owing to the address of the lord-keeper. Afterwards he continued at the head of her majesty’s councils, and had a great hand in preventing, by his moderation, some violent measures afterwards proposed. The share, however, that he had in the business of the duke of Norfolk, and his great care for promoting the Protestant religion, created him many bitter enemies among the Papists both at home and abroad, who though they were able to do him no great hurt, yet published some libels, particularly “A Detection of certain practices, &c.” printed in Scotland, about 1570, and “A treatise of Treason,” both which gave him considerable uneasiness, although the queen expressed her opinion, by a proclamation, ordering them to be burnt. As a statesman, he was remarkable for a clear head, and acute understanding; and while it was thought of some other great men that they seemed wiser than they were, yet the common voice of the nation pronounced, that sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed. His great skill lay in balancing factions, and it is thought he taught the queen that secret, the more necessary to her because the last of her family, and consequently without many of the usual supports of princes. In the chancery he distinguished himself by a very moderate use of power, and the respect he shewed to the common law. At his own request, an act of parliament was made, to settle and establish the power of a lord -keeper, though he might probably have taken away all need of this, by procuring the title of lord chancellor: but according to his motto, which was Mediocra firma, he he was content to be safe, and did not desire to be great*. In that court, and in the star-chamber, he made use, on proper occasions, of set speeches, in which he was peculiarly happy, and gained the reputation of a witty and a weighty speaker. His great parts and great preferment were far from raising him in his own opinion, as appears from the modest answer he gave* queen Elizabeth, when she told him his house at Redgrave was too little for him, “Not so, madam,” returned he, “but your majesty has made me too great for my house.” Yet to shew his respect for her majesty’s judgment, he afterwards added wings to this house. His modesty in this respect was so much the greater, since he had a great passion for building, and a very fine taste, as appeared by his house and gardens at Gorhambury near St. Alban’s, now the seat of lord viscount Grimston. Towards the latter end of his life, he became very corpulent, which made queen Elizabeth say merrily, that “sir Nicholas’s soul lodged well. To himself, however, his bulk was very inconvenient after walking from Westminster-hall to the star-chamber, which was but a very little way, he was usually so much out of breath, that the lawyers forbore speaking at the bar till he recocovered himself, and gave them notice by knocking” with his staff. After having held the great seal more than twenty years, this able statesman and faithful counsellor was suddenly removed from this life, as Mallett informs us, by the following accident “He was under the hands of his barber, and the weather being sultry, had ordered a window before him to be thrown open. As he was become very corpulent, he presently fell asleep, in the cur­* After he had been some monthsact of parliament, which declares, in office, as keeper of the great seal,” That the common law always was, he began to doubt to what degree his that the keeper of the great seal always authority extended, which seems to had, as of right belonging to his office, have been owing to the general terms the same authority, jurisdiction, excused upon the delivery of the great cution of laws, and all other customs, Heal, of which we have various in- as the lord chancellor of England lawstances in Rymer’s Foedera. Upon fully used.“What the true reason this, he first applied himself to the was that made his lordship so uneasy, queen, from whom he procured a pa- is not perhaps known to posterity. tent, bearing date at Westminster, the But sir Henry Spelman has observed, 14th of April, in the first year of her that for the benefit of that wise counreign, whereby she declares him te seller sir Nicholas Bacon, the authobare as full powers as if he were rity of the keeper of the great seal hancellor of England, and ratifies all was by this law declared to be in all that he had already done. This, how- respects the same with that of th ever, did not fully satisfy him but chancellor, four years afterwards he procured an rent of fresh air that was blowing in upon him, and awaked after some time distempered all over. c Why,‘ said he to the servant, < did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed’ The fellow replied, ‘ That he durst not presume to disturb him.’ * Then,‘ said the lord keeper, * by your civility I lose my life,’ and so removed into his bed-chamber, where he died a few days after.” But this story seems doubtful, for all writers agree, that sir Nicholas Bacon died Feb. 20, 1579, when the weather could not be very sultry. On the 9th of March following he was buried with great solemnity, under a sumptuous monument erected by himself in St. Paul’s church, with an inscription written by the celebrated Buchanan. Camden’s character of him is just and plain “Vir praepinguis, ingenio acerrimo, singulari prudentia, summa eloquentia, tenaci memoria, et sacris conciliis alterum columen” i. e. A man of a gross body, but most quick wit, singular prudence, supreme eloquence, happy memory, and for judgment the other pillar of the state. His son’s pharacter of him is more striking. He was “a plain man, direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness and one that was of a mind that a man, in his private proceedings and estate, and in the proceedings of state, should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others, according to the sentence of Solomon, * Vir prudens advertit ad gressus suos stultus autem divertit ad dolos’ insomuch that the bishop of Ross, a subtle and observing man, said of him, that he could fasten no words upon him, and that it was impossible to come within him, because he offered no play; and the queen mother of France, a very politic princess, said of him, that he should have been of the council of Spain, because he despised the occurrents, and rested upon the first plot.” Nor is Puttenham’s short account to be overlooked “I have come to the lord keeper, and found him sitting in his gallery alone, with the works of Quintilian before him. Indeed he was a most eloquent man, of rare wisdom and learning, as ever I knew England to breed, and one that joyed as much in learned men and 0'.;d wits, from whose lippes Ihave seen to proceed more i;rave and natural eloquence than from all the orators of Oxford and Cambridge.”

Sir Nicholas ranks among the liberal benefactors to the university of Cambridge, and particularly to Corpus college, in which he was educated. He presented to the public library one hundred and three Greek and Latin books, and on the college he bestowed two hundred pounds towards erecting a new chapel, and engaged other friends to contribute to the same purpose. He settled, likewise, upon the college, an annuity of twenty pounds, for the maintenance of six scholars, who are to be chosen out of the grammar school at Redgrave, near Botesdale in Suffolk. This school was founded by himself, and he allotted thirty pounds per annum for the support of it; he founded also Cursitor’s or Bacon’s Inn in Chancery-lane and for the furtherance of religion, he appointed two annual sermons in St. Paul’s cathedral-, allotting four marks per annum for the payment of the preachers. Nor must we omit some notice of his intention, in Henry VIII.'s time, to found a seminary of ministers of state out of the revenues of the dissolved monasteries.His majesty had intended to found a house for the study of the civil law, and the purity of the Latin and French tongues. He ordered, therefore, sir Nicholas Bacon, and two others, Thomas Denton, and Robert Gary, to draw out the plan and statutes of such a house, which they accordingly brought to the king in writing. The intention of it was, that there should be frequent pleadings and other exercises in the Latin and French languages, and that when the students had attained to some degree of ripeness, they should be sent out with our ambassadors, and trained up in the knowledge of foreign affairs, by which means the institution would become a nursery for public ministers. Others of the students were to be employed in writing the history of the national transactions both at home and abroad, including, particularly, embassies, treaties, arraign rnents, and state trials. But before they were to be permitted to write on these subjects, they were to take an oath before the lord chancellor, that they would do it truly, without respect of persons, and without any corrupt views. This design, however, miscarried, probably owing to Henry’s extravagant dissipation of the revenues of the dissolved monasteries.

, an eminent English divine of the thirteenth century, was born, according to the most probable conjectures, about 1168, but where is not known. He studied, however, at Oxford, where he distinguished himself by the quickness of his parts and his assiduous application. Thence according to the custom of that age, tie removed to Paris, and acquired such learning as the age afforded. After his return, of which we have no date, he settled at Oxford, and read divinity lectures. His colleague in this office was Dr. Edmund Rich, in our histories commonly styled Edmund Abingdon a man famous for literature, and yet, in the opinion of Leland, inferior to our Bacon. This Dr. Rich had been chosen by the canons of Salisbury, treasurer of their church, and in 1233, becoming archbishop of Canterbury, his friend Robert Bacon succeeded him as treasurer of the cathedral church of Salisbury. The same year he gained great reputation by a sermon preached before his royal master, king Henry III. at Oxford, whither his majesty came, in order to hold a general council of his lords. In this discourse, Bacon plainly told the king the mischiefs to which himself and his subjects were exposed, by his reposing too great a confidence in Peter de Rupibus, bishop of Winchester, and other foreigners and this honest sermon had a great effect on the mind of his master, and inclined him to give satisfaction to his nobility, who were then, generally speaking, disaffected. This seasonable service rendered to the nation, did more to secure his memory from oblivion, than his many years laborious reading, or even his learned writings.

Dr. Pegge, whose excellent life of bishop Grosseteste we have seen since the above article was written, thinks that Robert Bacon was either elder brother, or more probably, as Leland imagines, uncle of Roger Bacon. Robert was the person who initiated Edmund archbishop of Canterbury in the study of divinity, but Bulaeus, in his history of the university of Paris, says he was himself the scholar of that saint, which Dr. Pegge doubts. However, he wrote “Edmund’s life,” and is noticed by Leland, as the particular acquaintance and intimate of bishop Grosseteste. Matthew of Westminster gives him and Fishakel the character of being two such as were not exceeded by any in Christendom, or even equalled, especially as preachers. Dr. Pegge observes, that this character is the more extraordinary as coming from a monk, and that from the latter part of it, as well as from the list of Robert’s productions, it appears that his excellence lay in theology, a particular which constitutes an essential difference in the character of him and Roger Bacon, who was eminently skilled in the mathematics and philosophy, as well as divinity, and perhaps more so.

, a learned English monk of the Franciscan order, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born near Ilchester in Somersetshire, in 1214, and was descended of a very ancient and honourable family. He received the first tincture of letters at Oxford, where having gone through grammar and logic, the dawnings of his genius gained him the favour and patronage of the greatest lovers of learning, and such as were equally distinguished by their high rank, and the excellence of their knowledge. It is not very clear, says the Biographia Britannica, whether he was of Merton college, or of Brazen-nose hall, and perhaps he studied at neither, but spent his time at the public schools. The latter is indeed more probable than that he studied at Merton college, which did not then exist. It appears, however, that he went early over to Paris, where he made still greater progress in all parts of learning, and was looked upon as the glory of that university, and an honour to his country. In those days such as desired to distinguish themselves by an early and effectual application to their studies, resorted to Paris, where not only many of the greatest men in Europe resided and taught, but many of the English nation, by whom Bacon was encouraged and caressed. At Paris he did not confine his studies to any particular branch of literature, but endeavoured to comprehend the sciences in general, fully and perfectly, by a right method and constant application. When he had attained the degree of doctor, he returned again, to his own country, and, as some say, took the habit of the Franciscan order in 1240, when he was about twenty-six years of age but others assert that he became a monk before he left France. After his return to Oxford, he was considered, by the greatest men of that university, as one of the ablest and most indefati^ gable inquirers after knowledge that the world had ever produced and therefore they not only shewed him all due respect, but likewise conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generously contributed to his expences, so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of twenty years, no less than two thousand pounds in collecting curious authors, making trials of various kinds, and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge. But if this assiduous application to his studies, and the stupendous progress he made in them, raised his credit with the better part of mankind, it excited the envy of some, and afforded plausible pretences for the malicious designs of others. It is very easy to conceive, that the experiments he made in all parts of natural philosophy and the mathematics, must have made a great noise in an ignorant age, when scarcely two or three men in a whole nation were tolerably acquainted with those studies, and when all the pretenders to knowledge affected to cover their own ignorance, by throwing the most scandalous aspersions on those branches of science, which they either wanted genius to understand, or which demanded greater application to acquire, than they were willing to bestow. They gave out, therefore, that mathematical studies were in some measure allied to those magical arts which the church had condemned,and thereby brought suspicions upon men of superior learning. It was owing to this suspicion that Bacon was restrained from reading lectures to the young students in the university, and at length closely confined and almost starved, the monks being afraid lest his writings should extend beyond the limits of his convent, and be seen by any besides themselves and the pope. But there is great reason to believe, that though his application to the occult; sciences was their pretence, the true cause of his ill-usage was, the freedom with which he had treated the clergy in, his writings, in which he spared neither their ignorance nor their want of morals. But notwithstanding this harsh feature in the character of the times, his reputation continued to spread over the whole Christian world, and even pope Clement IV. wrote him a letter, desiring that he would send him all his works. This was in 1266, when our author was in the flower of his 4 age, and to gratify his holiness, collected together, greatly enlarged and ranged in some order, the several pieces he had written before that time, and sent them the next year by his favourite disciple John of London, or rather of Paris, to the pope. This collection, which is the same that himself entitled Opus Majus, or his great work, is yet extant, and was published by Dr. Jebb, in 1773. Dr. Jebb had proposed to have published all his works about three years before his edition of the Opus Majus, but while he was engaged in that design, he was informed by letters from his brother at Dublin, that there was a“manuscript in the college library there, which contained a great many treatises generally ascribed to Bacon, and disposed in such order, that they seemed to form one complete work, but the title was wanting, which l,iad been carelessly torn off from the rest of the manuscript. The doctor soon found that it was a collection of those tracts which Bacon had written for the use of pope Clement IV. and to which he had given the title of Opus Majus, since it appeared, that what he said of that work in his Opus Tertium, addressed to the same pope, exactly suited with this; which contained an account of almost all the new discoveries and improvements that he had made in the sciences,. Upon this account Dr. Jebb laid aside his former design, and resolved to publish only an edition of this Opus Majus. The manuscripts which he made use of to complete this edition, are, 1. ms. in the Cotton library, inscribed^” Jul. D. V.“which contains the first part of the Opus Majus, under the title of a treatise” Jl)e utijitate Scientiarnii). “2. Another ms. in the same library, marked” Tib. C. V." containing the fourth part of the Opus Majus, in which is shewn the use of the mathematics in the sciences and affairs of the world in the ms. it is erroneously called the fifth part. 3. A ms. in the library belonging to Corpus Christi in Cambridge, containing that portion of the fourth part which treats of geography. 4. A ms. of the fifth part, containing a treatise upon perspective, in the earl of Oxford’s library. 5. A ms. in the library of Magdalen college, Cambridge, comprehending the same treatise of perspective. 6. Two Mss. in the king’s library, communicated to the editor by Dr. Richard Bentley, one of which contains the fourth part of Opus Majus, and the other the fifth part. It is said that this learned book of his procured him the favour of Clement IV. and also some encouragement in the prosecution of his studies but this could not have lasted long, as that pope died soon after, and then we find our author under fresh embarrassments from the same causes as before; but he became in more danger, as the general of his order, Jerom de Ascoli, having heard his cause, ordered him to be imprisoned. This is said to have happened in 1278, and to prevent his appealing to pope Nicholas III. the general procured a confirmation of his sentence from Rome immediately, but it is not very easy to say upon what pretences. Yet we are told by others, that he was imprisoned by Reymundus Galfredus, who was general of his order, on account of some alchemistical treatise which he had written, and that Galfredus afterwards set him at liberty, and became his scholar. However obscure these circumstances may be, it is certain that his sufferings for many years must have brought him low, since he was sixty-four years of age when he was first put in prison, and deprived of the opportunity of prosecuting his studies, at least in the way of experiment. That he was still indulged in the use of his books, appears very clearly from the great use he made of them in the learned works he composed.

Pope Nicholas III. dying in the year 1280, Simon de Brie, cardinal of St. Cecilia, was elected pope, and four years after, was succeeded by cardinal Savelli, who took the name of Honoring IV. in the year 1285. Both reigns were full of troubles and very short so that in all this time our author could find no opportunity of applying to the holy see for the mitigation of the sentence pronounced against him- But when he had been ten years in prison, Jerom de Ascoli, who had condemned his doctrine, was chosen pope, and assumed the name of Nicholas IV. As he was the first of the Franciscan order that had ever arrived at this dignity, was reputed a person of great probity and much learning, our author, notwithstanding what had before happened, resolved to apply to him for his discharge and in order to pacify his resentment, and at the same time to shew both the innocence and the usefulness of his studies, he addressed to him a very learned and curious treatise, “On the means of avoiding the infirmities of Old Age,” printed first at Oxford, 1590, and translated and published by Dr. Richard Browne, under the title of “The cure of Old Age and preservation of Youth,” London, 1683, 8vo. It does not appear, however, that his application had any effect on the contrary, some writers say that he caused him to be more closely confined. But towards the latter end of his reign, Bacon, by the interposition of some noblemen, obtained his release, and returned to Oxford, where, at the request of his friends, he composed “A compendium of Theology,” which seems to have been his last work, and of which there is a copy in the royal library. He spent the remainder of his days in peace, and dying in the college of his order, on the 11th of June 1292, as some say, or in 1294, as others assert, was interred in the church of the Franciscans. The monks gave him the title of “Doctor Mirabilis,” or the Wonderful Doctor, which he deserved, in whatever sense the phrase is taken.

He was certainly the most extraordinary man of his time. He was a perfect master of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and has left posterity such indubitable marks of his critical skill in them, as might have secured him a very high character, if he had never distinguished himself in any other branch of literature. In all branches of the mathematics he was well versed, and there is scarcely any part of them, on which he has not written with a solidity and clearness, which have been deservedly admired by the greatest masters in that science. In mechanics particularly, the learned Dr. Freind says, that a greater genius had not arisen since the days of Archimedes. He understood likewise the whole science of optics, with accuracy and is very justly allowed to have understood, both the theory and practice of those discoveries, which have bestowed such high reputation on those of our own and of other nations, who have brought them into common use. In geography also he was admirably well skilled, as appears from a variety of passages in his works, which was the reason that induced the judicious Hackluyt to transcribe a large discourse out of his writings, into his Collection of Voyages and Travels. But his skill in astronomy was still more remarkable, since it appears, that he not only pointed out that error which occasioned the reformation in the calendar, and the distinction between the old stile and the new, but also offered a much more effectual and perfect reformation, than that which was made in the time of pope Gregory XIII. There are also remaining some works of his relating to chronology, which would have been thought worthy of very particular notice, if his skill in other sciences had not made his proficiency in this branch of knowledge the less remarkable. The history of the four great empires of the world, he has treated very accurately ind succinctly, in his great work addressed to pope Clelent IV. He was so thoroughly acquainted with Cheistry at a time that it was scarcely known in Europe, id principally cultivated among the Arabians, that Dr. Freind ascribes the honour of introducing it to him, who speaks in some part or other of his works, of almost every operation now used in chemistry. Three capital discoveries lade by him deserve to be particularly considered. The first is, the invention of gun-powder, which, however confidently ascribed to others, was unquestionably known to him, both as to its ingredients and effects. The second is that which commonly goes under the name of alchemy, or the art of transmuting metals, of which he has left many treatises, some published, and some still remaining in ms. which, whatever they may be thought of now, contain a multitude of curious and useful passages, independently of their principal subject. The third discovery in chemistry, not so deserving of the reader’s attention, was the tincture of gold for the prolongation of life, of which Dr. Freind says, he has given hints in his writings, and has said enough to shew that he was no pretender to this art, but understood as much of it as any of his successors. That he was far from being unskilled in the art of physic, we might rationally conclude, from his extensive knowledge in those sciences, which are connected with it: but we have a manifest proof of his perfect acquaintance with the most material and useful branches of physic, in his Treatise of Old Age, which, as Dr. Freind, whose authority on that subject cannot well be disputed, observes, is very far from being ill written; and Dr. Brown, who published it in English, esteemed it one of the best performances that ever was written. In this work he has collected whatever he had met with upon the subject, either in Greek or Arabian writers, and has added a great many remarks of his own. In logic and metaphysics he was excellently well versed, as appears by those parts of his works, in which he has treated of these subjects; neither was he unskilled in philology and the politer parts of learning. In ethics, or moral philosophy, he has laid down some excellent principles for the conduct of human life. But, as his profession required a particular application to theology, it appears, that he made all his other studies subservient thereto. He had the highest deference for the Holy Scriptures, and thought that in them were contained the principles of true science, and of all useful knowledge. He therefore pressed the study of them in their original languages, and an assiduous application to the several branches of learning, which he thought necessary for the thorough understanding of them,

As to the vulgar imputation on his character, of his leaning to magic, it was utterly unfounded and the ridiculous story of his making a brazen head, which spoke and answered questions, is a calumny indirectly fathered upon him, having been originally imputed to Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln. That he had too high an opinion of judicial astrology, and some other arts of that nature, was not so properly an error of his as of the age in which he lived and considering how few errors, among the many which infected that age, appear in his writings, it may be easily forgiven. As his whole life was spent in labour and study, and he was continually employed, either in writing for the information of the world, or in reading and making experiments, that might enable him to write with greater accuracy; so we need not wonder his works were extremely numerous, especially when it is considered, that on the one hand his studies took in the whole circle of the sciences, and that on the other, the numerous treatises ascribed to him, are, often in fact, but so many chapters, sections, or divisions and sometimes we have the same pieces under two or three different names so that it is not at all strange before these points were well examined, that the accounts we have of his writings appeared very perplexed and confused. But notwithstanding this seeming perplexity and confusion, it is not a very difficult thing, to give a distinct account of his writings, the greater part of which are extant, and catalogued in the Biographia Britannica, and it were to be wished, that they were also made public. He was very far from being a hasty, incorrect, or desultory writer; on the contrary, all his works have a just reference to one great and general system, which he has executed in all its parts to a much greater degree of perfection, than has been hitherto supposed.

, king’s advocate in the exchequer of Paris, flourished about the close of the sixteenth century, and was profoundly skilled in the municipal and civil law. He wrote many treatises on different branches of these laws, which were first published in 1608, and again in 1688, with the commentaries of Claude de Ferrieres, A third, and improved edition was printed at Lyons, 1744, 2 vols. fol. He died in April 1597, of grief for the death of his son-in-law, Charpentier, a professor of medicine in the university of Paris, who was executed for being concerned in the league, or insurrection against the succession of Henry IV.

, an English divine, and critical and polemical writer of considerable eminence, was the son of a butcher at South Moulton, in Devonshire, where he was born, Feb. 23, 1747. His relations and friends being dissenters, he was designed by them for the ministerial function and after receiving the first rudiments of his education under his maternal uncle, Mr. Blake, a dissenting minister at South Moulton, he was sent to the dissenting academy at St. Mary Ottery, in the same county. The doctrines taught in this academy were those of the old Nonconformists or Puritans, and for a considerable time, Mr. Badcock adhered to them with sincerity. His proficiency in other respects was such, in the opinion of his tutors, that at the age of nineteen, he received a call to be the pastor of a dissenting congregation at Winborne in Dorsetshire, from which he was invited to the same office, soon after, at Barnstaple in Devonshire where his’ income was more considerable, and which place was more agreeable to him as it was but a few miles from his native town. The date of his removal here is said to be in 1769, and he continued to be the pastor of this congregation for nine or ten years.

The cause of his removal from Barnstaple has been variously represented. On the one hand, it is said that a notorious indiscretion had excited the resentment of his hearers, but that he amply vindicated his character in this instance, although he could not prevent the consequences of their displeasure. On the other hand, it appears that a change in his religious opinions interrupted the union which must necessarily subsist between a pastor and his flock in dissenting congregations, where the former depends entirely for his maintenance on the good will and affection of the latter. It is certain that after he had been three or four years settled at Barnstaple, he met with some of Dr. Priestley’s Socinian productions, with which he was so captivated as to pay a visit to the Doctor, at Calne, in Wiltshire, and commenced a correspondence with him, from which it is evident that he had discarded the opinions, not only of his Calvinistic tutors, but those which are accounted orthodox by the generality of Christians.

We find Mr. Badcock afterwards frequently corresponding with the Gentleman’s Magazine the London Magazine, where for some time he had a regular engagement the General Evening Post and St. James’s Chronicle. But the gjreat scene of his literary warfare, was in the Monthly Review, in which he appears to have criticized many works of considerable note, and in a manner which attracted the attention of the public to a journal, (already the highest in general estimation) in no common degree, lu 1780, when a controversy arose respecting materialism, Mr. Badcock published “A slight sketch of the controversy between Dr. Priestley and his opponents,” and from this time he became the decided antagonist of the doctor in all those opinions upon which they formerly corresponded, and appeared to agree. The influence of Mr. Badcock’s education seems to have returned with increased force, and although he did not revert to some of the principles of his early days, and in no respect resumed the garb or the behaviour of a Puritan, he certainly became a zealous contender for the Trinitarian system, in opposition to Socinianism in all its modifications. This was particularly displayed in his review of Dr. Priestley’s “History of the Corruption of Christianity,” in 1783, and 1784, and the controversy to which that work gave rise between Dr. Priestley, and Dr. Horsley, then archdeacon of St. Alban’s, and successively bishop of Rochester and St. Asaph. He, had before this, however, interested the public attention by the review of Mr. Madan’s “Thejyphthora,” and displayed a force of genius, skill of argument, and depth of learning, which that author found irresistible. No work apparently of eminence, and calculated for popularity, perhaps ever was so completely driven into oblivion by the efforts of a periodical reviewer. Nor was Mr. Badcock’s triumph less complete over the believers in Chatterton’s imposture, although it must be owned that in this last controversy he had able coadjutors.

It has been supposed that his acquaintance with the bishop of Exeter, Dr. Ross, and the most respectable clergymen of his diocese, might have led him to examme the foundation of dissent audit might have appeared to him, as it has to very many of sound judgment and acknowledged abilities, that this foundation was groundless. He was led to conform by no promise, and, at best, by very distant views of advancement. It is, indeed, impossible to read the heart of man but, if it can be read by an intimate acquaintance, his conformity was sincere. But whatever were his views, or the views of those who wished to see him among the defenders of the established church, they were disappointed by a premature death, In the spring of 1787, he was ordained deacon by bishop Ross, and, by a very distinguished compliment, received priest’s orders the following week. The title upon which he was ordained was the curacy of Broad Clyst, near Exeter, and he afterwards preached, as assistant to Dr. Gabriel, in the Octagon chapel, Bath. He was much afflicted with head-aches, which frequently interrupted his public services. In May, 1788, he was attacked by an illness which proved fatal on the 19th of that month, while on a visit to his friend sir John Chichester, bart. in Queen- street, May-Fair.

Some time before his death, he was requested to arrange the papers which Mr. Chappie had collected for his improved edition of Risdon’s “Survey of Devon.” After this was done, he was earnestly urged, from these materials, with additional assistance, such as influence or fortune could bestow, to write the history anew. For this undertaking he had many qualifications, if his health could have been preserved. When at Bath, he preached a chanty sermon, which was afterwards printed, but not published. In his person, Mr. Badcock was short, but well made, active, lively, and agreeable his eyes were peculiarly vivacious, and his whole countenance indicated strong intellectual powers, far above the general run of mankind, and a disposition replete with sensibility, tenderness, and generosity. This short sketch of his life has been taken from very copious materials, published in the Gentleman’s Magazine* vol. LVIII, p. 595, 69.1, 780, 781, 868; LIX, p. 571, 713, 776, 871, 877; and the reader may form a judgment of his critical talents by perusing the following articles in the Monthly Review, in addition to what have been already mentioned Sherlock’s Letters; David Williams’ s Lectures; Steevens’s Shakspeare, edit. 1780; Malone’s Supplement; Milne’s Sermons; Mac-NicoFs Remarks on Dr. Johnson History of Moravianism Jacob Behmen’s Life; Mainwaring’s Sermons; Von Troil’s Letters on Iceland Milles’s edition of Rowley’s poems Nichols’s Life of Hogarth, and Bowyer’s Miscellaneous Tracts, 1785. His first review was of Ruhnkenius’s edition of Homer’s Hymn to Ceres, which he sent anonymously to the Editor.

, who, as founder of Clare-hall, Cambridge, is justly entitled to a place among the benefactors of learning, was descended from a knightly family, seated at Great Badew, or Badow, near Chelmsford, in the county of Essex. From this place, they took their surname and here, probably, Richard de Badew was born. In 1326, he was chancellor of the university of Cambridge and having purchased two tenements in Miln-street, of Nigel Thornton, a physician, he laid there, in the year abovementioned, the foundation of a building, to which was given the name of University hall. Stow differs from this account, in asserting that the twq houses of old belonged to the chancellor and university. Badew, however, placed a principal in this hall, who was to take care of th pensioners that came to live there at their own expence or, as others say, at the charge of the university for, as yet, it was not endowed, and this, it must be confessed, suits rather better with the term pensioner. University hail continued in this condition for the space of sixteen years, and then by an accidental fire Was burnt down. Richard de Badew being unable to rebuild it, it lay for a few years in ruins. But one of the late pensioners having a great interest with Elizabeth, daughter of sir Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, and third sister and co-heir of sir Gilbert de Clare, the last earl of Gloucester and Hertford, of that name and family, he prevailed upon her to undertake what de Badew was not able to perform. Accordingly this lady, after the resignation of Walter Thaxted the principal, and with the consent of Richard de Badew, rebuilt that hall, and endowed it, in the year 1347, with revenues for one master, ten fellows, and ten scholars, and at the same time named it Clare hall. When she founded it, king Edward III. gave licence of mortmain to the master and scholars to take lands and tenements, to the value of forty pounds a year. The revenues of this hall have been augmented since by several benefactors. It was again rebuilt in 1638, and the magnificent chapel in 1763. It contains a master, ten senior fellows, fifteen juniors, and three lay- fellows.

, or in Latin, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, an eminent French printer, was born in 1462, at Assche, a village in the territory of Brussels, from which he derived the name Ascensius. He first studied at Ghent, then at Brussels, and lastly at Ferrara in Italy. He made great progress in the languages, and principally in the Greek, which he learned at Lyons and at Paris. He printed a great many books, and usually in the frontispiece had a printing press as his mark. He is also the author of some books, among which are <c Sylva moralis contra vitia“” Psalterium B. Mariae versibus“” Epigrammatum Lib. I“* f Navicula stultarum mulierum” “VitaThomce a Kempis” “De Grammatica” “De conscribendis Epistolis.” He wrote also commentaries on Horace, Virgil, Juvenal, Lucan, Sallust, Valerius Maximus, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, and soiue parts of Cicero’s works. At Paris he taught Greek, and' explained the poets at Lyons. His high reputation in these studies induced Treschel, the famous printer, to engage him as corrector of his press, not only secured his valuable services by taking him as a partner in the business, but also gave him his daughter Thalia in marriage, who was also a learned lady. After the death of his father-in-law, in 1500, he was engaged by Gagnin, the royal librarian, to visit Paris, where he removed with his family, and established an excellent printing office, by the name of Praelum Ascensianum, from which many good editions issued, although his type was not so much admired as that of the Stephens’s. He died in 1535. His son Conrad Badius settled at Geneva, having embraced Calvinism, and was both a printer and an author. Two of his daughters were married to eminent printers, one to Michel Yascosan, and the other to Robert Stephens.

, bishop of Copenhagen, was born at Lunden in 1646. His father Olaus Bagger taught theology in the school of Lunden, but sent his son to Copenhagen for education. He afterwards travelled to Germany, the Netherlands, and England, studying under the most able masters in divinity and the oriental languages, and then returned to Copenhagen. When Lunden became a part of the Swedish dominions, the king established an academy there, and Bagger was appointed to teach the oriental languages. He had scarcely begun to give lessons, however, when by the advice of his friends of Copenhagen, he solicited and obtained, in 1674, the office of first pastor of the church of the Holy Virgin in that metropolis. In 1675, after the usual disputation, he got the degree of doctor, and on the death of John Wandalin, bishop of Zealand or Copenhagen, he was appointed to succeed him, at the very early age of twenty-nine. His promotion is said to have been in part owing to his wife Margaret Schumacher, the widow of Jacob Fabri, his predecessor, in the church of the Holy Virgin at Copenhagen, and to the brother of this lady, the count de Griffenfeld, who had great interest at court. Bagger, however, filled this high office with reputation, as well as that of dean of theology, which is attached to the bishopric of Copenhagen. He revised the ecclesiastical rites which Christian V. had passed into a law, as well as the liturgy, epistles, and gospels, collects, &c. to which he prefixed a preface. He also composed and published several discourses, very learned and eloquent, some in Latin, and others in the Danish tongue. He died in 1693, at the age of 47. By his second wife, he left a son Christian Bagger, who became an eminent lawyer, and in 1737 rose to be grand bailly of Bergen, and a counsellor of justice.

, an eminent Italian physician, was born at Ragusa, in the year 1669, of a family which originally came from Armenia. Pietro Angelo Baglivi, an eminent and opulent physician, is said to have adopted this youth, and bestowed on him his name, while he charged himself with his maintenance and education. George Baglivi, accordingly, was sent to Salerno, where he took his first degree, and where he became partial to the study of natural history. The same pursuit he afterwards followed at Padua and Bononia, but his chief instructor and most intimate friend was Malpighi, whom he visited at Rome, and by whose influence he was promoted to teach anatomy in that city. With many frionds, this occupation procured him also some enemier, excited probably by the fame he obtained. He persisted, however, in his lectures, and published his “Praxis,” which differed much from that in common use, as he recommended a closer attention to clinical observations than had been usual, and discarded the humoral system altogether^ attributing the cause of diseases to the altered tone of the solids. He supposed likewise an alternate motion between the heart and the- dura mater, by which the whole animal machine was actuated. He had, however, no sooner published these doctrines, than Antonio Pacchione accused him of having stolen them from his works, if he denied the charge, or of having taken them, if he would confess it; but Baglivi proved that Pacchione’s observations were published almost a year later than his own, and urged, that whatever coincidence there might be, he had the credit of establishing his doctrines upon a more firm basis. His enthusiasm in his profession led him to devote much of his time to writing, and his pieces went through many editions before they were collected, and printed together at Nurimberg, 1738, 4to, but afterwards much more completely at Venice, in 1752, and lastly, with a preface, notes, and emendations by Phil. Pinel, M. D. 2 vols. 1788, 8vo. There are also Paris editions in 4to, 1711 and 1765. His biographer represents him as a man of piety and benevolence, and of much learning, independent of his more immediate studies. He died March 1707.

, an Italian poet, a man of opulence as well as fame by his writings, and esteemed among the good poets of his age. His failing is said to have been that of being difficult to please in his own compositions, which he filed and polished till he wore off the strength of the metal. He knew how to draw an exact outline, and to give a strong colouring, but he held his pencil too long, and was over-anxious in the finishing part. These were not, however, the failings of his time. He is best known at present to those who study Italian poetry by “The Arragonians,” a tragedy, and “The Judgment of Paris.” We have no dates of his birth or death, except that he was famed as a poet, about 1590, and Erythraeus (Le Koux) says that he died an old man.

, D.D. brother of the above, was also born at Broughton in 1632, and educated at Westminster school, and elected student of Christ-church in 1651, of which he was M. A. 1657. He was chaplain to sir Richard Fanshaw, ambassador in Spain and Portugal, and on his return was made chaplain to archbishop Stern, who gave him the prebend of Southwell and rectory of Castleton in Synderick. In 1667 he held the prebend of Barnaby in York cathedral, and in 1668, that of Friday Thorp. He took the degree of B.D. 1668, and D.D. 1671. In 1672 he was made chaplain to the lord treasurer Danby, and rector of St. Botolph’s church, Bishopsgate, London, which he exchanged for Houghton-le-Spring. In 1680 he was installed a prebendary of Durham, and died at Houghton, Dec. 30, 1709. He was of a totally different character from his brother. He published “Diatribae, or discourses upon select texts, against Papists and Socinians,” London, 1680, 8vo, and several single sermons.

, a nonconformist minister, was born at Litton in the parish of Tidswell, Jan. 17, 1627-8, and educated in Corpus Christi college, Cambridge after which he entered into orders, and preached with great applause in different parts of Derbyshire. He obtained the living of Glessop, which he held till 1662, when he was obliged to resign it, because he would not comply with the act of uniformity and then he preached privately at different places till the Revolution, when a large meeting-house was built for him, and he continued pastor of a numerous congregation till his death, April 1, 1702. He was the author of several small practical treatises, much esteemed in that age. Among these is a work, partly of a biographical kind, entitled “De Spiritualibus Pecci, or notes concerning the work of God, and some that have been workers together with God, in the High Peak,” (of Derbyshire), 1702. Besides his printed works, he left behind him fifty volumes, on various subjects, some in folio and some in 4to, fairly written with his own hand.

His numerous works evince learning and sagacity, much critical taste, and considerable powers of discussion, but their general tendency is so hostile to all that the good and wise hold sacred, and to all that the well-being of society requires to be held sacred, that an enumeration of them may well be spared, especially as it is very unlikely they will ever be imported into this country, and probably have already sunk into oblivion on the continent. Of hi* private character enough may be seen to illustrate the pniiCxp.es of such philosophers, in his lite in Di*. Gi. L's supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica, from wh tii.s sketch has been extracted, and in professor Robmscn’s Proois of a Conspiracy. If higher proof be wanting, it may be taken from his German biographer Schlichtegroll, or from his life written by himself, which is a wonderful specimen of the effrontery of acknowledged depravity.

, a celebrated physician, born at Jena in 1677, practised his art in several towns of Germany; among others, at Nuremberg, Ratisbon, and Altorf. He was professor at this last-mentioned place, and member of the Academy des Curieux de la Nature, in 1720. He was chosen president of it in 1730, and died at Altorf the 14th of July 1735. He was author of, 1. “Thesaurus Gemmarum affabre sculptarum, coliectus a J. M. ab Ebermayer,” Nuremberg, 1720, folio. 2. “Horti medici acad. Altorf. Historia,” Altorf, 1727, 4to. 3. A great number of dissertations or theses, on particular plants, in 4to, from 1710 to 1721.

, a French divine,and subpemtentiary of the metropolitan church of Paris, was born at Abbeville, it is supposed of English parents. He arrived at his doctor’s degree in 1628. In 1651 he published his most celebrated work, dedicated to the archbishop of Paris; “De triplici examine ordinand. confess, etpcenitent.” 8vo, which passed through many editions in his life- time. He assisted also in the publication of some editions of the Councils. In 1666 he published a work upon the most celebrated preachers from the earliest times to the beginning of the seventeenth century, a 4to volume, under the title of “Sapientia foris prgedicans,” in which he not only gives a succinct account of the lives of the most celebrated preachers, but also points out in what they excelled, and the most remarkable passages in their discourses. Before this he published a tivatise, “De Beneficio Crncis,” Paris, 1653. 8vo, in opposition to the sentiments of Jansenius on the subjects of grace and predestination. His “Philosophic affective” appeared at Paris in 1657, 12mo. It contains many small devotional pieces, and a curious collection of “Pieuses reparties,” or pious repartees, selected from various authors, and some from his own experience. The time of his death is not specified in Moreri, or any of the authorities from which this article is taken.

, the author of a well-known dictionary of the English language, resided principally at Stepney, and there probably died, June 27, 1742, leaving no memorials of his personal history or character. In religion he is said to have been a Sabbatarian. His life, however, appears to have been spent in useful pursuits. His English dictionary, printed first in the early part of the last century, in 8vo (edit. 4th, 1728), was long the only one in use, and still continues a favourite with a certain class of readers. It was afterwards enlarged into 2 vols. 8vo, and some years after printed in folio, with additions in the mathematical part by G. Gordon, in the botanical by Phil. Miller, and in the etymological by T. Lidiard, the whole revised by Dr. Josepii Nicol Scott, a physician. Of this there was an improved edition in 1759, about which time the fifteenth edition of the 8vo was published. The 8vo, about twenty-five years ago, was revised by Dr. Harwood. Bailey also published a “Dictionarium domesticum, or a household dictionary,” 1736; “The Antiquities of London and Westminster,” 24mo, 1726, an useful abridgment; “An introduction to the English Tongue, two parts;” and school editions of Ovid’s Metamorphosis, Ovid’s Epistles, Justin, Erasmus’s Dialogues, Phædrus’s Fables, and a book of Exercises, which are all still in use.

, an eminent French critic, was born at Neuville near Beauvais in Picardy, June 13, 1649. His father, who was poor, and unable to give him a learned education, sent him to a small school in the neighbourhood, where he soon learned all that was taught there, and desirous of more, went frequently to a neighbouring convent, where, by his assiduities in performing little menial offices, he ingratiated himself with them, and by their interest was presented to the bishop of Beauvais. The bishop placed him in the college or seminary of that name, where he studied the classics with unwearied assiduity, borrowing books from his friends, and it is even said he took money privately from his father, in order to buy books. In the course of his reading, which was accurate and even- critical, he formed, about the age of seventeen, a commonplace book of extracts, which he called his “Juvenilia,” in two large volumes, very conducive to his own improvement, and afterwards to that of M. de Lamoignon, his patron’s son. He then studied philosophy, but with less relish, his predilection being in favour of history, chronology, and geography; yet in defending Ins philosophical theses, he always proved his capacity to be fully equal to his subject. In 1670 he went to one of those higher seminaries, formerly established by the French bishops for the study of divinity, which he pursued with his usual ardour and success, although here his early taste discovered itself, in his applying with most eagerness to the fathers and councils, as more nearly connected with ecclesiastical history. So intent was he on researches of this kind, that he fancied himself solely qualified for a life of studious retirement, and had a design of going, along with his brother Stephen, to the abbey La Trappe, but this was prevented by the bishop of Beauvai? bestowing upon him, in 1672, the appointment of teacher of the fifth form in the college, from which, in 1674, he was promoted to the fourth. This produced him about sixty pounds a-year, with part of which he assisted his poor relations, and laid out the rest in books, and had made a very good collection when he left the college. Among other employments at his leisure hours he compiled two volumes of notices of authors who had disguised their names, of which the preface only has been published.

In 1676, he received holy orders, and passed his examinations with high approbation. Monnoye, one of his biographers, mentions a circumstance very creditable to his superiors, that, although they were satisfied with his learning, they would not have admitted him into orders, if they had not discovered that he was superior to the vanity which sometimes accompanies a reputation for learning. The bishop of Beauvais now gave him the vicarage of Lardieres, which netted only 30l. yearly, yet with this pittance, Baillet, who maintained a brother, and a servant, contrived to indulge his humanity to the poor, and his passion for books, to purchase which he used to go once a year to Paris. His domestic establishment was upon the most temperate scale, no drink but water, and no meat, but brown bread, and sometimes a little bacon, and a few herbs from his garden boiled in water with salt, and whitened with a little milk. The cares of his parish, however, so much interrupted his favourite studies that he petitioned, and obtained another living, the only duties of which were singing at church, and explaining the catechism. A higher and more grateful promotion now awaited him, as in 1680, he was made librarian to M. Lamoignon, not the first president of the parliament, as Niceron says, for he was then dead, but his son, who at that time was advocate-general. To this place he was recommended by M. Hermant, a doctor of the Sorbonne, who told Lamoignon that Baillet was the proper person for him, if he could excuse his awkwardness. Lamoignon answered that he wanted a man of learning, and did not regard his outward appearance. To Baillet such an appointment was so gratifying that for some time he could scarcely believe M. Hermant to be serious. When he found it confirmed, however, he entered upon his new office with alacrity, and one of his first employments was to draw up an index of the library, which extended to thirty-five folio volumes, under two divisions, subjects and author’s names. The Latin preface to the index of subjects, when published, was severely, but not very justly censured by M. Menage, as to its style. After this, he completed four volumes of his celebrated work “Jugemens des Savans,” and gave them to the bookseller with no other reserve than that of a few copies for presents. The success of the work was very great, and the bookseller urged him to finish the five volumes that were, to follow. He did not, however, accomplish the whole of his design, which was to consist of six parts. I. In the first he was to treat of those printers, who had distinguished themselves by their learning, ability, accuracy, and fidelity. Of critics, that is, of those who acquaint us with authors, and their books, and in general those, who give an account of the state of literature, and of all that belongs to the republic of letters. Of philologists, and all those who treat of polite literature. Of grammarians and translators of all kinds. II. Poets, ancient and modern writers of romances and tales in prose rhetoricians, orators, and writers of letters, either in Latin, or in any of the modern languages. III. Historians, geographers, and chronologists of all sorts. IV. Philosophers, physicians, and mathematicians. V. Authors upon the civil and canon law, poJitics, and ethics. VI. Writers on divinity particularly the fathers, school-divinity heretics, &c. He published, however, only the first of these divisions, and half of the second, under the title of “Jugemens des Savans sur les principaux ouvrages des Auteurs,” Paris, 1685, 12mo. It is, in fact, a collection of the opinions of others, with seldom those of the author, yet it attracted the attention of the literary world, and excited the hostility of some critics, particularly M. Menage, to whom, indeed, Baillet had given a previous provocation, by treating him rather disrespectfully. The first attack was by father Commire, in a short poem entitled “Asinus in Parnasso,” the Ass on Parnassus, followed afterwards by “Asinus ad Lyram,” and “Asinus Judex,” all in defence of Menage and the poets and an anonymous poet wrote “Asinus Pictor.” It does not appear, however, that these injured the sale of the work; and in 1686, the five other volumes, upon the poets, were published, with a preface, in which the author vindicates himself with ability. M. Menage now published his “Anti-Baillet,” in which he endeavoured to point out Baillet' s errors and another author attacked him in “Reflexions sur le Jugemens des Savans, [envoy 6ez a l'auteur par un Academicien,” 1691, with Hague on the title, but really in France, and, according to Niceron, written by father Le Tellier, a Jesuit, all of which order resented Baillet' s partiality to the gentlemen of Port Royal. The editor of the Amsterdam edition of the “Jugemens,” attributes this letter to another Jesuit, a young man not named. Of these censures some are undoubtedly just, but others the cavils of caprice and hypercriticism.

In 1688, Baillet published his very amusing work, “Les Enfans devenus celebres par leurs etudes et par leurs ecrits,” Paris, 2 vols. 12mo. This collection of examples of young geniuses was thought well calculated to excite emulation, and soon became a very popular book, the professors of the universities, and other teachers of youth, strongly recommending it. His next work was of a singular cast. Conceiving that when Menage wrote his “Anti-Baillet” he meant a personal, as well as a critical attack, he began to form a catalogue of all works published with similar titles, beginning with the Anti-Cato of Cassar, the most ancient of the Anti’s, and concluding with trie AntiBaillet. This was published in 1689. “Des Satyres personelles, Traite historique et critique de celles, qui portent le titre d'Anti,” Paris, 2 vols. 12mo. The industrious Marchand, however, has given a very long catalogue of Anti’s omitted by Baillet, in his vol. I. under the article Anti-Garasse. Bailiet afterwards prepared a more useful work, for which he had made copious collections, with a view to discover the names of those authors who have used fictitious ones. In 1678 he had written in Latin “Elenchus Apocalypticus Scriptorum Cryptonymorum,” but of this he published only a preliminary treatise in French, “Auteurs degnisez sous des noms etraiigers, &c. tome I. contenant le traite preliminaire, sur le changement et la supposition des noms parmi les Auteurs,” Paris, 1620, 12mo. His design resembled that of Placcius in his treatise “De Anonymis et Pseudonymis,” and they had some communication together on the subject. Niceron attributes Baillet’s suppression of this work to the fear of giving offence, which might surely have been avoided if he had left contemporary writings to some future editor. In 1691, he wrote the “Life of Des Cartes,” in 2 vols. 4to, which was criticised in “Reflexions cl' un Academicien sur la Vie de M. des Cartes, envoyees a un de ses amis en Hollande,” ascribed, by Le Long, to Gallois, and by Marchand, to Le Tellier. The chief fault, is that very common one, in single lives, of introducing matters very slightly, if at all, connected with the history of the principal object, and from much that is in this work, Des Cartes might be supposed a warlike general, or a controversial divine. It succeeded so well, however, that a second edition was prevented only by his death but before that event he abridged it in one volume 12mo, and also wrote the life of Richer, doctor of the Sorbonne, which was not printed until several years after his death, at Liege, 1714, 12mo.

His next publication ranks him among the pseudonymous authors, a “History of Holland,” from the peace in 1609 to that of Nimeguen in 1679, under the name of Balthasar d'Hezenail de la Neuville, the anagram of Baillet de la Neuville en Hez, 4 vols. 12mo. Next year he published “De la Devotion a la Sainte Vierge, et du Culte qui lui est du,” 12mo, a piece of catholic superstition, which was attacked in two pamphlets. He had formed many more useful designs, as an universal ecclesiastical dictionary, embracing every subject of doctrine, morality, and discipline; but this and all his other schemes were interrupted by his death, Jan. 21, 1706. He was much regretted as an indefatigable scholar, and a valuable contributor to literary history. His extreme temperance and close application to study injured his health, and brought on all those miseries of a sedentary life, which exhausted his constitution, when only in his fifty-sixth year. In Lamoignon’s family, he was treated with the tenderness and respect due to his laborious services and blameless character. His last moments were marked by piety and fortitude, and his last breath expressed a blessing on his benefactors. His “.lugemens des Savans,” Mr. Dibdin justly observes, is one of those works with which no man fond of typographical and bibliographical pursuits, can dispense. In 1722, a new edition of it in 7 vols. 4to, was published by M. de la Monnoye, including the “Anti-Baillet” and a new edition at Amsterdam, 1725, in 16 or sometimes 8 vols. 12mo, by far the best. These editions are improved by Monnoye’s useful notes, a life of Baillet, some of the pamphlets written against him, and other documents of importance.

, an eminent Presbyterian divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Glasgow in the year 1599. His father, Mr. Thomas Baillie, was a citizen of that place, and son to Baillie of Jerviston. Our Robert Baillie was educated in the university of his native city where, having taken his degrees in arts, he turned his thoughts to the study of divinity and, receiving orders from archbishop Law, he was chosen regent of philosophy at Glasgow. While he was in this station, he had, for some years, the care of the education of Lord Montgomery, who, at length, carried him with him to Kilwinning; to which church he was presented by the earl of Eglintoun. Here he lived in the strictest friendship with that noble family, and the people connected with it; as he did also with his ordinary the archbishop of Glasgow, with whom he kept up an epistolary correspondence. In 1633, he declined, from modesty, the offer of a church in Edinburgh. Being requested in 1637, by his friend the archbishop, to preach a sermon before the assembly at Edinburgh, in recommendation of the canon and service book, he refused to do it; and wrote a handsome letter to the archbishop, assigning the reasons of his refusal. In 1638 he was chosen by the presbytery of Irvine, a member of the famous assembly at Glasgow, which was a prelude to the civil war. Though Mr. Baillie is said to have behaved in this assembly with great moderation, it is evident that he was by no means deficient in his zeal against prelacy and Arminianism. In 1640 he was sent by the covenanting lords to London, to draw up an accusation against archbishop Laud, for his obtrusions on the church of Scotland. While he was in England, he wrote the presbytery a regular account of public affairs, with a journal of the trial of the earl of Strafford. Not long after, on his return, he was appointed joint professor of divinity with Mr. David Dickson, in the university of Glasgow, and his reputation was become so great, that he had before this received invitations from the other three universities, all of which he refused. He continued in his professorship till the Restoration but his discharge of the duties of it was interrupted for a considerable time, by his residence in England for, in 1643, he was chosen one of the commissioners of the church of Scotland to the assembly of divines at Westminster. Though he never spoke in the debates of the assembly, he appears to have been an useful member, and entirely concurred in the principles and views of its leaders. Mr. Baillie returned again to his own country in the latter end of 1646. When, after the execution of Charles I. Charles II. was proclaimed in Scotland, our professor was one of the divines appointed by the general assembly to wait on the king at the Hague; upon which occasion, March 27, 1649, he made a speech in the royal presence, expressing in the strongest terms his abhorrence of the murder of the late king and, in his sentiments upon this event, it appears that the Presbyterian divines of that period, both at home and abroad, almost universally agreed. After the restoration of Charles II. Mr. Baillie, Jan. 23, 1661, by the interest of the earl of Lauderdale, with whom he was a great favourite, was made principal of the university of Glasgow, upon the removal of Mr. Patrick Gillespie, who had been patronised by Cromwell. It is said by several writers, that Mr. Baillie had the offer of a bishopric, which he absolutely refused. Though he was very loyal, and most sincerely rejoiced in his majesty’s restoration, he began, a little before his death, to be extremely anxious for the fate of Presbytery. His health failed him in the spring of 1662. During his illness he was visited by the new-made archbishop of Glasgow, to whom he is said to have addressed himself in the following words “Mr, Andrews (I will not call you my lord), king Charles would have made me one of these lords but I do not find in the New Testament, that Christ has any lords in his house.” Notwithstanding this common-place objection to the hierarchy, he treated the archbishop very courteously. Mr. Baillie died in July 1662, being 63 years f age. By his first wife, who was Lilias Fleming, of the family of Cardarroch, in the parish of Cadder, near Glasgow, he had many children, five of whom survived him, viz. one son, and four daughters. The posterity of his son, Mr. Henry Baillie, who was a preacher, but never accepted of any charge, still inherit the estate of Carnbrae, in the county of Lanerk, an ancient seat of the Baillies. Mr. Baillie’s character ha% been drawn to great advantage, not only by Mr. Woodrow, but by an historian of the opposite party. His works, which were very learned, and acquired him reputation in his own time, are 1. “Opus Historicum et Chronologicum,” Amsterdam, 1668, fol. 2. “A Defence of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, against Mr. Maxwell, bishop of Ross.” 3. “A Parallel betwixt the Scottish Service-Book and the Romish Missal, Breviary,” &c. 4. “The Canterburian Self-Conviction.” 5. “Queries anent the Service-Book.” 6. “Antidote against Arminianism.” 7. “A treatise on Scottish Episcopacy.” 8. “Laudensium.” 9. “Dissuasive against the Errors of the Times, with a Supplement.” 10. “A Reply to the Modest Enquirer,” with some other tracts, and several sermons upon public occasions but his “Opus Historicum et Chronologicum,” was his capital production. The rest of his writings, being chiefly on controversial and temporary subjects, can, at present, be of little or no value. But his memory is perhaps yet more preserved by a very recent publication, “Letters and Journals, carefully transcribed by Robert Aiken containing an impartial account of public transactions, civil, ecclesiastical, and military, both in England and Scotland, from 1637 to 1662 a period, perhaps, the most remarkable that is to be met with in the British History. With an Account of the Author’s life, prefixed and a Glossary annexed,” Edinburgh, 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. The chief correspondents of Mr. Baillie were, Mr. William Spang, minister first to the Scotch Staple at Campvere, and afterwards to the English Congregation in- Middleburgh in Zealand, who was his cousin -german Mr. David Dickson, professor of Divinity, first at Glasgow, then at Edinburgh and Messrs, Robert Ramsay and George Young, who were ministers in Glasgow. There are, in this collection, letters to several other persons but Mr. Spang was the gentleman with whom Mr. Baillie principally corresponded. The journals contain a history of the general assembly at Glasgow, in 1638; an account of the earl of Stafford’s trial the transactions of the general assembly and parliament, in 1641 and the proceedings of thegeneral assembly, in 1643.

, or Ballonius, an eminent French physician and writer, was born about 1538, of a considerable family in Perche, and studied at Paris, where he received his doctor’s degree, in 1570, and during the course of his licentiate, was so able and victorious in the disputations, as to be named the Scourge of Bachelors. he was dean of the faculty in 1580, and his high reputation influenced Henry the Great to choose him first physician for his son, the dauphin, in 1601 But he preferred the sweets of domestic life to the honours of the court, and employed such leisure as his practice allowed, in writing several treatises on medical subjects, and was not more distinguished for knowledge in his profession, than for true piety and extensive charity. He died in 1616, His works were published after his death 1. “Consiliorum Medicinalium lib. II.” Paris, 1635, 4to, edited by his nephew Thevart. 2. “Consiliorum Med. lib. tertius,” ibid. 1649, 4to. 3. “Epidemiorum et Ephemeridum lib. II.” ibid. 1640, 4to, and in 1734, dedicated to sir Hans Sloane. 4. “Adversaria Medicinalia,” 4to, ibid, or, according to Haller, the same as “Paradigimata et historic morborum ob raritatem observatione dignissimse,” ibid. 1648, 4to. 5. “Definition tun Medicarum liber,” ibid. 1639, 4to. 6. “Commentarius in libellum Theophrasti de Vertigine,” ibid. 1640, 4to. 7. “De Convulsionibus libellus,” ibid. 1640, 4to. 8. “De Virginum et Mulierium morbis,” ibid. 1643, 4to. 9. “Opuscula Medica,” ibid. 1643, 4to. 10. “Liber de Rheumatismo et Pleuritide dorsali,” ibid. 1642, 4to. Of all these, and other works by him, a complete edition was published at Geneva, 1762, 4 vols. 4 to.

Such a man could only be condemned for an error, or by a crime but the retroactive effect of a law expressly declared to be unjust by the fourteenth article of the rights of man, was a crime daily committed during the nine months reign of that ferocious wild beast, which was extinguished on the 9th of Thermidor. Bailly became a victim of this bloody tribunal on November llth, 1793, and those that had procured his condemnation, prolonged the period of his suffering by changing the place of execution when he had already arrived at the scaffold.

Bailly married, in 1787, Jeanne le Seigneur, the widow of his intimate friend Raymond Gaye. She was of an age proper to inspire the regard and attachment of a man of worth, who was not to be influenced by the ordinary motives of beauty or fortune, especially since he had eight nephews, whom he educated with all the care of a father.

, an eminent physician and astronomer, born in 1582, at Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, was educated at the public school of that town; and from thence went to Emanuel college in Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Joseph Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich. When he had taken his degrees of bachelor and master of arts, he went, back to Leicestershire, where he taught a grammar-school for some years, and at the same time practised physic. He employed his leisure hours in the mathematics, especially astronomy, which had been his favourite study from his earliest years. By the advice of his friends, who thought his abilities too great for the obscurity of a country life, he removed to London, where he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians. His description of the comet, which appeared in 1618, greatly raised his character. It was by this means he got acquainted with sir Henry Savile, who, in 1619, appointed him his first professor of astronomy at Oxford. Upon this he removed to that university, and was entered a master commoner of Merton college; the master and fellows whereof appointed him junior reader of Linacer’s lecture in 1631, and superior reader in 1635. As he resolved to publish correct editions of the ancient astronomers, agreeably to the statutes of the founder of his professorship; in order to make himself acquainted with the discoveries of the Arabian astronomers, he began the study of the Arabic language when he was above 40 years of age. Some time before his death, he removed to a house opposite Merton college, where he died in 1643. His body was conveyed to the public schools, where an oration was pronounced in his praise by the university orator; and was carried from thence to Merton college church, where it was deposited near the altar. His published works are, 1. “An astronomical description of the late Comet, from the 18th of November 1618, to the 16th of December following,” London, 1619, 4to. This piece was only a specimen of a large work, which the author intended to publish in Latin, under the title of “Cometographia.” 2. “Procli sphæra. Ptolomæi de hypothesibus Planetarum liber singularis.” To which he added Ptolemy’s “Canon regnorum.” He collated these pieces with ancient manuscripts, and has given a Latin version of them, illustrated with figures, 1620, 4to. 3. “Canicularia; a treatise concerning the dog-star and the canicular days.” Published at Oxford in 1648, by Mr. Greaves, together with a demonstration of the heliacal rising of Sirius, or the dog-star, for the parallel of Lower Egypt. Dr. Bainbridge undertook this work at the request of archbishop Usher, but left it imperfect; being prevented by the breaking out of the civil war, or by death.

Besides what we have mentioned, there are several other tracts which were never published, but left by his will to archbishop Usher; among whose manuscripts they are preserved in the library of the college of Dublin. Amongst others are the following, 1. A theory of the Sun. 2. A theory of the Moon. 3. A discourse concerning the Quantity of the Year. 4. Two volumes of Astronomical observations. 5. Nine or ten volumes of miscellaneous papers relating to the Mathematics. He undertook likewise a description of the British monarchy, in order to shew the advantages of the union of England and Scotland under one monarch; but this treatise was either lost or suppressed by him.

This bold step drew upon Baius the indignation of some of his academical colleagues, and the heavy censures of several Franciscan monks. Whether the Jesuits immediately joined in this opposition, and may be reckoned among the first accusers of Baius, is a matter unknown, or at most, uncertain, but it is evident that, even at the rise of this controversy, they abhorred the principal tenets of Baius, which he had taken from Augustm, and adopted as his own. In 1567, he was accused at the court of Rome, and seventy-six propositions drawn from his writings, were condemned by pope Pius V. in a circular letter expressly composed for that purpose. The principal doctrines maintained in these propositions were, that unregenerate men have no ability to perform what is spiritually good, and that no man’s best works are meritorious of eternal life. The pope’s condemnation, however, was issued out in an artful and insidious manner, without any mention being made of the name of the author for the fatal consequences that had arisen from the rash and inconsiderate measures employed by the court of Rome against Luther, were too fresh in the remembrance of the prudent pontiff to permit his falling into new blunders of the same nature. The person and functions of Baius, therefore, were spared, while his tenets were censured. About thirteen years after this transaction, instigated by Tolet, the Jesuit doctor, Gregory XIII. confirmed the sentence, and again condemned the propositions. Dreading further severity, or more probably because his condemnation was vague and ambiguous, Baius submitted but others exclaimed against the papal decisions, as manifestly unjust. Baius’s doctrine was propagated with no inconsiderable zeal, in the flourishing universities of Douay and Louvaine. When the Jesuits Lessius and Hamelius attempted to preach a scheme of predestination, different from that of Augustin, the doctors of these universities condemned their opinions in 1587 and 1588. The bishops of the Low Countries prepared to do the same, but pope Sixtus V. suspended their proceedings, and by imposing silence on both parties, hushed the controversy. Even at this day, many“divin of the Romish communion, and particularly the Jansenists declare openly that Baius was unjustly treated, and that the two edicts of Pius and Gregory are absolutely destitute of all authority. He died the 16th of September 1589, at the age of 76. We have his controversial tracts against Maniix, 1579 and 1582, 2 vols. 8vo. His entire works were collected in 1696, in 4to, at Cologn, and the following year were prohibited by the pope. His style is greatly superior to that of the divines of his time, being simple and close. Baius had studied the fathers with such care, that it is affirmed he read St. Augustin over nine times a proof of his patience, if not of his judgment. Baius by his will founded a college for education. His nephew, James Baius, likewise doctor of Louvain, and who died in 1614, left behind him a tract on the Eucharist, printed at that city in 1605, 8 vo, and a catechism in folio, Cologn, 1620. The opinions of Michael Baius did not die with him. Cornelius Jansenius revived a great number of them in his book, entitled” Augustinus."

Sir George Baker, as an author, is to be estimated rather from the value than the'bulk of his works. His very extensive practice, while it enriched his own treasures of experience, left him little leisure for writing, and he never went beyond the extent of a tract or dissertation. Those he published were, 1. “De affectibus animi et morbis hide oriundis, dissertatio habita Cantabrigiae in scholis publicis, 5 kalend. Feb. 1755,” London, 1755, 4to. 2. “Oratio ex Harveii institute, habita in theatro coll. reg. Medicorum Lond. Oct. 19, 1761. Calci orationis accedit Commentarius quidam de Joanne Caio Anatomise conditore apud nostrates,” 4to, ib. 1761. This contains an elegant eulogy on Dr. Stephen Hales, and an argument to prove that Dr. Caius was the founder of anatomy in this country. Dr. Baker also adverts to Dr. Conyers Middleton’s essay on the servile condition of physicians in ancient Rome, which, he imagined, glanced at the honour of the profession itself. 3. “De Catarrho, et de Dysenteria Londinensi, epidemicis utrisque anno 1762, libellus,” 4to, ib. 1763. 4. “An Inquiry into the merits of a method of inoculating the Small Pox, which is now practised in several counties in England,” 8vo, ib. 1766. This produced two letters from Dr. Glasse, addressed to Dr. Baker, on the same subject. 5. “An essay concerning the cause of the Endemial Colic of Devonshire, which was read in the theatre of the College of Physicians, June 29, 1767,” printed at first for private distribution, but afterwards inserted in the Medical Transactions, vol. I. In this he derives the Devonshire colic from an impregnation of lead in the making of cyder, lead being very much used in the vessels employed in that operation. It was immediately followed by “Some observations on Dr. Baker’s Essay, by Francis Geach, surgeon at Plymouth,” 8vo, in which he endeavours to invalidate Dr. Baker’s theory, by proving that lead is not used in the preparation of cyder but this pamphlet was also immediately answered by Dr. Saunders, 8vo, and in 1769 Mr. Geach published “A Reply to Dr. Saunders’s pamphlet,” 8vo, and was supported by the Rev. Thomas Alcock in a pamphlet entitled, “The Endemical Colic of Devon not caused by a solution of lead in the cyder,” 1769, 8vo. At a considerable distance, in point of time, appeared “A candid examination of what has been advanced on the Colic of Poitouand Devonshire, by James Hardy, M.D. of Barnstaple, Devonshire,” 1778, 8vo. This writer, while inclined to agree with Drs. Baker and Saunders, as to the cholic arising from a solution of lead, wished to transfer the evil from the cyder- utensils to the drinking vessels, which are of glazed earthen ware, the vitreous coating of which contains a large proportion of lead but the argument is rather feebly supported. In 1771, Dr. Baker re-published the three first tracts, under the title of “Opuscula.” His other treatises were published in the Medical Transactions, vol. I. II. and III.

In April 1729, he married Sophia, youngest daughter of the famous Daniel Defoe, who brought him two sons, both of whom he survived. On the 29th of January 1740, Mr. Baker was elected a fellow of the society of antiquaries; and, on the 12th of March following, the same honour was conferred upon him by the royal society. In 1744, sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal was bestowed upon him, for having, by his microscopical experiments on the crystallizations and configurations of saline particles, produced the most extraordinary discovery during that year. This medal was presented to him by sir Hans Sloane, thjen president of the royal society, and only surviving trustee of sir Godfrey Copley’s donation, at the recommendation of sir Hans’s worthy successor, Martin Folkes, esq. and of the council of the said society. Having led a very useful and honourable life, he died, at his apartments in the Strand, on the 25th of Nov. 1774, aged seventy-seven. His wife died in 1762; and he left only one grandson, William Baker, who was born Feb. 17, 1763, and to whom, on his living to the age of twenty-one, he bequeathed the bulk of his fortune, which he had acquired by his profession of teaching deaf and dumb persons to speak. This gentleman is now rector of Lyndon and South Luffenham, in the county of Rutland. He gave also by his will a hundred pounds to the royal society, the interest of which was to be applied in paying for an annual oration on natural history or experimental philosophy, now known by the name of the Bakerian oration. He gave to each of his two executors one hundred pounds and his wife’s gold watch and trinkets in trust to his daughter-in-law Mary Baker for her life, and to be afterwards given to the future wife of his grandson. To Mrs. Baker he gave also an annuity of fifty pounds. His furniture, printed books, curiosities, and collections of every sort, he directed should be sold, which was accordingly done. His manuscripts are in the possession of his grandson. His fine collection of native and foreign fossils, petrifactions, shells, corals, vegetables, ores, &c. with some antiquities and other curiosities, were sold by auction, March 13, 1775, and the nine following days, He was buried, as he desired, in an inexpensive mannef, in the church-yard of St. Mary le-Strand within which church, on the south wall, he ordered a small tablet to be erected to his memory, but owing to some particular regulations annexed to the new churches under the act of queen Anne, leave for this could not be obtained. “An inscription for it,” he said, “would probably be found among his papers if not, he hoped some learned friend would write one agreeably to truth.”

Mr. Baker was a constant and useful attendant at the meetings of the royal and antiquary societies, and in both was frequently chosen one of the council. He was peculiarly attentive to all the new improvements which were made in natural science, and very solicitous for the prosecution of them. Several of his communications are printed in the Philosophical Transactions and, besides the papers written by himself, he was the means, by his extensive correspondence, of conveying to the society the intelligence and observations of other inquisitive and philosophical men. His correspondence was not confined to his own country. To him we are obliged for a true history of the coccus polonicus, transmitted by Dr. Wolfe. It is to Mr. Baker’s communications that we owe the larger alpine strawberry, of late so much cultivated and approved of in England. The seeds of it were sent in a letter from professor Bruns of Turin to our philosopher, who gave them to several of his friends^ by whose care they furnished an abundant increase. The seeds likewise of the true rhubarb, or rheum palmatum, now to be met with in almost every garden in this country, were first transmitted to Mr. Baker by Dr. Mounsey, physician to the empress of Russia. These, like the former, were distributed to his various acquaintance, and some of the seeds vegetated very kindly. It is apprehended that all the plants of the rhubarb now in Great Britain were propagated from this source. Two or three of Mr. Baker’s papers, which relate to antiquities, may be found in the Philosophical Transactions. The society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, is under singular obligations to our worthy naturalist. As he was one of the earliest members of it, so he contributed in no small degree to its rise and establishment. At its first institution, he officiated for some time gratis, as secretary. He was many years chairman ^of the committee of accounts and he took an active part in the general deliberations of the society. In his attendance he was almost unfailing, and there were few questions of any moment upon which he did not deliver his opinion. Though, fronl the lowness of his voice, his manner of speaking was not powerful, it was clear, sensible, and convincing; what he said, being usually much to the purpose, and always proceeding from the best intentions, had often the good effect of contributing to bring the society to rational determinations, when many of the members seemed to have lost themselves in the intricacies of debate. He drew up a short account of the original of this society, and of the concern he himself had in forming it; which was read before the society of antiquaries, and would be a pleasing present to the public. Mr*. Baker was a poetical writer in the early part of his life. His “Invocation of Health” got abroad without his knowledge; but was reprinted by himself in his “Original Poems, serious and humourous,” Part the first, 8vo, 1725. The second part came out iri 1726. He was the author, likewise, of “The Universe^ a poem, intended to restrain the pride of man,” which has been several times reprinted. His account of the water polype, which was originally published in the Philosophical Transactions, was afterwards enlarged into a separate treatise, and hath gone through several editions. In 1728 he began, and for five years conducted the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper, under the assumed name of Henry Stonecastle a selection of these papers was afterwards printed in 4 vols. 12mo. In 1737 he published “Medulla Poetarum Romanorum,” 2 vols. 8vo, a selection from the Roman poets, with translations. But his principal publications are, “The Microscope made easy,” and “Employment for the Microscope.” The first of these, which was originally published in 1742, or 1743, has gone through six editions. The second edition of the other, which, to say the least of it, is equally pleasing and instructive, appearedin 1764. These treatises, and especially the latter, contain the most curious and important of the observations and experiments which Mr. Baker either laid before the royal society, or published separately. It has been said of Mr. Baker, “that he was a philosopher in little things.” If it was intended by this language to lessen his reputation, there is no propriety in the stricture. He was an intelligent, upright and benevolent man, much respected by those who knew him best. His friends were the friends of science and virtue and it will always be remembered by his contemporaries, that no one was more ready than himself to assist those with whom he was conversant in their various researches and endeavours for the advancement of knowledge and the benefit of society. His eldest son, David Erskine Baker, was a young man of genius and learning, and, like his father, a philosopher, an antiquary, and a poet. Being very partial to mathematical and geometrical studies, the duke of Montague, then master of the ordnance, placed him in the drawing-room in the Tower, to qualify him for the royal engineers. In a letter to Dr. Doddridge, dated 1747, his father speaks of him in these terms: “He has been somewhat forwarder than boys usually are, from a constant conversation with men. At twelve years old he had translated the whole twenty-four books of Telemachus from the French before he was fifteen, he translated from the Italian, and published, a treatise on physic, of Dr. Cocchi, of Florence, concerning the diet and doctrines of Pythagoras and last year, before he was seventeen, he likewise published a treatise of sir Isaac Newton’s Metaphysics, compared with those of Dr. Leibnitz, from the French of M. Voltaire. He is a pretty good master of the Latin, understands some Greek, is reckoned no bad mathematician for his years, and knows a great deal of natural history, both from reading and observation, so that, by the grace of God, I hope he will become a virtuous and useful man.” In another letter he mentions a singular commission given to his son, that of making drawings of all the machines, designs, and operations employed in the grand fire- works to be exhibited on occasion of the peace of 1748. It is to be regretted, however, that his father’s expectations were disappointed by a reverse of conduct in this son, occasioned by his turn for dramatic performances, and his marrying the daughter of a Mr. Clendon, a clerical empiric, who had, like himself, a similar turn. In consequence of this unhappy taste, he repeatedly engaged with the lowest strolling companies, in spite of every effort of his father to reclaim him. The public was, however, indebted to him for “The Companion to the Playhouse,” 1764, 2 vols. 12mo; a work which, though imperfect, had considerable merit, and shewed that he possessed a very extensive knowledge of our dramatic authors and which has since (under the title of “Biographia Dramatica”) been considerably improved, first in 1782, by the late Mr. Isaac Reed, 2 vols. 8vo, and more recently, in 1812, enlarged and improved by Mr. Stephen Jones, so as to form 4 vols. 8vo. He died Feb. 16, 1767. Mr. Baker’s other son, Henry, followed the profession of a lawyer, and occasionally appeared as a poet and miscellaneous writer. In 1756 he published te Essays Pastoral and Elegiac,“2 vols. 8vo, and left ready for the press an arranged collection of all the statutes relating to bankruptcy, with cases, precedents, &c. entitled” The Clerk to the Commission," a work which is supposed to have been published under another title in 1768.

His principal work was, his “Chronicle of the kings of England, from the time of the Romans’ government unto the death of king James,” Lond. 1641, fol. again in 1653, and 1658, to which last was added, the reign of Charles I. with a continuation to 1658, by Edward Phillips, nephew to the illustrious Milton. The fourth edition of 1665 has a continuation to the coronation of Charles II. The account of the restoration was principally written by sir Thomas Clarges, although adopted by Phillips. It was most severely criticised by Thomas Blount, in his “Animadversions upon sir Richard Baker’s Chronicle and its continuation,” and many errors are unquestionably pointed out, but it became a popular book, and a common piece of furniture in every ’squire’s hall in the country, for which it was not ill calculated by its easy style and variety of matter, and continued to be reprinted until 1733, when another edition appeared with a continuation to the end of the reign of George I. but still with many errors, although perhaps not of much importance to the “plain folks” who delight in the book. This is called by the booksellers the best edition, and has lately been advancing in price, but they are not aware that many curious papers, printed in the former editions, are omitted in this. The late worthy and learned Daines Barrington gives the most favourable opinion of the Chronicle. “Baker is by no means so contemptible a writer as he is generally supposed to be it is believed that the ridicule on this Chronicle arises from its being part of the furniture of sir Roger de Coverley’s hall” in one of the Spectators. Sir Richard’s own opinion probably recommended it to many readers he says that “it is collected with so great care and diligence, that if all other of our chronicles were lost, this only would be sufficient to inform posterity of all passages memorable, or worthy to be known.” He wrote also several other works 1. “Cato Variegatus, or Cato’s Moral Distichs varied; in verse,” Loud. 1636. 2. “Meditations and Disquisitions on the Lord’s Prayer,” Lond. 1637, 4to. The fourth edition of it was published in 1640, 4to. It was highly praised by sir Henry Wotton, who had studied with him in Hart-hall. 3. “Meditations and disquisitions on the three last Psalms of David,” Lond. 1639. 4. “Meditations and disquisitions on the fiftieth Psalm,” Lond. 1639. 5. “Meditations and disquisitions on the seven penitential Psalms, which are, 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143,” Lond. 1639, 4to. 6. “Meditations and disquisitions on the first Psalm,” Lond. 1640, 4to. 7. “Meditations and disquisitions on the 'seven consolatory Psalms of David, namely, 23, 27, 30, 34, 84, 103, and 116,” Lond. 1640, 4to. 8. “Meditations and prayers upon the seven clays of the week,” Lond. 1640, 16 mo, which is supposed to be the same with his Motive of Prayer on the seven days of the week. 9. “Apology for Laymen’s writing in Divinity,” Lond. 1641, 12mo. 10. “Short meditations on the fall of Lucifer,” printed with the Apology. 11. “A soliloquy of the Soul, or a pillar of thoughts, &c.” Lond. 1641, 12mo. 12. “Theatrum lledivivun), or the Theatre vindicated, in answer to Mr. Pryone’s Histrio-mastrix, &c.” Lond. 1662, 8vo. 13. “Theatrum triumphans, or a discourse of Plays,” Lond. 1760, 8vo. 14. He translated from Italian into English, the marquis Virgilio Malvezzi’s Discourses on Tacitus, being 53 in number, Lond. 1642, fol. And from French into English, the three first parts of the “Letters of Monsieur Balzac,” printed at London, 1638, 8vo, and again in 1654, 4to, with additions, and also in 8vo. The fourth and last part seem to have been done by another hand the preface to it being subscribed F. B. Sir Richard wrote also his own life, and left it in manuscript but it was destroyed by one Smith, who married one of his daughters.

, an eminent mathematician in the seventeenth century, the son of James Baker of Ikon in Somersetshire, steward to the family of the Strangways of Dorsetshire, was born at Ikon about the year 1625, and entered in Magdalen-hall, Oxon, in the beginning of the year 1640. In April 1645, he was elected scholar of Wadham college and did some little servicb to king Charles I. within the garrison of Oxford. He was admitted bachelor of arts, April 10, 1647, but left the university without completing that degree by determination. Afterwards he became vicar of Bishop’s-Nymmet in Devonshire, where he lived many years in studious retirement, applying chiefly to the study of the mathematics, in which he made very great progress. But in his obscure neighbourhood, he was neither known, nor sufficiently valued for his skill in that useful branch of knowledge, till he published his famous book. A little before his death, the members of the royal society sent him some mathematical queries to which he returned so satisfactory an answer, that they gave him a medal with an inscription full of honour and respect. He died at Bishop’s-Nymmet aforementioned, on the 5th of June 1690, and was buried in his own church. His book was entitled “The Geometrical Key, or the Gate of Equations unlocked, or a new Discovery of the construction of all Equations, howsoever affected, not exceeding the fourth degree, viz. of Linears, Quadratics, Cubics, Biquadratics, and the rinding of all their roots, as well false as true, without the use of Mesolahe, Trisection of Angles, without Reduction, Depression, or any other previous Preparations of Equations, by a Circle, and any (and that one only) Farabole, &c.” London, 1684, 4to, in Latin and English. In the Philosophical Transactions, it is observed, that the author, in order to free us of the trouble of preparing the equation by taking away the second term, shews us how to construct all affected equations, not exceeding the fourth power, by the intersection of a circle and parabola, without omission or change of any terms. And a circle and a parabola being the most simple, it follows, that the way which our author has chosen is the best. In the book (to render it intelligible even to those who have read no conies), the author shews, how a parabola arises from the section of a cone, then bow to describe it in piano, and from that construction demonstrates, that the squares of the ordinates are one to another, as the correspondent sagitta or intercepted diameters then he shews, that if a line be inscribed in a parabola perpendicular to any diameter, a rectangle made of the segments of the inscript, will be equal to a rectangle rr.ade of the intercepted diameter and parameter of the axis. From this last propriety our author deduces the universality of his central rule for the solution of ai! 2 biquadratic and cubic equations, however affected or varied in terms or signs. After the synthesis the author shews the analysis or method, by which he found this rule which, in the opinion of Dr. R. Plot (who was then secretary to the royal society) is so good, that nothing can be expected more easy, simple, or universal.

, a very ingenious and learned antiquary, was descended from a family ancient and wellesteemed, distinguished by its loyalty and affection for the crown. His grandfather, sir George Baker, knt. to whom our author erected a monument in the great church at Hull, almost ruined his family by his exertions for Charles I. Being recorder of Newcastle, he kept that town, 1639, against the Scots (as they themselves wrote to the parliament) with a “noble opposition.” He borrowed large sums upon his own credit, and sent the money to the king, or laid it out in his service. His father was George Baker, esq. of Crook, in the parish of Lanchester, in the county of Durham, who married Margaret, daughter of Thomas Forster of Edderston, in the county of Northumberland, csq. Mr. Baker was born at Crook, September 14, 1656. He was educated at the free-school at Durham, under Mr. Battersby, many years master, and thence removed with his elder brother George, to St. John’s college, Cambridge, and admitted, the former as pensioner, the latter as fellow-commoner, under the tuition of Mr. Sanderson, July 9, 1674. He proceeded, B. A. 1677; M. A. 1681; was elected fellow, March 1680; ordained deacon by bishop Compton of London, December 20, 1685; priest by bishop Barlow of Lincoln, December 19, 1686. Dr. Watson, tutor of the college, who was nominated, but not yet consecrated, bishop of St. David’s, offered to take him for his chaplain, which he declined, probably on the prospect of a like offer from Crew, lord bishop of Durham, which he soon after accepted. His lordship collated him to the rectory of Long- Newton in his diocese, and the same county, June 1687; and, as Dr. Grey was informed by some of the bishop’s family, intended to have given him that of Sedgefieid, worth six or seven hundred pounds ayear, with a golden prebend, had he not incurred his displeasure, and left his family, for refusing to read king James the Second’s declaration for liberty of conscience. Mr. Baker himself gives the following account of this affair: “When the king’s declaration was appointed to be read, the most condescending thing the bishop ever did was coming to my chambers (remote from his) to prevail with me to read it in his chapel at Auckland, which I could not do, having wrote to my curate not to read it at my living at Long-Newton. But he did prevail with the curate at Auckland to read it in his church, when the bishop was present to countenance the performance. When all was over, the bishop (as penance I presume) ordered me to go to the dean to require him to make a return to court of the names of all such as did not read it, which I did, though I was one of the number.” But this bishop, who disgraced Mr. Baker for this refusal, and was excepted out of king William’s pardon, took the oaths to that king, and kept his bishopric till his death. Mr. Baker resigned Long-Newton August 1, 1690, refusing to take the oaths; and retired to his fellowship at St. John’s, in which he was protected till January 20, 1717, when, with one-and-twenty others, he was dispossessed of it. This hurt him most of all, not for the profit he received from it but that some whom he thought his sincerest friends came so readily into the new measures. particularly Dr. Robert Jenkin the master, who wrote a defence of the profession of Dr. Lake, bishop of Chichester, concerning the new oaths and passive obedience, and resigned his precentorship of Chichester, and vicarage of Waterbeach, in the county of Cambridge. Mr. Baker could not persuade himself but he might have shewn the same indulgence to his scruples on that occasion, as he had done before while himself was of that way of thinking. Of all his sufferings none therefore gave him so much uneasiness. In a letter from Dr. Jenkin, addressed to Mr. Baker, fellow of St. John’s, he made the following remark on the superscription “I was so then I little thought it should be by him that I am now no fellow; but God is just, and I am a sinner.” After the passing the registering act, 1723, he was desired to register his annuity of forty pounds, which the last act required before it was amended and explained. Though this annuity left him by his father for his fortune, with twenty pounds per annum out of his collieries by his elder brother from the day of his death, August 1699, for the remaining part of the lease, which determined at Whitsuntide 1723, was now his whole subsistence, he could not be prevailed on to secure himself against the act, but wrote thus in answer to his friend “I thank you for your kind concern for me; and yet I was very well apprized of the late act, but do not think it worth while at this age, and under these infirmities, to give myself and friends so much trouble about it. I do not think that any living besides myself knows surely that my annuity is charged upon any part of my cousin Baker’s estate or if they do, I can hardly believe that any one, for so poor and uncertain a reward, will turn informer or if any one be found so poorly mean and base, I am so much acquainted with the hardships of the world, that I can bear it. I doubt not I shall live under the severest treatment of my enemies or, if I cannot live, I am sure I shall die, and that’s comfort enough to me. If a conveyance will secure us against the act, I am willing to make such a conveyance to them, not fraudulent or in trust, but in as full and absolute a manner as words can make it and if that shall be thought good security, I desire you will have such a conveyance drawn and sent me by the post, and I'll sign it and leave it with any friend you shall appoint till it can be sent to you.” He retained a lively resentment of his deprivations and wrote himself in all his books, as well as in those which he gave to the college library, “socius ejectus,” and in some “ejectus rector.” He continued to reside in the college as commoner-master till his death, which happened July 2, 1740, of a paralytic stroke, being found on the floor of his chamber. In the afternoon of June 29, being alone in his chamber, he was struck with a slight apoplectic fit, which abating a little, he recovered his senses, and knew all about him, who were his nephew Burton, Drs. Bedford and Heberden. He seemed perfectly satisfied and resigned and when Dr. Bedford desired him to take some medicine then ordered, he declined it, saying, he would only take his usual sustenance, which his bedmaker knew the times and quantities of giving he was thankful for the affection and care his friends shewed him, but, hoping the time of his dissolution was at hand, would by no means endeavour to retard it. His disorder increased, and the third day from this seizure he departed. He was buried in St. John’s outer chapel, near the monument of Mr. Ash ton, who founded his fellowship. No memorial has yet been erected over him, he having forbidden it in his will. Being appointed one of the executors of his elder brother’s will, by which a large sum was bequeathed to pious uses, he prevailed on the other two executors, who were his other brother Francis and the hon. Charles Montague, to layout 1310l. of the money upon an estate to be settled upon St. John’s college for six exhibitioners. Mr. Masters gives a singular instance f his unbiassed integrity in the disposal of these exhibitions. His friend Mr. Williams, rector of Doddington, had applied to Mr. Baker for one of them for his son, and received the following answer

Mr. Baker likewise gave the college lOOl. for the consideration of six pounds a-year (then legal interest) for his life and to the library several choice books, both printed and ms. medals, and coins besides what he left to it by his will which were “all such books, printed and ms. as he had, and were wanting there.” All that Mr. Baker printed was, 1. “Reflections on Learning, shewing the insufficiency thereof in its several particulars, in order to evince the usefulness and necessity of Revelation, London, 1710,” which went through eight editions; and Mr. Boswell, in his “Method of Study,” ranks it among the English classics for purity of style; a character perhaps too high, yet it is a very ingenious work, and was at one time one of the most popular books in our language. Its principal fault is, that the author has too much depreciated human learning, and is not always conclusive in his arguments. 2. “The preface to bishop Fisher’s funeral sermon for Margaret countess of Richmond and Derby, 1708” both without his name. Dr. Grey had the original ms. of both in his own hands. The latter piece is a sufficient specimen of the editor’s skill in antiquities to make us regret that he did not live to publish his “History of St. John’s college, from the foundation of old St. John’s house to the present time; with some occasional and incidental account of the affairs of the university, and of such private colleges as held communication or intercourse with the old house or college collected principally from Mss. and carlied on through a succession of masters to the end of bishop Gunning’s mastership, 1670.” The original, fit for the press, is among the Harleian Mss. No. 7028. His ms collections relative to the history and antiquities of the university of Cambridge, amounting to thirty-nine volumes in folio, and three in 4to, are divided between the British Museum and thfe public library at Cambridge the former possesses twenty-three volumes, which he bequeathed to the earl of Oxford, his friend and patron the latter sixteen, in folio, and three in 4to, which he bequeathed to the university. Dr. Knight styles him “the greatest master of the antiquities of this our university;” and Hearne says, “Optandum est ut sua quoqn^ collectanea de antiquitatibus Cantabrigiensibus juris taciat publici cl. Bakerus, quippe qui eruditione summa judicioque acri et subacto polleat.” Mr. Baker intended something like an Athenae Cantabrigienses on the plan oLthe Athenae Oxonienses. Had he lived to have completed his design, it would have far exceeded that work. With the application and industry of Mr. Wood, Mr. Baker united a penetrating judgment and a great correctness of style, and these improvements of the mind were crowned with those amiable qualities of the heart, candour and integrity. He is very frequently mentioned by the writers of his time, and always with high respect. Although firm in his principles, he corresponded with and assisted men of opposite ways of thinking, and with the utmost readiness made them welcome to his collections. Among his contemporaries who distinguished themselves in the same walk with himself, and derived assistance from him, may be reckoned Mr. Hearne, Dr. Knight, Dr. John Smith, Hilkiah Bedford, Browne Willis, Mr. Strype, Mr. Peck, Mr. Ames, Dr. Middleton, and professor Ward. Two large volumes of his letters to the first of these antiquaries are in the Bodleian library. There is an indifferent print of him by Simon from a xnemoriter picture but a very good likeness of him by C. Bridges. Vertue was privately engaged to draw his picture by stealth. Dr. Grey had his picture, of which Mr. Burton had a copy by Mr. Ilitz. The Society of Antiquaries have another portrait of him. It was his custom, in every book he had, or read, to write observations and an account of the author. Of these a considerable number are at St. John’s college, and several in the Bodleian library, among Dr. Rawiinson’s bequests. A fair transcript of his select ms observations on Dr. Drake’s edition of archbishop Parker, 1729, was some time ago in the hands of Mr. Nichols. Dr. John Bedford of Durham had Mr. Baker’s copy of the “Hereditary Right,” greatly enriched by him. Dr. Grey, who was advised with about the disposal of the books, had his copy of Spelman’s Glossary. Mr. Crow married a sister of Mr. Baker’s nephew, Burton; and, on Burton’s death intestate in the autumn after his uncle, became possessed of every thing. What few papers of Mr. Baker’s were among them, he let Mr. Smith of Burnhall see and they being thought of no account, were destroyed, excepting the deed concerning the exhibitions at St. John’s, his own copy of the historyof the college, notes on the foundress’s funeral sermon, and the deed drawn for creating him chaplain to bishop Crew, in the month and year of the revolution, the day left blank, and the deed unsubscribed by the bishop, as if rejected by him.

, the most successful and celebrated experimental farmer ever known in England, was born at Dishley in Leicestershire, about 1725 or 1726. His grandfather and father had resided on the same estate since the beginning of the last century; and his father, who died about the year 1760, had the reputation of being a very ingenious farmer. Mr. Bakewell having conducted the Dishley farm several years before the decease of his father, began about fifty -five years ago, that course of experiments which has procured him such extensive fame. He originally adopted a principle, a priori, which was confirmed by the whole experience of his future life. Having remarked that domestic animals, in general, produced others possessing qualities nearly similar to their own, he conceived he had only to select from the most valuable breeds such as promised to return the greatest possible emolument to the breeder; and that he should then be able, by careful attention to progressive improvements, to produce a race of sheep, or other animals, possessing a maximum of advantage. Under the influence of this excellent notion, Mr. Bakewell made excursions into different parts of England, to inspect the various breeds, and to ascertain those which were best adapted to his purposes, and the most valuable 0f their kinds.

His next step was to select and purchase the best of all the sorts wherever they could be found and this selection, the result of several years experience, was the original stock from which he afterwards propagated his own. This excellent ground- work was alone fostered to its present unrivalled perfection by the persevering ingenuity and industry of Mr. Bakewell. About the year 1760, Mr. Bakewell sold his sheep, by private contract, at not more than two or three guineas each. Some time after he began to let some of his rams, and for a few seasons received only fifteen shillings and a guinea a-piece for them but as the fame of his breed extended itself, he advanced his prices, and by the year 1770 was enabled to let some of his rams for the season for twenty-five guineas. Since that time the prices and credit of his stock have been progressively increasing and of late years single rams have been let for the season for the enormous price of four hundred guineas and upwards. It is a fact which has no former example, that one ram, called the Two Pounder, produced in one season the sum of eight hundred guineas, independent of ewes of Mr. Bakewell' s own stock, which, at the same rate, would have made a total the produce of a single ram of twelve hundred guineas!

Every branch of the agricultural art is more or less indebted to the fortunate genius and original mind of Mr. Bakewell. He directed his attention however the most successfully to the improvement of the sheep known by the name of the Dishley or New Leicestershire to long-horned cattle, and to strong horses of the black breed, suitable to the harness for the army. The improvement of pigs, and the cultivation of the best winter food for cattle, had latterly engaged his attention; and he had proved himself useful to the public by introducing into practice the flooding of meadows. The race of Dishley sheep are known by the fineness of their bones and flesh, the lightness of the offal, the disposition to quietness, and consequently to mature and fatten with less food than other sheep of equal weight and value. Mr. Bakewell improved his black horses by an. attention to the form which is best adapted to their use. His stallions have been let for the season for one hundred guineas and upwards. About ten years since he exhibited his famous black horse to the king and many of the nobility in the court-yard of St. James’s. His long-horned cattle have been characterised by properties similar to those of his sheep, viz. for the fineness of the bone and flesh, the lightness of the offal, and the disposition to fatten. In a word, no competitor ever had the temerity to vie with him in his horses and cattle and his sheep continue universally unrivalled, notwithstanding the competition excited at various times by motives of interest or envy.

The first sale which we advert to was that of Mr. Fowler of Rollwright, in Oxfordshire. This gentleman had commenced his breeding-speculations with a couple of cows and a bull which he hired of Mr. Bakewell. After his death, one article of his live stock, the horned cattle, sold for a value equal to that of the fee simple of his farm Fifteen head alone of bulls and cows sold for 2464l. or at the rate of 164l. each!

, a Genoese Dominican, named also Janua or Januensis, composed, in the thirteenth century, Commentaries, and several >ther works. His “Catholicon, seu Summa Grammaticalis,” was printed at Mentz, 1460, folio, by Fust and Schceffer. He entitled it Catholicon, or Universal, because it is not a simple vocabulary, but a kind of classical encyclopaedia, containing a grammar, a body of rhetoric, and a dictionary. Notwithstanding that this book is badly digested, yet it was much wanted in the time of Balbi. A surprising number of copies were printed of it and it was one of the first books on which the art of printing was employed. It is very dear, and said to be very scarce, but the Diet. Hist, speaks of thirtysix copies being in existence. It was reprinted at Augsburgh, in 1469, fol. also a very rare book. This John Balbi is to be distinguished from Jerom Balbo, bishop of Goritz, who died at Venice in 1535, author of the following works: 1. “De rebus Turcicis,” Rome, 1526, 4to. 2. “De civili et beliica Fortitudine,” 1526, 4to. 3. “De futuris Caroli V. successibus,” Bologna, 1529, 4to. 4. “Carmina,” in the “Deliciae Poetarum Italorum,” and in 1792, Retzer published the whole under the title “Opera Poetica, Oratoria, ac Poetica-moralia,” Vienna, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a Spanish poet, was bishop of St. John in Porto Rico, in North America, to which he was appointed in 1620. He was a native of Valdepeguas, a village in the diocese of Toledo, took his doctor’s degree at Salamanca, from whence he was sent to America, and had the charge of judicature in Jamaica, and then was made bishop of Porto Rico. He was there when in 1625 it was plundered by the Dutch, who carried away his library. He died in 1627. He is reputed to be one of the first poets Spain has produced, although one of the least known. His productions are, a heroic poem, printed at Madrid, 4to, in 1624, entitled “El Bernardo, 6 Victoria de Roncesvalles;” ten eclogues, entitled “Siecle d‘or dans les bois d’Eriphile,” Madrid, 8vo, 1608; and a work in prose and verse, on “the grandeur of Mexico,” printed at the same place, 1604, 8vo. Antonio censures the age very severely for having neglected the writings of Bernard, in which he discovers great majesty and elevation of verse, a prolific invention, a pleasing variety, and a style not inferior in purity to that of any writer of the present age. His comparisons are just, and his descriptions rich and elegant, and lively beyond all the Spanish poets.

, a French historian, a native of Orleans, according to some writers, or of Mehun, a small town on the Loire, according to others, -flourished in the twelfth century. He was abbé of Bourgueil, in 1089, bishop of Dol, in Britanny, in 1114, and 1115 he received the pallium from pope Paschal II. at the council of Rheims. About the year 1095, he had assisted at the council of Clermont, held upon account of the holy war, of which he wrote a history in four books, from its commencement to the taking of Jerusalem by Godfrey of Boulogne in 1099. He wrote also various works of the historical kind in verse and prose, with the life of Robert D'Abrissel, founder of the order of Fontevraud. Michael Cosnier, curate of Poitiers, published an edition of this life, with very curious notes and Du Chesne has printed Balderic’s poems in the fourth volume of his collection of French writers. Balderic is said to have died Jan. 7, 1131, but this does not agree with his epitaph, which says that he was bishop of Dol twenty-two years, to which, as mentioned above, he was appointed in 1114.

, an eminent German physician, was born at Erfurt, May 18, 1738. During the seven years’ war, he had the direction of the military hospital belonging to the Prussian army, and after the conclusion of peace, the landgrave of Hesse Cassel appointed him his first physician. He was afterwards professor of medicine at Gottingen and Marpurg, where he died Jan. 2, 1804. He wrote very copiously on the subject of his profession 1. “A treatise on the Diseases of the Army,” 1774, 8vo. 2. A species of periodical work or “Magazine for Physicians,” 3 vols. 1779 1799. 3. “Sylloge opusculorum selectorum argument! medicopract.” 4to, Gottingen, 1776 1782, and some other works; and he edited an edition in German, of Boerner’s lives of physicians.

, Baldi, or Baldius, a native of Florence, in the seventeenth century, was a very eminent physician and medical writer. He was reader on medicine in the university of Rome, where he held a canon’s place, and acquired the first reputation throughout Italy. His great ambition was to be physician to pope Innocent X. which he had no sooner obtained than he contracted a distemper which proved fatal a few months after his promotion. None of his biographers give the date of his death (probably about 164. ), but all attribute it to the luxurious change in the mode of living at court. He published many works which bear a high character, and among others: 1. “Praelectio de Contagione pestifera,” Rome, 1631, 4to. 2. “Disquisitio iatrophysica de Aere,” Rome, 1637, 4to, 3. “De loco affecto in pleuritide disceptationes,” Paris, 1640, 8vo Rome, 1643, &c.

, bishop of London in the reigns of Edward I. and II. was educated at Merton college in Oxford, became archdeacon of Middlesex, and, in 1294, dean of St. Paul’s. The see of London being vacant by the death of Richard de Gravesend, Baldock was unanimously chosen, Sept. 20, 1304. But, his election being controverted, he was obliged to repair to Rome and, having obtained the pope’s confirmation, was consecrated at Lyons by Peter Hispanus, cardinal of Alba, Jan. 30, 1306. Being returned into England, he made profession of canonical obedience to the archbishop in the church of Canterbury, March 22, 1306. The same year he was appointed by the pope one of the commissioners for the examination of the articles alleged against the knights templars, and in that year also he was made lord high chancellor of England but Edward I. dying soon after, he held that post little more than a year. Dec. 2, 1308, this prelate, with the approbation of the chapter, settled a stipend on the chancellor of St. Paul’s for reading lectures in divinity in that church, according to a constitution of his predecessor, Richard de Gravesend. He contributed 200 marks towards building the chapel of St. Mary, on the east side of St. Paul’s. He founded also a chantry of two priests in the said church, near the altar of St. Erkenwald. He was a person of a very amiable character, both for morals and learning, and deserved well of his country by his writings, which were, 1. “Historia Anglica, or a history of the British affairs down to his own time.” It is not now extant, though Leland says he saw it at London. 2. “A collection of the statutes and constitutions of the church of St. Paul’s,” extant in the library of that cathedral in 1559. Bishop Balclock died at Stepney, July 24, 1313, having sat from his consecration a little more than seven years, and was buried under a marble monument in the chapel of St. Mary.

, a celebrated Italian poet of the seventeenth century, was distinguished in his youth for his attachment to polite literature, and some verses of acknowledged excellence. He was a native of Palermo, and on account of his talents, very early admitted into the academy of the Reaccensi, but his confined circumstances obliged him to leave his native country in pursuit of better fortune. He went first, for a short time, to Naples, and thence to Rome, where he entered into the army, and served in Hungary in the papal army under the command of John Francis Aldobrandini. He returned afterwards to Rome, and having resumed his studies, was received with great honour into the academy of the Humourists. Here his poetry, his anacreontics, and particularly the encomiastic verses he wrote on the distinguished persons of the court of pope Urban VIII. procured him fame, and might have enriched him, if he had not been deficient in the article of ceconomy, which some of his biographers ascribe to his extravagance, and others to his charity. It is certain, however, that he became poor, and was obliged to enter into the service of some gentlemen in the capacity of secretary, but either from feeling the miseries of dependarpce, or from an unsettled turn, he very frequently changed his masters. Erythraeus relates many stories of the manner in which he shifted for subsistence, which are not much to his credit, but the veracity of Erythneus on this as well as many other occasions, has been called in question by contemporary biographers of good authority, and whatever truth may be in his account, we do not find that Balducci lost the esteem of the learned at Rome. At length he took prders, and officiated as chaplain in the hospital of St. Sixte, but having afterwards been attacked by an illness at the house of a nobleman, who had a high regard for him, and would have administered to all his wants, he caused himself to be removed to the hospital of St. John Latran, where he died in 1642, or according to Crescembini, either in 1645 or 1649. His works were, 1. “Tributo di Parnasso alia Maesta Cesareo di Ferdinando III. d' Austria,” Rome, 1638, 4to. 2. “La Pace Urbana,” Naples, 1632, 4to. 3. “Poesie degli Accademici Fantastici di Roma,” Rome, 1637. 4. “Rime, parte prima,” Rome, 1630, 1645, 12mo. 5. “Rime, parte seconda,” Rome, 1646. All these were collected, and twice published at Venice, 1655 and 1663, 12mo. He also wrote some “Canzoni Siciliane,” and prefaces to part of the works of his friend Stigliani.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Henry II. and Richard I. was born of obscure parents at Exeter, where he received a liberal education, and in his younger years taught school. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he was made archdeacon of Exeter; but soon quitting that dignity and the world, he took the habit of the Cistertian order in the monastery of Ford in Devonshire, and in a few years became its abbot. From thence he was promoted to the see of Worcester (not Winchester, as Dupin says), and consecrated August 10, 1180. Upon the death of Richard, archbishop of Canterbury in 1184, he was translated to that see, with some difficulty, being the first of his order in England, that was ever advanced to the archiepiscopal dignity. He was enthroned at Canterbury the 19th of May 1185, and the same day received the pall from pope Lucius III. whose successor Urban III. appointed him his legate for the diocese of Canterbury. Soon after he was settled in his see, he began to build a church and monastery at Hackington, near Canterbury, in honour of St. Thomas Becket, for the reception of secular priests but, being violently opposed by the monks of Canterbury, supported by the pope’s authority, he was obliged to desist. The 3d of September 1189, he solemnly performed the ceremony of crowning king Richard I. at Westminster. The same year, the king having given the see of York to his bastard brother Geoffry bishop of Lincoln, archbishop Baldwin took this occasion to assert the pre-eminence of the see of Canterbury,' forbidding the bishops of England to receive consecration from any other than the archbishop of Canterbury. The next year, designing to follow king Richard to the Holy Land, he made a progress into Wales, where he performed mass pontifically in all the cathedral churches, and induced several of the Welsh to join the crusade. Afterwards embarking at Dover, with Hubert bishop of Salisbury, he arrived at the king’s army in Syria where being seized with a mortal distemper, he died at the siege of Acre, or Ptolemais, and was buried there. Giraldus Cambrensis, who accompanied this prelate, both in his progress through Wales and in his expedition to the Hgly Land, tells us, he was of a dark complexion, an open and pleasing aspect, a middling stature, and a spare, but healthful, constitution of body modest and sober, of great abstinence, of few words, and not easily provoked to anger. The only fault he charges him with is a remissness in the execution of his pastoral office, arising from an innate lenity of temper whence pope Urban III. in a letter addressed to our archbishop, began thus, “Urban, &c. to the most fervent monk, warm abbot, lukewarm bishop, and remiss archbishop” intimating, that he behaved better as a monk than as an abbot, and as a bishop than as an archbishop. His principal works were, 1. “Of the Sacrament of the Altar.” 2. “Faith recommended.” 3. “Of Orthodox Opinions. 4.” Of Heretical Sects.“5.” Of the Unity of Charity.“6.” Of Love.“7.” Of the Priesthood of John Hircanus.“8.” Of the Learning of Giraldus.“9.” Thirty-three Sermons.“10.” Concerning the Histories of Kings.“11.” Against Henry bishop of Winchester.“12.” In praise of Virginity.“13.” Concerning the Message of the Angel.“14.” Of the Gross.“15.” Concerning Mythology.“16.” A Devotionary Poem.“17.” Letters," These were collected and published by Bertrand Tissier, in 1662.

, according to Wood, was born in the west of England, and spent several years at Oxford in the study of logic and philosophy there he supposes him to have been the same William Baldwin, who supplicated the congregation of regents for a master’s degree in 1532, but it does not appear by the register that it was granted. He afterwards became a schoolmaster and a minister, and was one of those scholars who followed printing, in order to promote the reformation. In this character, we find him employed by Edward Whitchurch, probably as the corrector of the press, though he modestly styles himself “seruaunt with Edwarde Whitchurche.” This, however, seems to have been his employment at first, and chiefly: yet he afterwards appears to have qualified himself for a compositor. As an author, Bale and Pits ascribe some comedies to him, which were probably mysteries or moralities now unknown, but he compiled “A treatise of moral Philosophy,” which was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in 1547, and in 1550, and without date. This was afterwards enlarged by Thomas Paifryman, and went through several editions. His next performance was “The Canticles or Balades of Solomon, phraselyke declared in English metres,” printed by himself, 1549, 4to. He wrote also “The Funeralles of king Edward VI.” in verse, printed in 1560, 4to. But he is perhaps best known now by the share he had in the publication of “The Mirror of Magistrates,” originally projected by Thomas Sackville, first lord Buckhurst, and afterwards earl, of Dorset, who wrote the poetical preface, and the legend of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and recommended the completion of the whole to our William Baldwin and George Ferrers. The time of his death is not specified, but he appears to have lived some years after the accession of queen Elizabeth.

, in Latin Baleus or Balæus, bishop of Ossory in Ireland, about the middle of the sixteenth century, was born the 21st of November 1495, at Cove, a small village in Suffolk, near Dunwich. His parents, whose names were Henry and Margaret, being incumbered with a large family, young Bale was entered, at twelve years of age, in the monastery of Carmelites at Norwich, and from thence was sent to Jesus college in Cambridge. He was educated in the Romish religion but afterwards, at the instigation of the lord Wentworth, turned Protestant, and gave a proof of his having renounced one of the errors of popery (the celibacy of the clergy) by immediately marrying his wife Dorothy. This, as may be conjectured, exposed him to the persecution of the Romish clergy, against whom he was protected by lord Cromwell, favourite of king Henry VIII. But, on Cromwell’s death, Bale was forced to retire into the LowCountries, where he resided eight years; during which, time he wrote several pieces in English. He was then recalled into England by king Edward VI. and obtained the living of Bishop’s Stocke in the county of Southampton. The 15th of August 1552, he was nominated by king Edward, who happened to be at Southampton, to the see of Ossory. This promotion he appears to have owed to his accidentally waiting on his majesty to pay his respects to him. Edward, who had been told he was dead, expressed his surprize and satisfaction at seeing him alive, and immediately appointed him to the bishopric, which he refused at first, alleging his poverty, age, and want of health. The king, however, would not admit of these excuses, and Bale set off for Dublin, where Feb. 2, 1553, he was consecrated by the archbishop. On this occasion, when he found that it was become a question whether the common prayer published in England should be used, he positively refused to be consecrated according to the old popish form, and remaining inflexible, the new form was used. He underwent, however, a variety of persecutions from the popish party in Ireland, and all his endeavours to reform the people and priesthood in his diocese, and to introduce the reformed religion, were not only frustrated by the death of Edward VI. and the accession of queen Mary, but in the mean time exasperated the savage fury of his enemies so much, that he found it necessary to withdraw from his see, and remain concealed in Dublin. Afterwards, endeavouring to make his escape in a small trading vessel in that port, he was taken prisoner by the captain of a Dutch man of war, who rifled him of all his money, apparel, and effects. This ship was driven by stress of weather into St. Ives in Cornwall, where our prelate was taken up on suspicion of treason, but was soon discharged. From thence, after a cruize of several days, the ship arrived in Dover road, where he was again in danger by a false accusation. Arriving afterwards in Holland, he was kept a prisoner three weeks, and then obtained his liberty on the payment of thirty pounds. From Holland he retired to Basil in Switzerland and continued abroad during the short reigu of queen Mary. On the accession of queen Elizabeth, he returned to England, but not to his bishopric in Ireland, contenting himself with a prebend in the cathedral church of Canterbury, to which he was promoted the 15th of January, 1560. He died Nov. 1563, in the 68th year of his age, at Canterbury, and was buried in the cathedral of that place.